• If you do not provide a name, your feedback will not receive a response nor be posted. I will NOT publish names with feedback, only initials and location if given.
  • If your email contains profanity it will most likely not receive a response nor be published.
  • I reserve the right to abridge feedback submissions as necessary to save time and space.
  • Please keep in mind that feedback is received from all over the world and not everyone speaks and writes perfect English. Posted feedback will be edited minimally or not at all.
  • Dates reflect the time of the response not the time feedback was received.

Following are some of the topics that are discussed in the Feedback section of this website. If you want to find some information on a particular topic below, just use the “Find” function of your browser. The word may appear more than once in the feedback.

Abiogenesis DNA Mammoth Racism
Adaptation Extraterrestrial Mars Radiometric Dating
Antibiotic Resistance    Fish Mutation RNA
Atheism/Atheist Flood Natural Selection Sagan
Australopithecus Flowering Plants Neanderthal Sediment
Bible Fossil Nebraska Man Starlight
Big Bang Galaxies Ontogeny Strata
Cambrian Explosion Genes Origin of Life Survival of the Fittest
Carbon 14 Genetics Peppered Moth Theory
Coal Geological Column    Piltdown Man Thermodynamics
Coelacanth God Planet Time
Cosmology Gould Plate Tectonics Uniformitarianism
Darwin Grand Canyon Pre-humans Uranium
Darwinism Hoyle Prokaryote and Eukaryote    Varves
Dawkins Ice Age Punctuated Equilibrium Vestigial Organ
Dinosaurs Intelligent Design Races

February 14, 2014

(From J. S. (fictitious name, but I’m posting this one anyhow, USA)):

I would like to issue a challenge to Creationists to provide ONE - just ONE - piece of irrefutable evidence that creationism is true.

We'll define "true" as observable, testable and repeatable, and we'll define Creationism from both the cosmological and biological perspectives, namely that jesus turned water into wine, the bible is true and real, (any) god exists, and/or jesus christ's existence.

John: Why don't you post your challenge on the discussion board? Could make for some good dialogue! In the meantime, you haven't answered MY challenge. Go for it!

(From K. A., Ireland):

Sir john you really need to go check out the endless debate on "god vs evolution" you ik can expose some of the myth's that's deluting are education symptom's

John: Hello K (are you in Greece?). Thank you for writing. I've been checking out the debate about God vs Evolution for almost 40 years now. I have exposed some of the myths, as have others.


Im in ireland.You sir seem too know alot about evolution and i have come to know those who know alot about evolution dont beileve in it, anyways on youtube "God vs evolution" there's theres a huge argument going on in the comment section sir if you can, please tell them the truth about evolution.Thanks you

John: Yes, I'm familiar with the God vs Evolution debate, but would rather not jump into it. I have enough trying to keep up with this website and my other website, You might wish to have a look at that. We have a discussion about Evolution going on there.

January 9, 2014

(From J. S., France):

Bonjour J,

Thank you for writing. I have responded below...


A study that has been reenacted by many research facilities has proven that there is a certain "intelligence" behind evolution..

John: That is nothing more than a tacit, or not so tacit, admission that evolution by blind chance cannot be true. Because you and others recognize that complex living things could not possibly have arisen by means of undirected, random events, you have to come up with some other excuse to avoid the Intelligent Design issue. So you invent things like the Anthropic Principle to cover over the fact that you cannot reconcile the actual observed fact of complexity with random, undirected mechanistic processes.

They had several colonies of Ecoli bacteria that was lactose intolerant and gave them lactose as their only food source.. the monitored ones all died after the second generation died out.. the un-monitored ones however survived..

John: Sir, I am almost 60 years old. In my lifetime I would imagine the number of generations of E. coli that have lived and died all over the world is so astronomical as to numb the mind. Yet in all that time I am unaware of any E. coli bacterium that became anything but an E. coli bacterium. And once again I have to remind you and others that you are starting with ALREADY PRESENT biological mechanisms for the metabolism of lactose, or else the genetic material that could mutate and allow for that digestion. Nobody is arguing that genes do not mutate and even develop new (or rather altered) functions. I'm arguing that the materials and mechanisms that would allow for that mutation were ALREADY PRESENT, and not something that just appeared out of nowhere as something totally new. You cannot deny that fact. It's like the bacteria that developed the ability to digest nylon. The genetic material that allowed for that mutation was ALREADY present within the bacteria. And yet, the bacteria were still bacteria. They did not start changing into human beings. If that were happening we certainly should have enough evidence to witness it in process right now.

Further, this is just one more pathetic example of how evolutionists strive to find the most minute so-called "proof" of evolution, like always appealing to antibiotic resistance, which as I'm sure you well know, has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution from nothing to human beings. How does that ability or inability to metabolize lactose demonstrate that an E. coli turned into J [you]? That is what I would like to know.

it is known that the quantum world can change merely on being observed (and no, we do not know why this works yet), this was also shown in a different experiment on the "spray pattern" a laser makes when being observed from when it is not being observed.

John: Yes, I understand that fact. What I don't understand is how it demonstrates that evolution has "intelligence."

since the results change by whether they are being observed or not, the more favored outcome will be selected by the genes, showing another connection to this mysterious quantum world and basically proving (or at least explaining the possibillity that-) we (life) pick the most desirable path in evolution ourselves..

John: I believe what is happening here is not that a favored outcome is being selected by genes, but rather that it is being selected by YOU, the observer. You are seeing pretty much what you wish to see in the "outome." And further, while the genes are "selecting the favored outcome" there should also be myriad FAILED outcomes that we should be able to observe (without changing anything - just plain observation of the facts) and the fossil record shows no such thing. That is, unless the genes ALWAYS "selected" the most "favored outcome," in which case I think any honest person would have to exclaim, "That is a miracle!" And miracles are not allowed in "real science," correct?

January 5-7, 2014

(From M. C., USA):

Finally got around to buying your book. Did you add anything new to the book?

John: The book is a good bit different from the website, so I guess you could say yes, I added some new things to it. I've also written a second book now entitled Yes God Exists and Yes You Are In Trouble, and have purchased the web domain There's a lot of new feedback on the Evolution site, and I've added at the top of the Feedback section some of the topics covered. I'm hoping in this new year to initiate a blog or forum on the Evolution site where people can interact, and also to post news items there, and we're looking to do that with the Atheism site, which is not up and running yet. I could not do this before because of the job I was working along with an online business my wife and I run, but now I have more time to put into it as I retired from the job last year. Thanks again, and I hope you like the book.

Sweet! I will let all my friends who have any doubts read this magnificent book. Hopefully they'll wake up. Could you please give me a quick summary of your new book? You can also send me a link that describes it.

John: Thanks! If you go to Amazon and look up the book, they give you a few pages to look at, including the Table of Contents. If you want more detail than that, let me know. In the meantime, here's a great article someone passed on to me this morning:

January 2, 2014

(From C. A., Australia):

I've got a few mates who are heavily into dogmatic dawkins in a big way, deep in evo and atheistic programming. I tend to stear clear of talking to them about anything meaningfull unless it's in a one on one situation which I find is the only way to "keep them honest". One of the points I push them on is how do they decern that something they are being told by someone like dawkins is true. I try to get them to nail down their "standards for truth" and find that they have no standard other than a willingness to believe anything that fits their philosophical out look which is what they accuse religious people of doing. I really do find their hypocracy very amusing.

I have two absolute standards for truth that I have come across so far, both from a purely logical point of view...

1. Never accept a contradiction because they are self defeating. For example is it absolutely true that there is no such thing as absolute truth? By testing a statement by it's own standards you can decern whether or not it is contradictory.
2. Anything that exists only in written form is fiction and therefore a lie. For example fiat money because it's merely a piece of paper, covered in ink and any value attributed to it is entirely fictional, yet we are forced into using it but that's another story.

I find these two postures, while they do not rescue us from lies, are very good at exposing the illogical and was wondering if you have any thoughts on standards for truth and is there any other standards that you can think of that I can add to my list.

Love the evo is stupid book so much I can't keep hold of a copy for myself because I'm keen for more people to read it. Looking forward to your Atheism book which I've just ordered.

John: First, thank you for purchasing my new book. I'm in the process of developing the website now. We'll see how that goes. I've also contacted the Richard Dawkins foundation and let them know about my book. [Addendum: They have a “Donate” tab on their website. Imagine that!]

I agree with your first point about contradictory statements, but am not sure about the second. I know what you mean about attaching a value to money, but that doesn't mean all written things are like that. Even if we don't attach a value to something written, that doesn't mean it can't be true.

Atheists and most Evolutionists will pat themselves on the back as being "reasoning" and "logical" people, while they're as far from both of those notions as you can possibly be. That's because they're so blinded by their biases and hatreds that they can't see the forest for the trees. How, for instance, can Dawkins say that living things show the "appearance" of being designed, but they're not really designed? Who made him the arbiter of what is and what is not "designed?" If it looks designed, then it IS.

Happy New Year, and thanks again for writing and for your support.

December 21, 2013

(From K. W., USA)

I understand that you have discussed radiometric dating with many others, but I am suddenly struggling to see how it is entirely based upon assumption.

Here’s what I struggle with: Potassium 40, for example, is a radioactive element with a half-life of around 1.25 billion years, and it is pretty much the poster child many scientists use to date rocks and sedimentary layers. The scientific endeavors in the 1950s to calculate the rate of decay for this element appear solid to me, as they simply measured a fraction of potassium 40’s rate of decay and then mathematically pursued what it would take to reach the half-life marker, then tested again for accuracy and a rate of consistency. (I know some creationist scientists contest that the rate of decay for some elements has been changed over time, but I don’t know if I can accept that.

John: Would you accept if if it had been demonstrated to be true? The scientists who claim that are not just saying it because it makes their case or makes them feel good. It's a plain, scientific fact that decay rates can be altered by chemical environment, temperature and pressure. Here's just one article on it: Many others can be found that corroborate the fact.

The 1950s experiments were testable, observable, and repeated for accuracy. The creationist scientists who suggest otherwise have not exactly advertised how precise they were in their experiments—nor did they necessarily prove that the earth has undergone significant changes in rates in the past and so their claims appear to be based on shaky foundations. Please let me know if there’s any discrepancies here on my understanding of the consistency of rate of decay.)

John: I'm not going to get into a debate about creationist scientists. I will only say that if you've placed your faith and trust in non-creationist scientists, my wager would be that your faith and trust are misguided. Not saying creationist scientists are infallible, just that they paint another side of the picture that people don't know or don't want to accept. I know of cases where radiometric dates were thrown out because they did not "fit" pre-conceived ideas of how old some material or other was supposed to be, or of rampant discrepancies in age determinations so that a "mean" age was eventually accepted. There is not one single case I've ever heard of where a specific sample was dated more than once and every time yielded the exact same results. Just doesn't happen. Normally an average is taken and that is the accepted "date" for the overall sample.

But going back to potassium 40. I at first thought that this type of radiometric dating was just as controversial as carbon-14 dating, because it assumed that no daughter element, Argon 40, was existent at the time of formation. But then I discovered that this radiometric measurement willingly admits that it can only calculate age starting from the point at which molten igneous or volcanic rock begins to crystallize. And since Argon is a nonreactive gas, it escapes from any igneous or volcanic rock that is molten. Several websites explained that this resets the atomic clock for this dating system, because the molten rock will only begin to contain Argon again once it is crystallized. This means that no percentage of Argon is existent at the time of crystallization to mess up the calculation of the rock’s true age. Even if that rock somehow underwent a second heating/crystallization process, the amount of Argon built up would only decrease, making the rock appear younger than it actually is.

John: The assumption here being that both the amount of parent AND daughter product have remained unaffected by any environmental factors for periods of millions or even billions of years. That in itself is both a blind and a highly unlikely assumption.

So when archaeologists and paleontologists find bones or tools or whatever beneath a layer of rock dated through Potassium-Argon to be in the millions or billions of years old, they make an educated guess that the artifacts of interest are at least as old if not older than the above layer of rock.

John: "Educated guess" is a high falutin' way of saying "assumption." There are numerous cases of allegedly "older" rock being superposed on younger rock. One is right nearby where I live - Heart Mountain in Wyoming. Others are found in the Grand Canyon, for example. Why can it not be that, in a flood for instance, the so-called "older" rock was removed from its place and deposited on top of where the bones and "tools" are. After all, if the bones and tools are found in sedimentary rock, that too would be an educated guess.

While I recognize that this is an educated guess, I can see the logic in assuming that a bone under a million-year-old layer of solid rock probably wasn’t just hidden there by a dog yesterday.

John: Maybe buried there by a human yesterday?

I have a friend who is studying to be an anthropologist. If I’m ever going to debate against evolution with other people like her who are knee-deep in evolution, I would hope I could do so intellectually with proper evidence to support my statements.

John: I love to hear that. I mean that! It's so refreshing to see someone not just accepting the status quo, but rather wanting to find out themselves how to argue intelligently, with actual factual evidence and logic.

Right now, I just don’t even know what to think when she tells me about how she’s handling million-year-old bone fragments dated through potassium-argon.

John: Keep in mind the following: The BONES were not dated as being "millions of years old." The ROCKS were. The circular reasoning has always been an argument against dating, too. They date the rocks by the bones, teeth, etc., found in them, and date the bones by the rocks in which they're found. Now let's discuss some other assumptions that are undeniably problems for radiometric dating.

  1. 1. You cannot no way no how know how much parent and daughter product was present at the start. There's simply no way to determine that. It's all assumed.
  2. 2. There is no way you can prove that the rate of decay has always been constant. Simply no way.
  3. 3. There is no way you can demonstrate that a specimen has remained UNALTERED for millions or even billions of years. That simply flies in the face of all evidence. We see the environment altering things right before our eyes. To think that a rock or bone or tooth remained unaltered for that period of time stretches credulity to say the least.
  4. 4. As noted above, dates that don't "fit" are often discarded.
  5. 5. There are cases of recently formed igneous rocks that were dated as being millions of years old, even though they were formed within recent volcanic eruptions. Are you familiar with the RATE project? It stands for Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth. Look it up.
  6. 6. Finally, it's a fact that scientists already have decided that certain things are old even if the evidence flies in the face of it. For example, a few years ago blood and soft tissue was discovered in some T-rex bones. Did scientists question whether that could mean the bones were younger than millions of years? Of course not! They had already decided they were millions of years old, so instead asked the question as to how blood and soft tissue could survive that long. Recently a follow-up article on that supposedly finally provided an answer as to how the blood and tissue could be millions of years old. It was no doubt a pathetic attempt to refute creationists who were challenging the age of the bones, and attributed their preservation to iron molecules in the dino blood. Of course countless billions of other blood-containing organisms have died and NOT been preserved by iron in their blood, but let's not rock the boat here...

I don’t see how I could disprove her. And while I get the logical fallacies involved in the whole genetics side of evolution, I have a hard time responding to seemingly sound accuracy of potassium-argon dating.

So how is this type of radiometric dating subjective—unless someone lied about doing the radiometric dating itself or lied about exactly where the bone was found?

John: No chance they lied, huh?

How would you debunk this system? Do you have any solid evidence or studies that would suggest potassium-argon is not a reliable method of dating artifacts? Am I just missing something?

John: Hopefully what I've suggested above will get you on the right path. There's plenty more info. out there. Oh, one more thing, you might wish to research the fact that there are many, many OTHER ways of dating the age of the Earth, solar system, etc., which give results that conflict in the extreme with radiometric dating methods. For instance, the rate at which galaxies are winding up, the ages of comets, the amount of salt flowing into the seas, etc. Radiometric dating has just been the most accepted because it fits in with Evolutionary mythology and the NEED for goddess Time to do her work creating everything by magic.


December 11, 2013

(From F. G., France, continued):

About life that comes from the ocean, it is quite a sure thing it comes from the oceans because: 1: at the time, there was oxygen only in the oceans, we can prove it using the air bubbles trapped into ice on the arctic, it's the simplest way to know how was the air a long time ago, and from what we know(but yes, we don't know everything) living beings can't survive

John: No, you cannot prove any such thing. Everything you are "proving" is based on assumptions, and assumptions are not proof. Here are just a few of the problems you encounter:

  1. 1. You cannot prove the age of the ice.
  2. 2. You cannot prove that the ice has remained unadulterated for eons, which is a pretty ridiculous assumption in itself.
  3. 3. You cannot prove that the air that was trapped in the ice is representative of the atmosphere at the time it was trapped.
  4. 4. Even if you COULD prove all of the above, you still have to demonstrate just how a mixture of oxygen and water turned into living things all on its own. Good luck!
  5. 5. You also have to demonstrate not just how the first living thing "appeared" in the oceans, but how it survived and was able to replicate and become other living things. That would be a pretty lucky first organism!!!
  6. 6. You have to demonstrate what nutrients were available for the organism to survive.
I hope you see that you can just invent whatever story you wish to try to "prove" that life arose in the oceans, but that doesn't mean your story is viable or true.

[continued from the truncated email above…]

Oops sorry I sent it too early Let me continue

So the life appeared in the oceans we also have ice-trapped bacterias in the arctic that are here to prove that the first living beings were unicellular creatures, made of 99,6% of water and the rest of carbon(we don't know how it was assembled, he could have been placed here by an intelligent being, i agree with you on it)

Then, sea currants separated these unicellular creatures(who reproduced themselves using cellular division) and made that some had features to resist cold seas and others could resist salt or could fix themselves on rocks, the ones who survived the more could reproduce themselves more, with time and genetic drift(the genes of the child and the genes of the parents being a little bit different, even trough cellular division) the main species had more and more features

On the other side, the rains on earth made the air had more oxygen and permitted that spores of the living beings who evolved as vegetables became seaweeds and continued to oxygenate the surface of the earth by photosynthesis with the air becoming more breathable than sea some creatures could breathe in air and living on water(like dolphins) some of them came onto coast and ate seaweed

By the way, seaweed turned into many plants, some scientists affirm the whole world was covered by a mushroom-like seaweed after a few decades, some ice trapped spores are here to say it.

So the coast animals looked like fishes with tiny legs, they then came on earth, some others returned to sea and became dolphins and whales after thousands and thousands years of evolution. The ones who were on earth(where the mushrooms evolved into trees) evolved into reptilian creatures, became dinosaurs, apart from this moment I think you know the story.

Personally, I think it's possible that an intelligent being had put the first unicellular creature on earth, if he existed, then where did he came from(do you have any idea where god comes from?, that always questioned me) but to me, this being is what can be called a god, intelligent enough to create life, he may was as well clever enough to predict how it would evolve, we may never know.

But, and no matter what we do believe in, my theory, yours, Allah, Buddha, the induhists or any other, all theories talk about a being that wanted to create, defend, and for all religions(but not science) to make them follow an ideal of something So, it proves that in all cases life must be defended above all(that's pretty philosophic, I think I'll put it on a t-shirt)

I'm truly happy that you published a new book, it's a good thing for you, but I must admit that the title disturbs me, if the god that is described in the bible exists, then we're not truly in trouble, let me explain it to you in a simple way: imagine a boy, both his parents are hermits, he has never seen and will never saw the outside world. BUT he loves his parents, he lives loving the things around him, he has no one to hate, he lives a simple life and does not know god, but he also doesn't know evil, he's an innocent being. Do you think he's gonna go to hell because he doesn't believe in something he has never heard of?

A Muslim child is raised and he knows nothing about YOUR god, he prays Allah and is what you can call a normal kid, and for some reason, his parents did not told him about others religions He dies at the age of 6 killed by pneumonia or another tragic threat. Shall god puny him?

At the base all religions talk about a god of kindness and comprehension who has for goal to teach humanity kindness, honesty, respect, love, understanding etc... If we don't pray god, god knows why, if he thinks this is a good reason, he's ok with it, if it's a bad one he gives us another chance, and another, until we die, he's mercy and kindness, as long as you honor the principles he fights for, I don't think god is that bad If I must have a religious being, it will be that one, that god is like a father that will never give up to us, for us.

That's all for today John


F ( the person that will never give up arguing)

John: As for your question about God, as you know I do not get into religious discussions on the Evolution website. Not because I don't want to do so, but to keep the focus on Evolution and the flaws in the Evolution myth. I will say this, though: If you seek God, honestly, and truly, you will find Him. If someone knows the way to God and they tell others, and the others refuse to believe, then those others who have refused to believe will be held responsible because they were told the way to God and they did not believe it or accept it and so they did not go and tell still others the way. So if YOU know the way, and YOU do not tell others about it, YOU will be held accountable.

December 5, 2013

(From T. G., South Africa):

Mr Vederame sir its good to hear from you sorry I was away for a while I had school to work on and other matters oh n school will be fine the Lord is good lol and kind so I am not worried. I was watching Here in South Africa news about evolution fossils and its amazing that when one has a their spirit drenched in tranquility you really see that all this is really overhype. The News began on how big the discovery was and how it could alter the way we view evolution(oooh boy). Once you start seeing the actual fossils they so fragmented,small and really not advisable to use to establish any kind of evidence. One person in the news even said that they had to go dig deeeeeeeeeeeeeeep just to get something out. They puny and they spent money digging deep and what's amazing is how far people are willing to go to block God. Ncncnc this type of thinking has eternal consequences. Get over the hype n the intimidation and the priests of lawlessness are poweless.

John: Hello T!

Good to hear from you. First, just let me tell you I've published a new book directed at Atheists:
Yes God Exists and Yes You Are In Trouble (A challenge to Atheists, other God-haters and skeptics).

As for your letter below, is it not interesting how they can take fragmented fossils and create a whole story about them and even how they looked and all? It's all the artist's imagination (in the case of so-called human fossils), isn't it?

Yes, it DOES have eternal consequences. I make that very clear in my second book!

November 29, 2013

(From F. G., continued):

First, just to let you know I've published a new book directed at Atheists:
Yes God Exists and Yes You Are In Trouble (A challenge to Atheists, other God-haters and skeptics).

Now to answer your queries below:

(F.G.) Well, to be true to you John, science has a few theories about how life happened to appear,

John: How life "happened to appear" is a good way of putting it. It sounds like magic, doesn't it?

(F. G.) but no one really knows it, we just know that it was created in the oceans and that it was mostly vegetal, like corals and stuff.

John: No, F, we do not "know" any such thing. That's just the story that you have chosen to believe. And where did the "corals and stuff" come from? They just "appeared" too?

(F.G.) But science never said earth changed into human by itself, if you can quote it written or said by a scientist, then i'll shut up but i don't think it will happen one day

John: "Science" doesn't say anything. People do. And people don't have to say the above in so many words, it is implied in the theory of evolution. Either earth changed itself into humans, or there's something wrong with evolution theory, don't you think? If evolution is saying something else, please let me know.

(F. G.) Plus you can understand the bible in many ways also: Adam and eve were made of earth that was moved by a force no one has a proof it exists.

John: It's very interesting to me how you can be so sure that no proof exists for that, but you are sure that there is proof that life arose in the oceans, even though you've never seen either of those events (Adam and Eve or life forming in the oceans from nothing). So on the one hand you have no problem believing Adam and Eve came from dirt that turned itself into people, but you can't believe it was directed by an intelligent being. I'm not sure I understand why you have no trouble believing one, but not the other.

(F. G.) Thankfully for learning me how to speak english in a way and what to learn in science class

John: You are quite welcome, and doing a lot better with English than I am with French! (I do speak some French, but not well).

Au revoir for now.

November 29, 2013

(From F. G., France):

Ok let's start with something simple, a human dies, and worms are eating his body, but worms also eat nutriments that are in the dirt, these worms are eat by biggest creatures, like hens, a human kills the hen and eat it, so, there's hen inside his body, but also some worms, dead body, and most important, earth.

So, then let's imagine earth is made of star dust, even just a little, after all, stars are made of atoms and there may be one or two atoms of star dust in the hen the human ate So, stardust is a part of us, just like water, meteors and metal.

Science doesn't say we evolved instantaneity from stardust, like pokemons, science says that we're made of things that come from all the universe, including stardust, before using science as an argument, listen to her [message was truncated at this point].

John: Hi F,

I never said stardust could not be a "part" of us, just like the water that has been drunk by everyone who ever lived is recycled, so we could be drinking water that King Tut, or Jesus, or Caesar also drank. What I take issue with is that stardust turned into the Earth and then turned into you and me all by itself. That is quite different from you or I having a few molecules of stardust in us. What we're made OF doesn't explain HOW we were made.

I am listening to science. I just don't hear the same music that you do.

November 29, 2013

(From K. B., continued):

I also believe in NDEs. I don't think the person is taking a trip to heaven or any other afterlife. I do think that they see something, but I don't believe some of the strange things that they describe in them. I would love for you to share some insight on what you think is going on during a NDE.

Good, I'm glad to hear your doing okay and are planning on writing another book(especially about atheism). I can't wait to read that one. Will it be a site like this one? If so, when you are done with it would you please send me the link to the site so I can read it and check out the feedback section.

John: I'm pretty much devoting most of my free time trying to get the second book done and published, so sorry I can't respond more quickly right now. As for NDEs, as far as I can tell they are just some function of our brains, like dreams. Let me say that I have a family member who should have died in an auto accident, was in a coma for 6 weeks, and did not have a NDE. I would say the majority of people who come near death don't. But many of them do say their whole lives flashed before them in what seemed like an instant. That has always fascinated me.

I do hope the new book will be in print by next week. Will let you know. I also have a website for it, but have not decided what to do with it yet.

November 19, 2013

(From K. B., continued):

I was doing some research on evolutionary theories of how the brain works and I came across near death experiences. I have done a lot of research on the case of NDE's and I wanted to know what you thought about them. Evolutionists say that the brain evolved to be able to give you a NDE through the release of DMT, Dimethyltryptamine, so that it can make your passing a more comfortable experience so that you don't fear your impending death.

Do you believe the accounts of near death experiencers on the universe and the afterlife, and what do you make out of DMT?

Also, how have you been? I visit your site all the time to see if there are any new comments and interesting conversations. I must say that I love the site and I am glad that others feel the way I do about the farce that is evolution. If you would like to check out more on NDE's, here is a good website [removed].

John: Hi K,

Well, that's a different topic for a change! And that's a great evolutionary story for why we have NDEs. They'll attribute everything to some chemical or other. Considering how few people claim to have them, I guess evolution forgot the others who don't have a NDE and need that dimethyltryptamine (which evolved from where?) to avoid their fear of death too. Oh, and how did dying things evolve that chemical and pass it on to progeny? I guess the Evos are going to have to come up with a story for that one too. It's kinda like the birds who died evolving wings. They don't seem to "get" the fact that dead things don't evolve. Kathryn Kuhlman was big a few years back with the NDE stuff. She was pretty kooky in my opinion.

Sure I believe in NDEs, and who knows how the brain works in those situations? I don't attribute any special spiritual or other significance to what they saw. Usually I figure if they're publicizing it it's more likely they saw a lit up dollar sign at the end of the tunnel than anything else, if you know what I mean. My philosophy is that money and sex are at the root (not THE root, but at the root) of all evil. They are both good in themselves, but the things we're more likely to use for evil ends than anything else.

Otherwise, I'm doing fine. Working on book #2 right now (on atheism) and hope to have it done in a few weeks. Thanks for asking. Oh, we've also posted a list of topics that can be found in the feedback section on the website, along with some comments about my Evolution book that I culled from the feedback. Thanks for looking!

October 31-November 3, 2013

(From K. B., continued):

I wonder what they will come up with next? I just don't understand that if evolution does not need any guidance, then how does it know when to kick in and take effect? I know that evolution doesn't "know" anything, but you would swear it does just by talking to these people. They make it out to be something that knows where everything should go in the new species then says that it can't be personified and that it just happens. How does it happen if nothing guides it? Also what mechanism triggers evolution? If it is a mutation then how does it take effect and how does it get everything right the first time, and where is the real proof of this(observations not hearsay and guessing).

John: What they'll come up with next just showed up in the news today. A "scientist" in Texas DISCOVERED THE ORIGIN OF LIFE!!! Or, at least that's what the headline said. What he actually "discovered" was his own idea that meteors carrying organic materials crashed into Earth, then comets followed and added water. Mix a little geothermal heat into the pot, stir, and THERE YOU GO!!!!!! I mean, really, can it get any dumber? If you want to make a name for yourself, just come up with the latest STUPID idea about how life evolved and look at the attention you'll get. My guess is there was a need for grant money in there somewhere.

I have a few questions for you. One, I heard that the chimp myth about us sharing 98% of our DNA with it was debunked. Is this true?

John: Debunked big time. I mention that in my book. First, it's been revised downward now to somewhere less than 95%. I point out that we share something like 50% of our genes with a banana, too. That argument is about as valid as saying that because a Frisbee and a computer are both made of plastic, they're almost 100% similar (a bit extreme, but that's my point). It's how the genetic information is expressed that matters, not the fact of the genetic information being there in the first place. I use the example GODISNOWHERE in my book, and show it could be stated as GOD IS NOWHERE, or GOD IS NOW HERE. The letters are 100% alike, but the way they're expressed makes for complete opposite meanings.

Secondly, if the so called materials that created life fell to Earth from meteorites then how did they survive the heat in the atmosphere, how did they survive in the freezing temperatures of space, and more importantly how did they survive the explosion when the meteorite crashed into the Earth?

John: I'll leave it to the Evo imaginationists to answer that one. Obviously you and I are on the same page, and I mention above the ridiculous new/old theory that the Texas "scientist" invented. Read the book I suggest in Further Reading, The Mystery of Life's Origin. The authors effectively demolish any notion that life could have originated from a "primordial soup." To give you just one reason, cosmic rays and water would have destroyed any chemical bonds that formed between primordial molecules, so life would have been doomed before it even got a toenail in the pool.

Lastly, and going off topic, how can evoists pretend to know so much about nature when they haven't even proved their own theories?

John: I guess they can know something about nature itself, but as far as the nature of life and its origin, they haven't a clue.

[From other correspondence….}

John: There's a whole slew of living fossils, as they're called.

Then who did we evolve from and why did they need to evolve if they are still alive. I thought it was because they couldn't survive in the first place. I'm sure the evodelusionists have an answer for that because they have an answer for everything about their stupid "theory".

John: Of course they have answers. The organisms that haven't evolved over millions of years didn't have "selection pressure" which is their way of saying they were not "forced" to evolve. We do believe in "selection pressure" but not because it has anything to do with evolution. It does help organisms adapt, or ones that are more hardy to survive, but does not ADD anything to the organism by way of genetic information, so has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution from particles to plants, animals and people. It works on what's ALREADY THERE, my favorite expression that Evos don't seem to be able to grasp. >John: …evolution doesn't occur slowly, over millions of years, as there's no evidence for that, so they said it happened suddenly, in leaps.

Sounds like just another copout to me. I thought they said the reason why evolution was un observable and untestable was BECAUSE it took place over millions of years to happen. They come up with all kinds of other theories just to plug up the big holes in their original, just like string theory is to the big bang(witch in my opinion doesn't make sense at all because if you believe something natural can pop into existence all by itself then, wouldn't it be more plausible that a divine spiritual being could do the same). Of course they can't believe that of even fathom that logic because their faith would be washed down the toilet.

John: You hit on something there that I don't believe I've heard before, namely your question that if something "natural" can pop into existence all by itself, why couldn't a divine being do the same? That's some great food for thought! I wonder how the Evos would respond to that one. I'll be posting this in the Feedback section of the website, so


What do you make out of the coccyx? Do you think that there is any indication that a tail used to be there? I think that the Evoists will come up with anything to try to justify their pseudoscience, because if they don't, then they would have to turn to intelligent design and the thought of a creator. And we all know it will be a rainy day in hell before they do that.

John: The coccyx is used by the Evos to trick the unknowing (and those who simply don't want to know) into believing humans once had a tail. Besides the fact that there's no actual evidence for such, the coccyx is anything BUT a "vestigial" component of our body, and serves as a necessary anchor for muscles that support us. Any alleged "tails" that have been observed have been nothing but a little extra fatty tissue at that location, and have nothing to do with "tails."

There are numerous other organs that have been called "vestigial" by Evodelusionists in the past, all of which have been assigned a function at this point, like the appendix which is now known to play a part in aiding our immune systems.

The response you gave about talking birds and fish gills evolving was something else. Who would have thought that of all the animals a bird would have the gift of speech, amazing isn't it?

John: So you're saying even a birdbrain is smarter than an Evolutionist?

October 31, 2013

(From K. A., location unknown):

Mr Verderame First off i want to say i really enjoy your book. Years ago i to believed in the lie that is Darwinism or Macroevolution. Until i read Micheal Dentons Evolution a theory in crisis and Phillip E Johnsons Darwin on Trial. Both are excellent books there only problem is there not written with the layman in mind.But Evolution is Stupid is a real joy to read. Easy enough for anybody to understand for that Thank you. I also have one question. On page 52 you mention how at one time darwinist portrayed neanderthals as brutes and now they tell us that if they passed us on the street we would not give them a second glace. What is your opinion on neaderthals or for that matter homo erectus, homo heidelbergensis, and others. Do you think they were fully human or just man-like hominids. I my self is undecided at this time. Thanks.

John: Hello K,

Thanks very much for writing and your comments on my book. I do appreciate any feedback on it.

Yes, the Evolutionists have tried the trick of saying that "macroevolution" is the result of numerous tiny changes ("microevolution") that add up over time. Of course, that is patently false as they have never demonstrated any microevolutionary mechanism that could start with nothing and add the massive amounts of information needed to turn particles into living things. It's all part of the lies and deception. Most small "evolutionary" changes do nothing at all to advance an organism's survivability, and even when they do, they nearly always involve a LOSS of useful information. For instance, eyeless fish have lost the ability to see, so they're better adapted to dark cave pools. Evolutionists will use that as a "proof" of microevolution. That is, until you inform them that a LOSS of vision doesn't do anything to explain where vision came from in the first place!

Regarding your question about so-called human "ancestors," they all have been shown to be either simians or humans (of course you'll find arguments by evolutionists who are eager to protect their religion against what I just said, but there are plenty in support of it too). Every time they discover a new so-called human ancestor (which is what they call them just because the HAVE to do so to support their evolution religion) eventually it turns out to be either a human (deformed, perhaps, like Neanderthals were from the disease ricketts), or an ape or chimp, etc. You have to view any such so-called "discoveries" with a LOT of skepticism, and your skepticism will eventually pay off. You'll see how, for example, they find a few bones and then get some artist to draw an imaginary likeness of how they THINK the "human ancestor" MIGHT have looked. Well, that's just the artist inserting his own imagination into the picture. Just think about it - if someone found a few of your teeth, part of your jaw, and a few other bones, do you really think they could know how you really looked in life? Absolutely not. Even National Geographic a number of years ago printed a very small article where they gave some bones to 4 different artists and asked them to draw what our "human ancestor" looked like. The drawings were all very different, demonstrating the subjectivity and imagination involved.

You might wish to read the book entitled Bones of Contention, by Roger Lewin, which I recommend in the Further Reading section of my book. He's an evolutionist who presents an honest view of the whole "find the oldest man" game.

October 18-28, 2013

(From K. B., U.S.A.):

Hi, I think you are right about evolution. I came across some comments on the internet, would you please tell me what you think of them? What do you think about what this person had to say:

It's the whole "second law of thermodynamics" red herring again! Only morons use this argument because all it does is showcase their ignorance of Thermodynamics.

The second law refers ONLY to closed systems. Go outside on a sunny day and look up. See that big ball of shiny stuff? That's the Sun. It gives us all the free energy we need. Making this an OPEN system. Voila! Yet another creationist lie smashed to bits.

People try to discredit the Theory of Evolution by claiming that it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Basically, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that in a closed system, entropy, or disorder, always increases. They claim that, since Evolution theoretically leads to a more ordered universe, Evolution, therefore, violates the Second Law of Dynamics.

Unfortunately for the Creationists, that argument fails because all living things are open to their surroundings and the Earth is open to the effects of the Cosmos. Therefore, we don't live in a closed system.

John: Thanks for writing.

Without getting into questions of creationism or not, the issue you raise is easily resolved as follows:

First, the jury is out as to whether the Earth is a closed or open system. It certainly does exchange matter and energy outside its sphere, so appears to be an open system.

Second, regardless of whether it's open or closed, just adding energy to a system does not create anything whatsoever, and normally will destroy it if the energy is not controlled and directed somehow.

As I understand the issue with creationism re: the Second Law (and as with so many other questions, this has already been discussed in my Feedback section on ), it is that the Second Law was not in effect until after the Fall of man into sin, which has been demonstrated to not be true.

Regardless, the Second Law does still come into play for the first reason I mentioned above, and also because it demonstrates that the universe as a whole is tending toward entropy and therefore must have had a beginning.

[Also,] how does that demonstrate that the ancestor of humans was a fish and that we all came from stardust? Just another rabbit trail to veer the conversation off course so the Evodelusionists don't have to face the hard questions that challenge their faith.

The leap in intelligence is one reason why I don't [believe in evolution]. It raises the question of why nothing else evolved this way to be as smart as us.

John: And the smarter we get, the dumber we get. It's mind boggling that the more complexity we see in the universe around us, the less willing we are to accept that it was designed. Mind boggling.

That is so true. They will discredit anything about a creator, but the minute a scientist says something about evolution it has to be true. Also a scientist can have the best reputation out there, but the second they say they believe in ID, they are immediately discredited. I heard some evolutionists say that the sun's energy is sufficient enough to cancel out the Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy). What do you think of that? Thanks.

John: I'm not sure what that means, to be honest. How can it "cancel out" entropy? Again, just adding energy to a system does nothing. The energy has to be directed in order to be productive, otherwise it's destructive. And as the Sun itself "adds" energy, it is losing its own ability to perform work, so the Sun-Earth system is tending more toward entropy as the Sun slowly dies.

By the way this is really what that person had to say: "Go outside on a sunny day and look up. See that big ball of shiny stuff? That's the Sun. It gives us all the free energy we need. Making this an OPEN system."

John: Regardless of what kind of system Earth is, just adding energy to it does nothing. The other planets are open to the Sun's energy too, and what has that done for them? The energy has to be able to perform a task to be useful, like warming the oceans, or causing photosynthesis in plants (an extremely complex process of turning sunlight into stored energy and converting CO2 to oxygen, which could in no way have "evolved" all by itself with no direction, nor would it have had any REASON to do so. How did a plant even "know" it could use light from the sun to grow and store energy? More evolutionary stupidity).

Thank you again for responding, I don't want to sound like I am arguing with you I just want answers and you seem to know your stuff.

John: Thanks for the compliment, and no I did not think you were arguing, but go right ahead with the questions if you wish. Helps keep me on my toes.

Two question off topic. Do you think stars are really that far away or not, and do you believe in extraterrestrials?

John: The starlight and time question is one of my favorite areas of study. I certainly don't have the answers, and neither does anyone else. I can tell you that stellar distances can only be measured trigonometrically (by parallax) out to something like a few thousand light years, and that's the only "direct" measurement method. Other methods, like the use of what are called "standard candles" where distance is measured by apparent brightness are basically educated guesses. Yes, I do think stars are far away, but I do not think it took their light billions of years to reach us. There are already explanations for how it could have done so much more quickly than that, but they don't fit the Evo need for Time so the Time goddess can perform her evolutionary miracles, so they're not widely accepted as yet.

As for ETs, no I do not believe they exist. However, I do believe that mankind is being set up for one of the grandest deceptions of all time in that we will be duped into thinking we've made contact or have found ET life but it will all be a big lie. Check out the book (which I recommend in my own book), Alien Intrusion, by Gary Bates. Very interesting read.

[About] the fish ancestor (I can't remember it's name) how did something that evolved into us remain unchanged for a supposedly 90 million years.

John: Coelacanth. There's a museum south of where I live that has a model of one with a sign that actually says its our human ancestor. Surely we don't believe that by "faith" now, do we? And that's just one. There's a whole slew of living fossils, as they're called.

As for time something has always bugged me. If it is true that it takes thousands if not millions of years for evolution to happen, then won't the species die out by the time that this myth(evolution) unfolds. Because if you can't survive in your environment then you must evolve, so how do you have thousands if not millions of years to do so. Seems to me like evolution would have to work it's magic immediately at risk of the species going extinct, right? But I guess the Time goddess is perfect and knows what she is doing.

John: You got that right. Time can peform all miracles. As to your question, that's why Punctuated Equilibrium was invented by Gould and Eldredge, because they (and every other Evoist) knew that evolution doesn't occur slowly, over millions of years, as there's no evidence for that, so they said it happened suddenly, in leaps.

October 16, 2013

(From K. R., U.K.):

John, what's the title of the book, where can i buy it. I'm not a religious person but i've never been comfortable with the theory of evolution, I can't see how you can get order from chaos..thank you..

JV: Hello K,

The book is entitled Evolution Is Stupid, and can be ordered at using either the CreateSpace or the Amazon link there, or you can also order it from, or on numerous other bookselling websites, including Barnes & Noble, eBay, Abebooks, Alibris, Biblio, etc. However, I'd recommend getting it directly from through my website using the 25% off coupon I've provided there.

Thanks for your interest, and also in the rear of my book are some excellent book recommendations for further reading.

October 16, 2013

(From J. T., Australia?):

Hello. I'd like to ask firstly, how can you just blindly dismiss evolution as a lie?

JV: Because it is. The same way I can dismiss other lies as lies. I have something to judge them by. That's an advantage over the evolutionist, who has no criterion by which to judge truth against a lie. The evolutionist's "truth" changes almost daily.

Isn't everyone entitled to their own opinion?

JV: Ok, let me see if I got this straight. In my (educated, I might add) opinion, evolution is a lie. Am I entitled to that opinion, or are only evolutionists entitled to have opinions?

Now, to develop that a little further, I've spent nearly the past 40 years studying evolution, have a degree in biology and have worked in and studied other scientific disciplines. So my "opinion" really isn't just a blind one - it's a very well-informed, well-developed one backed by years of experience and tons of hard facts, many of which I have presented in the Feedback section of my website, along with my book.

Not to be rude but quite honestly what sounds more plausible: being magically created from nothing by an almighty power or being the product of a few billion years worth of transformation and evolution?

JV: You're not being rude at all. Just a bit, forgive me, ignorant. Instead of asking questions like that, maybe it's better to read, study, and find the answers. Then you won't have to ask questions like that any more. I mean, seriously, THINK about your question. THINK ABOUT IT. What "sounds" more plausible? Let's analyze the second part of your question. "Being the product...." Well, now wait a minute. The first part of your question starts with being created from nothing. But the second part assumes something's already been created. And from what was it created? So really, if you were being honest, you'd have worded your question more like this:

What seems to be more reasonable and plausible: Being created from nothing by a pre-existent intelligent being, or having something magically appear from nothing and then turn itself into everything over billions of years of miraculous, unguided transformations?

I think that's a more honest way of putting the question. Then you can analyze it in a more unbiased manner, because you've honestly presented the two sides of the question. Since I have repeatedly said I'm not getting into creationism or other -isms on the website, I'm not going to carry that further, but be honest and admit that's the more fair presentation of the question.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts, thanks.

JV: I was interested in hearing yours, too. Thank you for writing (I mean that sincerely). And you might wish to get a copy of my book. It's not expensive and hopefully will give you further food for thought.

October 15, 2013

(From C. H., Location unknown):

Just another silly creationist who can't accept reality. What are those talking snakes telling you?

John: Thanks for the intellectual input! Another hoodwinked Evvie, I see.

Talked to any birds lately? Oh, you never heard of talking birds? Imagine if they go extinct. Then your future evolutionist friends will laugh at you for suggesting that birds could talk at one time. Ever think about that, or is thinking not on your schedule?

While you're at it, see if you can figure out how your fish ancestors learned to communicate. Maybe you could invent a good story about how gills turned into vocal cords.

Have fun!

October 12, 2013

(From L. S., Italy):

(I responded in Italian, but will not be posting the response.)

Caro Giovanni,

ho appena finito di leggere la tua opera e pertanto ritengo doveroso darti un breve riscontro “a caldo”, anche se la completezza con la quale hai realizzato la narrazione merita un commento di almeno il triplo delle pagine che la costituiscono.

Innanzitutto ho apprezzato molto la tua specifica che nel libro non si parla di J.P. Verderame e della sua Fede, ma bensì si tratta di un'analisi oggettiva, e non soggettiva, della proposta Evoluzionista.

Pertanto il lettore potrà essere sereno al riguardo dell'onestà intellettuale dell'autore, ed io lo sono. Ovviamente posso parlare solo per me stesso, con le mie esperienze, con il mio credo.

E' vero, il concetto di Evoluzionismo è stato svuotato del suo significato ed è utilizzato costantemente per giustificare entità professionali, e le relative speculazioni economiche, che hanno dismesso il camice del ricercatore e dello scienziato, per indossare davanti alla comunità internazionale, l'abito del religioso. Non voglio qui entrare nel merito sul come e perché è successo questo, rischierei una forte deriva dal focus del libro.

E' altrettanto vero l'atteggiamento che il prete evoluzionista assume davanti a domande legittime; infatti anche davanti alle domande, o ai ragionamenti più semplici, dell'uomo della strada dotato del caro vecchio "buon senso",si indispettiscono, diventano sfuggenti e, se uno fa un po più di pressione, si scatenano come degli ossessi insultandoti, cercando di proiettare su di te la loro ignoranza, i loro dubbi, ritenendoti non qualificato e non all'altezza di poter capire senza le virtù del nuovo circolo esclusivo di "illuminati" al quale appartengono.

Ad esempio ad una domanda che spesso mi capita di fare, cioè come fa a stare in aria un aereo che trasporta 200 persone +equipaggio+bagagli+ carburante+ riviste+bevande+cibo+giornali+gadget in vendita + ovviamente se stesso...

l'ingegnere aeronautico di turno mi risponde formulandomi una serie di teorie prese in prestito da altre discipline (ad esempio l'idraulica, ambiente dove funzionano perfettamente) ed adattate per confezionarmi la risposta.

Se incalzo l'esperto per saperne di più ed avere maggiori delucidazioni, egli mi risponderà che è necessaria una conoscenza approfondita di alta matematica avanzata ottenibile con anni e anni di intenso studio e pertanto mi dovrò accontentare di quello che mi passa "il convento"

(ecco che appare subito,come il genio della lampada, sua santità il TEMPO in aiuto allo sfortunato ingegnere)...

Non mi arrendo e non mi faccio intimidire, il vitto del convento è poco nutriente per il mio appetito...pertanto insisto dicendo che io, essendo Pilota, sebbene non professionale, posso certamente capire, se egli riesce con un piccolo sforzo, a tradurre il linguaggio matematico (dominato solo da lui, e dai suoi simili superuomini, evolutosi dall'uomo comune ,che poveretto è rimasto mezzo pesce...) in parole comprensibili ad un povero Pilota sprovveduto come me.

A quel punto, il nostro solerte ingegnere aerospaziale ha due scelte: o mi risponde la verità, cioè che dopo oltre 100 anni di volo meccanico, non si è ancora capito fino in fondo il volo aerodinamico, oppure mi risponde, estremamente inviperito, che per fare volare in sicurezza è sufficiente sapere quello che insegnano alle scuole di volo (ma questo già lo sappiamo fin troppo bene)

Chi mi sta leggendo indovinerà senz'altro che la maggioranza delle risposte ottenibili sono del secondo tipo.

Pertanto sì Giovanni, hai ragione, è vero; io sperimento tutti i giorni la stupidità infettiva e il razzismo che porta in seno l'Evoluzionismo; evoluzionismo che, ricordo, ha ispirato nella storia tanti dittatori,

Alcuni miei epigrammi :

La conoscenza è limitata ma l'ignoranza è infinita.

Credo che un vero scienziato non possa scartare la probabilità, per quanto piccola, dell'esistenza di un creatore.

Nel relazionarmi con le persone uso dire "tu non puoi provare la non esistenza di un creatore, ed io non posso provare il contrario. Questa è la premessa per una pacifica convivenza che garantisce ad ognuno la libertà di pensiero e di fede, ma soprattutto di dialogo."

Viviamo su un pianeta unico nel suo genere di cui conosciamo ben poco, e quel poco che conosciamo è usato per sottomettere altri Uomini. Mai nel mondo animale si è vista una tale malvagità.

Le migliori menti si sono volontariamente messe al servizio della finanza, con la sola funzione di produrre denaro dal denaro. Sempre più gente adora questo nuovo miracolo dell'uomo che esclude l'uomo. Ciò non è compatibile con la vita.

Qualcuno dice "E' bene ciò che Dio vuole". Ecco come si genera la guerra.

Il vero extraterrestre è l'essere Umano, che si comporta da padrone anziché da ospite.

Agli uomini talvolta sfugge un banalissimo particolare: ogni volta che volge lo sguardo al cielo, sta guardando nel passato e del passato egli è prigioniero.

Io non sono creazionista ma mi "sento" creazionista.

Dio ha creato l'uomo a propria immagine e somiglianza, quindi per definizione lo ha creato libero.

October 1, 2013

(From T. H., location unknown):

First off, I have to say, straight out, that I disagree with your views on evolution.

John: Good! That's what makes this fun.

To be quite frank, whilst I am tolerant of your view on evolution, that in no way means I respect it.

John: I assume I can respond "likewise" based on the rest of your letter.

I'm going to be quite blunt here: Evolution is NOT stupid.

John: Au contraire! If it were not stupid, I would not have written the book!

Quite the reverse, I would rank it as one of the most momentous realisations that humankind has ever stumbled across.

John: "Stumbled" is a good word. I think Darwin was a bit woozy from all that ocean traveling, too, don't you?

Without this, I fear (I mean no offence, even though I probably WILL offend) your view would still be prevalent and we would still be in the dark ages of our understanding of life on earth.

John: Yes, you are absolutely right! Without the religion of Evolution and its goddess Time and scientist priests people would still hold to the stupid notion that some intelligent designer made everything, instead of the hard scientific fact that stardust blew onto the Earth, turned itself into fish, then they became chimpanzees and then they became humans! Oh, or that we actually came from Mars. Or someplace else in outer space. Oh, and also that every other living thing made itself the same way. Wow! Thank Gould we're out of those Dark Ages!!! Now we're INTELLECTUALS!

Not only can evolution be PROVED through means such as fossil records and DNA testing etc (I'll try not to bore you here as I suspect you've heard it all before :))

John: Thank you, and I've also addressed those ad nauseam in this Feedback section. I need to arrange it by topic, maybe. To repeat just one tired response, the fossil record shows fully-formed, fully-functional living things, not evolving ones. DNA testing doesn't tell me (or you) where DNA came from in the first place, and how it created itself and enabled itself to make replicating living things. So much for evolution.

and even more real time, with the build of pathogen resistance to antibiotics (to name but a few proofs),

John: No, please, not antibiotic resistance again. Can't you Evos come up with some new and better arguments? That one has been refuted over and over and at this point has been ground into the dust. Please catch up with your facts, and also check out the number of times I've addressed it in the Feedback.

but isn't it rather strange that, if your view is correct, biological sciences are making leaps and bounds in terms of new knowledge and understanding based on nothing but a bogus, victorian myth?

John: Umm, I'm not quite sure of your point, but whatever leaps and bounds biological sciences are making have nothing whatsoever to do with believing that your ancestors were bacteria and you came from stardust. Sorry, but you're just plain, flat-out wrong. No science needs the Evodelusion myth to progress, and it was progressing just fine before it.

The fact is, evolution is real, and not ONE SINGLE argument laid against it stands up to proper SCIENTIFIC (i.e LOGICAL) scrutiny.

John: Yawn. Don't you guys ever really think about this stuff? There are libraries full of information against the Evo myth at this point. Maybe you just haven't looked.

Arguing against evolution is like arguing against gravity,

John: No, please, not that one again. Please. Been there; responded to that. Everyone knows gravity exists. We experience it every day. Nobody has seen stardust turn into Sam and Suzy. Nor have they seen a bacterium or fish become anything but another bacterium or fish. You believe it by faith. Believe me.

most of our knowledge and technology, in many sciences, stems from these theories, the fact that the vast majority of this spin off stuff is watertight suggests they're something more than theories dontcha think?

John: No. The only spinoff is the Evo spin that is put on everything to try to defend and preserve the myth.

But thanks for writing.

September 29, 2013

(From G. B., location unknown):

There's definitely much to learn from you about this subject (and others) because of your vast research and knowledge. I'll definitely keep my eyes open for new books from you. Not many people have the courage to do what you did in that book. I also liked your "disclaimer" about who should read the book and who shouldn't. Your work is definitely appreciated.

John: Thank you so much for the encouragement, G. [and for other feedback received from you].

September 27, 2013

(From A. S., location unknown):

Hello "A. S." (are you sure about that one?),

My (John’s) responses below...

I'm just not sure I understand how scientists can explain the intricacies of the human body, let alone all other animals. How is it even imaginable that this all happened randomly? Examples I wonder about:

1-Why did most species in the evolutionary process end at the same place - two eyes, two ears, one nose, one mouth, etc. Why don't more evolved species have eyes and noses on the backs of their heads as well to help them survive? Did all species evolve at the same rate? The majority of fish still have two eyes. Same with horses, same with snails and frogs and dinosaurs. Over 65 million years ago it was randomly dictated that this is all we would ever need.

JV: All great points. I try to get that over in my book too. Isn't it convenient that Evolution knew we needed 2 eyes for stereo vision, and it also knew RIGHT WHERE TO PUT THEM? Oh, and also exactly how to hook them up to the brain to make them useful. Isn't it also interesting that Evolution somehow knew there was light to see in the first place? That one fascinates me. I've yet to hear an explanation for it.

2-It's pretty fortunate that the one thing we need to survive happens to be delicious fruit that randomly started growing on trees, and vegetables that randomly started growing in the ground that were randomly cultivated and sustained by the nutrients that just so happened to exist in the earth. In fact, why does food even taste delicious at all in the first place? Why did we develop taste buds? Moreover, why does the brain in our head allow us to determine what our taste preferences are?

JV: Need I say more? You've said enough right there to demolish evolution from the get-go. But the problem is the Evodelusionists won't LET go! They've nothing else to hold onto.

3-What came first anyway? The brain or the heart? Did we start with one lung or two? How about procreation? I'm sure glad that monkey evolved into a man AND a woman.

4-Regarding the brain, doesn't it seem excessive from an evolutionist's standpoint that we are as capable as we are? I mean why do we have emotion, thoughts, desires, will, etc. The human species seems like a MASSIVELY GIANT leap from our ancestors.

JV: Yes, but Evodelusionists are used to massively giant leaps - of faith that is! All of what you are saying should be enough to make any thinking person throw evolution out the window. But they won't do it.

I know I'm not exactly asking a particular question, but I guess I'm looking for a philosophical response. How can scientists claim to answer these questions?

JV: They don't. They just say that Evolution "happened" to get things right after millions of years of experimentation. See, they know it could never happen, so they add the millions of years stuff to be sure we can't actually investigate it and PROVE that it never could happen.

Thanks very much for writing. Great letter!

September 27, 2013

(From G. B., location unknown):

Where do I start. So many things to say about this topic. Well, why don't I start by saying EVOLUTION IS STUPID!!! I cam across this book accidentally online, because I am very interested in this subject and don't know how to approach evolutionists. They are religious fanatics. But this book was more of entertainment for me. I definitely learned a few new words, and I also had a few good laughs. This book actually gave me quite a few more ideas on tactics that are used by the Evolution Club Members.

I have a few more ideas to add about evolution. Recently I have been thinking about how people try to find out your take on evolution. What question do they ask; do you believe in evolution? What is that supposed to mean. Are you kidding me, the question itself is stupid, let alone the subject of evolution. I am getting a masters degree in engineering, and never did I have a professor ask me if I believe in Calculus, or the Pythagorean theorem, or radio waves. Just asking if some believes in evolution is STUPID. I can't believe how so many people bought into this stupidity. BTW since the religion of evolution was officially required to be thought in the US you have rape, murders, test scores, pregnancy (out of marriage), abortion just skyrocket.

Hitler used evolutionary ideas in his Mi Kampf to justify killing Jews. Jews weren't considered humans in his tiny brain.

One thing is for sure; I am sick of this EVODELUSION thing. No matter what TV or radio channel you tune to at some point they talk about evolution. They make mind boggling connections sometimes. Even the word EVOLUTION makes me sick now. Grrrrrrr.....

John: Thanks very much for writing and sharing your views. I certainly agree with them! The latest stupidity, maybe you saw it, is that "scientists" supposedly found life coming into the upper atmosphere FROM SPACE!!! WOW!!! You know what they found? A piece of a diatom. Do you know how many diatoms there are on Earth? Neither do I because there are so many we could never count them.

So what did they REALLY find? A piece of a diatom. The rest of the STORY is just that - a STORY to go along with their evolution religion. Because they cannot come up with a way that complex life arose on Earth, they have to come up with some other explanation - that it came from space. Hooray for the storytellers!

Oh, and this is just after the recent "news" that WE ARE MARTIANS! That's right, not only do diatoms come to Earth from space, MARTIAN life also made it here somehow, and that's where we all came from! Of course, that does nothing to explain where diatoms or Martian life came from in the first place, but at least it takes the burden off the Evoldelusionists' shoulders to not have to show where it came from here.

[P.S. I love what you said about "Do you BELIEVE in Evolution!!"]


September 24, 2013

(From K. E., Germany):

Hi John - I know what you mean about pride. But truly, I just want people to see through the lies we are being served up by the "Agenda", which I do think involves NASA, which is going to try to "prove" there are aliens. "Scientists" are doing this now with "reports" about "life found in space" etc, which are plastered on all of the propoganda papers.

This will lead to the new age religion, which everyone will have to either adhere to, or die. If you think NASA, for example, is legitimate, that is your decision. I do not believe anything I am told by supposed "authorities" because for me there is only one authority, the Holy Spirit and God. If that is pride in your opinion, so be it.

John: Hi K,

I fully agree that NASA is part of the program to promote lies about extraterrestrial life to the public. However, it also has good points too. Like every human institution it has been corrupted.

There is nothing wrong with being told something by someone who is an "authority" on a subject. If I want to know something about cancer, I go to a medical doctor or some other authority on the subject. The Bible and Holy Spirit will not tell me about cancer (or how to repair plumbing or fix my car). God has given us brains to figure out some things. He has not told us everything. So we have some who are experts in each subject.

The problem arises when we just accept EVERYTHING the expert says without questioning any of it, especially in the spiritual and scientific realms. Again, that's what God gave us brains for - to ask questions.

September 21, 2013

(From F. G., France):

So if you can prove me that god exists without referencing to the bible or a miracle (and that thing doesn't exist, it's just probabilities) then you'll become more credible, again if your arguments are so logic, why isn't there a government that isn't a stupid theocratic bull---t that has proven you wrong? As politely I could A French 15 years old boy, which parents are [expletives deleted] theists, that learned me to hate my gay brother, do not listen in class and don't talk to non-religious strangers

John: As usual you are trying to take the focus off evolution. I want you to prove to me that your ancestors were poisson [fish for those who do not know the French language]. Then you too will be more credible.



September 25-26, 2013 (F. G. continued)

Still no valuable answers?

John: Ditto. Poisson or no?

F. G.: You didn't understand, I AM NOT DEFENDING EVOLUTION, I'm asking you if you can defend theism or another alternative theory, then, we'll discuss about how I prove you're wrong, but until then, I don't care if our common ancestor was a monkey or a fish, I want you to answer.

F. G., sharp-minded as always

John: No, YOU don't understand. I'm not about to get roped into defending theism or any other -ism. I want you to tell me if you believe your ancestors were fish and apes and show me the proof and how it has been tested and repeated in the laboratory with no intelligent intervention. If you're not defending evolution, then what ARE you defending? Exactly what would you like me to say so you can "prove me wrong?"

How can one prove a "theist" view without referencing anything religious? A "theist view" is one that accepts God as its foundation, correct?

Now, of course, if I were to "prove" my views by referencing evolution, I would also be referencing a religious belief. No one ever saw stardust turn itself into a human being or anything else for that matter. Therefore, saying that did in fact happen is a story that one believes by faith.

In other words, a religious belief.

Prove otherwise.

September 1, 2013

(From M., France):

Something I have never understood is why there is a God vs Evolution debate. All Christians, Jews, and Muslims agree god created the universe. That means how everything in the universe works is according to God's plan. Everything works the way God thought it should work.

Therefore science would be the study of God's creation. Science has confirmed that over time beings evolve. If science (the study of god's creation) can prove evolution exists then wouldn't it merely confirm that God's plan is for us to evolve? If God's plan is to use evolution wouldn't denying evolution be denying God's grand scheme in favor of your own?

John: Thank you for writing.

Forgive me, but I have always tried to focus only on evolution and whether it is true or not. That is why there is a debate. Is evolution true, or is it false and a lie? I believe it is false and a lie, and also unscientific. It is a type of religion, really, not science at all.

Let me ask you this, though, if everything in the universe works according to God's plan, then you must have some idea about what God's plan is and some source for where you got that information. And you must also understand that evolution has no need of any god. That is why atheists are so fond of it as their religion.

Exactly where has "science confirmed that over time beings evolve?" Can you give one example? Now before you point to some of the usual bad examples evolutionists use, please be careful to point out an actual example of how, and where, a bacterium turned into a fish. Or a fish turned into a man. Ok? No cheap examples like finch beaks changing shape or different colored moths competing for the majority. That's not evolution.

If science can prove evolution exists, what does a god have to do with it? The whole concept is that the universe sprang into existence and life then arose from non-living matter, and turned itself into every living thing we know. God is not necessary and there is no "plan."

Before we get into any discussion of whether anyone's denying God's grand scheme in favor of one's own, we need to first establish that God's grand scheme was to use evolution. Did God tell you that somewhere? And is it possible that evolutionists are the ones denying God's grand scheme in favor of their own?

August 25, 2013

(From M. R., Ohio, USA):

I [gave] out another couple of your books… The exciting part was those who came up to me and said such good things about it. They seem to be pleased that someone has finally had the courage to "say what needs to be said" and even "face the flak." One even said, "Right on!"

August 21, 2013

(From M. N., continued):

[True Evo Follower: And isn't it amazing that nothing else can travel for billions of years without getting the least bit "tired" but light can do just that?]

If light lost speed, it would necessarily lose momentum. Why is it that distant light doesn't?

Let's do a thought experiment. Suppose a beam of light started toward earth a billion years ago. At the instant it passes the orbit of Pluto, a parallel beam, exactly in sync, is also directed toward earth. Both are traveling in the same medium. Which would arrive first?

John: M, can we get back on track and discuss how nothing became something and turned itself into everything? Just watched an astronomy program last night and found out (again) all about how we're made of stardust. Of course, we have thousands of eyewitnesses to attest to the fact that stars exploded, sent debris to Earth, and it came alive and turned into humans. There's no "faith" at work there, right? Real science stuff. Dawkins and all that.

I didn't invent the tired light theory. I simply look for alternative explanations to certain things that lend themselves to alternative explanations. Redshift is one of them. The issue of starlight and time is one of my favorite areas of study.

To answer your question below about "distant" light losing speed, one explanation is that it's NOT distant. You know how the sun and stars appear to go around the Earth, and how at one time galaxies were considered nebulae (due to appearances), and how planets were at one time considered wandering stars (due to appearances)? Well, perhaps one day we'll realize how distant light can "appear" to be distant while it really is not. What we laugh at now may someday be the reality, and we'll look back and laugh at what we [once believed].

In any event, fun stuff to discuss. And by the way, less energetic light may shift toward the red, but will still have the same velocity (in a vacuum), as far as my understanding. If you know otherwise, please enlighten me.

August 19, 2013

(From M. K., location unknown):

Funny, funny stuff. And things aren't really funny unless there is truth to it. You have put into words things I think on often, and actually quite alike, but you make it fun and funny. I have taken it seriously, because as you stated, I felt on the defensive, because it seems that "evodelusion" is everywhere. Thank you for writing this book, and I am going to get a copy soon to add to my own library of the subject. It's going to be a great new addition, and one of my favorites. I'm going to lighten up on the subject, thanks to you.

John: Hi M, I agree about things not being funny unless there's truth to it. That's why, as a book lover, I prefer reality to fiction. Enough happens in real life that is interesting, dramatic, funny, thought-provoking, etc., that I don't need to fantasize about it. Not against fiction or anything like that, just prefer real life stuff.

Thanks a lot for your comments on the book. Funny enough (pun intended) most of the feedback I've received so far has been positive. Maybe I did something wrong? ;-) Or maybe the book isn't being read enough yet by those who NEED to read it. We'll see....

I'm glad to see too how it has affected your thinking on the issue, which is really my goal. Thanks in advance for purchasing a copy, too.

Have a great week.

August 11, 2013

(From M. N., continued)

Discovery of Coelacanth utterly irrelevant to evolution discussion. Waste of time.

John: I love the way you Evo-redirectionists dismiss things that completely contradict your beliefs as "utterly irrelevant" as you wipe the egg off your faces.

Ok, let's see, the Coelacanth is allegedly one of the "ancestor fish" of the human race, or at least of some human traits. It was supposed to be extinct for around 90 million years. Suddenly it's discovered off Madagascar, and has NOT CHANGED AT ALL since its alleged extinction 90 MILLION years ago.

Yes, I'd say that's totally irrelevant to any discussion of whether or not evolution is a lie.

Evolution is about "change." For a bacterium to turn into a human because "it evolved" while other countless bazillions of bacteria are still bacteria, and for a coelacanth to remain unchanged after 90 million years because “it didn't evolve" does not indicate a problem with MY position on the matter. It's YOUR problem (both generically and specifically) not mine.

(M. N. ): The problem, John, is I don't have that many years left. So if I'm getting a bit jaded while waiting for the "beef" maybe there's good reason. Nah, I’m still willing to listen for some substance, but my tolerance for outright lies (eg, Second Law) has is nearing an end.

John: Re: The Second Law, I believe most scientists would agree that the overall entropy of the universe is increasing, indicating that it had a more complex, ordered beginning. I don't think you understand what the creationist argument is there - and a lot of creationists don't either, but I'm not getting into creationism. Let's keep the focus on evolution, please.

As for your tolerance of outright lies, let's analyze that one (from your perspective):

Piltdown Man lie - FORGIVEN
Whale evolution lie - FORGIVEN
Java Man lie - FORGIVEN
Haeckel's embryos lie - FORGIVEN
Human evolution lie - FORGIVEN
Peppered moth lie - FORGIVEN
Miller-Urey "building blocks of life" lie - FORGIVEN
Gradualism lie - FORGIVEN
Uniformitarianism lie - FORGIVEN
Punctuated Equilibrium lie - FORGIVEN
Panspermia lie - FORGIVEN
Nebraska Man lie - FORGIVEN
"Science seeks truth wherever that may lead" lie - FORGIVEN
Evolutionary tree lie - FORGIVEN
Antibiotic resistance lie - FORGIVEN
Canals on Mars lie - FORGIVEN
Bacteria on Mars lie _ FORGIVEN
Chinese "dino-bird" lie - FORGIVEN
"Living things only have the 'appearance' of design lie - FORGIVEN
Neanderthal "brute" man lie - FORGIVEN

Second Law of Thermodynamics misunderstanding - CONDEMN THOSE CREATIONIST ILLEGITIMATE DOGS TO HELL!!!!

(M. N.): Okay, the Second Law is clear, concise and inviolate. Absolutely consistent with theory and observation. Total entropy in a closed system invariably increases. Fine, accepted by all. Now creationists (some, but I think a diminishing number) tell us this law prohibits evolution. Some even appeal to authority, insisting (unnamed) renowned scientists have joined their ranks. So what's the problem?

Well, the problem is they haven't defined the bounds of their closed system that would encompass earth's biomass. Obviously, they'll have to encompass that enormous source of entropy - the sun - otherwise the system would be "open" in the extreme. Then include the sun, and you can lose a lot of entropy locally without violating the Law. But rather than engaging in dialog they'd rather just have you believe there're smarter than you and they've "proved" something. Wonder would be that every scientist in the world hasn't come over to their side, if it weren't for the tactic of misapplication of a widely-respected scientific law.

John: I'll just repeat that, whether it's an open or closed system, just adding energy (the sun) doesn't create anything so any evolutionist attempt to use that as a "proof" for the possible origin of living things fails. Simply adding undirected energy to a system will destroy it. And a decrease in entropy in an isolated system still always results in an overall increase of entropy in the surroundings. You know a good read for you (I just added it to my book's "Further Reading" chapter) is The Mystery of Life's Origins, by Thaxton, Bradley and Olsen. They have two excellent chapters on the Thermodynamics of Living Systems and Thermodynamics and the Origin of Life.

Just adding energy to a system is useless. You know that. Add uncontrolled energy to your eggs in a frying pan and eventually they'll be ruined. Light a match and put it in your gas tank and your car will be ruined, along with you and whatever else is nearby.

(M. N.):

(John): All you've done is demonstrate that science is always changing its story, so that what we consider to be a scientific "truth" today, may not be tomorrow. I'm reading a neat little book about that right now, When Science Fails, by John H. Tiner. That's why I love it when someone like Sagan states that science is a "search for truth, wherever that search may lead." That is, as long as it doesn't lead to ID or a Creator. So his statement there, besides being illogical, is patently disingenuous. He gives us neither a blueprint for how to find such truth, nor a goal so we know we've reached it.

I'll have to admit this paragraph gave me a lot of pause. At first reading the exposition doesn't support the conclusion. Then it hit me - if we insert the word "ultimate" before "truth," Sagan's quote would be disingenuous. I'll again admit to some ignorance as to what the biology department teaches, but over in the hard sciences - where Sagan got his degrees - we're taught humility, by the bucketful. And Carl came across as a humble guy; it's very unlikely he suggested that science could find ultimate truths.

George Ellis is one of those fortunate guys - he's paid to dream. But he does a pretty good job of bounding that dreaming. He says fellow cosmologists like Martin Rees offer the only scientific answer: if you have millions of universes popping into existence then statistically one of them could have the very precise physical conditions needed for life.

"The only problem is you haven't got the faintest knowledge of what these other universes are like," he says.

"You need at least as much faith to believe in these other universes as you do to believe in a God who created the universe. I see no difference in the amount of faith needed in either case. But from a scientific viewpoint, it makes sense and it could be right. The only thing is he is never going to prove it is right."

Notice he doesn't say "probably;" he's unequivocal that science can't find the ultimate answer. As for knowing exactly when you've found the truth, I guess the only possibility would be when a creator pops out and declares, "Okay, here I am! Game over." Until such a day, I expect mankind will keep pushing the envelope; it's in our nature.

John: Humility? You can't be serious. I'm not even going to respond to that. All I can say is your response is just another example of the extremes Evodelusionists will go to in order to defend their religion and its promoters.

(M. N.): Punk Eek turns out to be a lot like natural selection - why didn't I think of that? Anybody who's paid even scant attention to Malthus, or fought the weed problem in my front yard, has to be impressed by the pace at which life forms expand to fill available space. Just a little sober thinking would remind one that an environmental change that tilts the ecological balance would result in the predictably rapid shuffling of dominant life forms, but stability would set in rapidly as ecological niches are filled. The idea of multitudes of "intermediate" species - whatever we mean by that - successfully surviving to maturity, multiplying and leaving enough offspring to pop up in the fossil record is ludicrous. But, to quote Vin (Steve McQueen), "It seemed like a good idea at the time."

Yeah, as you point out, Punk Eek finished what genetics and mutation only started - the death knell to gradualism and infinite intermediancy.

John: Another example of blind defense of the “faith.” Comparing weeds taking over a lawn to life popping up out of nowhere and filling "niches?" Nice STORY.

(M. N.): I … retain great respect for Carl Sagan, even if he did insist evolution was a "fact." I admire Dawkins for his science, remain tolerant of his philosophy. If I'm unconvinced by any of you, it's just in my nature.

John: You admire Dawkins for his "science"? Is that what you call his storytelling? Exactly what science do you admire him for? Do you ever criticize him for how [much money he’s probably making] fighting something he claims doesn't even exist? I guess you have no problem with that since you also believe in multiverses and the like.

August 7, 2013

(From P. M., location unknown)

John -
I purchased your book and it's a good read. I just retired from teaching high school and middle school for 35 years. It was difficult to speak out about how wrong evolution is. I tried to talk to science teachers in private and give them websites critical of Darwinism, but I was always met with dismissive hostility. I did, however, manage to refer some bright students to those websites.

I believed in evolution all my life until around ten years ago as I took a picture of a peacock. I suddenly realized that beautiful artwork needed an artist.

That iconic fossil in all the textbooks - Archaeopteryx - is a fake. Of the eleven fossils found, none depict those feather imprints except the first three found, prior to 1875. They were forged by the Haberlein family of Germany. They pressed crow or pigeon wing feathers onto a cement-like medium. The skeletons on all Archaeopteryx fossils are those of a small therapod dinosaur, compsognathus. The other eight Archaeopteryx fossils show line etchings that merely suggest feathers.

Look at Archaeopteryx (compsognathus) fossils - they are all frozen in the classic death throes - back and neck arched back, mouth wide open. They were fossilized in the mud, and were probably submerged in water. Yet the feathers are laid out flat and pristine, instead of being scrunched up and tangled; smearing the mud that covered them. Everything about evolution is a lie...and we have all been indoctrinated (brainwashed) since childhood.

John: Thanks for writing and also for purchasing the book! I'm involved with some teachers, too, and know how stifling it is that they don't have the freedom to question almighty Darwin. I was recently in contact with some friends from Italy, and their (teenage) kids told me that in class where they were taught evolution a group was also encouraged to write a term paper on intelligent design and present it to the class. Imagine! Allowing the class to think for themselves!

As for archaeopteryx, yes, I've heard about it allegedly being forged, but I've also read good articles stating that that's not true. I don't know, of course, but in all honesty it doesn't matter to me one way or another, as it's either a fraud or just another species of bird. As you and I both know, any insinuation that it's some kind of "transitional form" between dinos and birds is stupid to the max, untestable, unproveable, and the product of evolutionary imaginations. As I said in my book, feathers aren't the only thing needed for flight, and to think that every aspect needed for flight somehow magically appeared in birds is sheer inanity, and only diehard evolutionists are suckered into believing it.

(P. M.)I often argue with evolutionists on You Tube. Your 'How did nothing turn into something and change [itself] into everything" really gets them. I stopped arguing on the Amazon forums because they always vote to hide my comments. Anyway, another really good website is Darwinism Refuted. And the book, Darwinism Refuted (2003) is a must -read.

Another point - Australopithecus? Just a bonobo (pygmy chimp).Their skeletons are identical.

John: Yes, Australopithecus has been shown to be nothing more than an ape or ape relative. Other African animal fossils have been found with Aust. but you never hear about that. Again, only the evo-imaginationists see a "transitional" fossil there because that's what they NEED to see. Again, I'm glad to see my book has been of use to you.


August 4, 2013

(From M. R., Ohio USA):

I've been having great results with people wanting your book! They even come and ask me about it. A couple have said, "Isn't the title a little harsh?" But then after they'd read it, they changed their minds.

I can certainly use more [copies] now. What a blessing and eye-opener they are.

August 2, 2013

(From M. N., USA)

The following is a compilation of numerous emails from the same writer, with my responses

[John: The 2nd Law is still alive and kicking in creationist literature. No reason it should not be.]

Actually John, there is a compelling reason - credibility. Apparently for their own reason creationists want to advance certain arguments about the speed of light and rate of radiological decay. So the audience has to give them the benefit of doubt while following what could possibly turn out to be useful evidence. But if they dispel all doubt up front with a totally fallacious claim, there's no way to pick up support.

It's unclear where they picked up this cherished fantasy, but it's high time to jettison the garbage. Maybe Gish was genuinely mistaken in his understanding of physics, maybe he was deliberately deceitful; either way, the act is in serious need of cleanup. Rule one, don't be caught in a lie - by violating it, creationists create their own opposition.

John: Hi M, You know, I was thinking of responding a bit in depth to your 18 emails (that's the count so far), but honestly you're so deep in evo doo doo that I'm certainly not going to be able to pull you out of it no matter what I say, so why bother? I obviously hit a nerve, and if you really wanted to hear what I had to say in response I'd certainly accommodate you, but you don't. I mean, this is the first time anyone has responded the way you did. And not only have I already addressed some of your complaints whether in my feedback on the site, or in the book, or in the Further Reading section in back of the book, but if you really wanted to find data that support my contentions, you'd do so. It's all in the will. You want to find "proof" that you were once a fish, you'll find it. You want to find "proof" that you were NOT once a fish, you'll find it.

Out of respect for the fact that you at least read the book before commenting, and have interacted with it, I'll respond at least briefly to some of the issues you raised.

I refuse to discuss creationists and creationism. We're talking about evolution and how something came from nothing and turned itself into everything with no direction.

Other than that, have a good weekend.

(M. N.):

ID came to my attention 23 years ago. A full page article in The Washington Post. New information casts doubt on traditional evolutionary thinking, and a new theory will answer all the question. So I've waited patiently for the theory, picked up the latest Magnum Opus from time-to-time, and attempted to follow the news as proponents endeavor to install their version of the truth into curricula (Not in MY school you don't!). So far, neither theory or much glimmering.

So out comes "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." We're now treated to another rendition of, "big bad school board won't let us teach about our theory, because we don't yet have a theory, because big bad science won't fund our research." Even those of us who might otherwise be sympathetic can't get behind them if they don't even bother to mention any of the research proposals they've advanced. And I guess we remind ourselves that, if they diverted just a small fraction of their PR expenditure to research, they could seed some proposals leading toward productive exploration. This could then be introduced into curricula with our blessing.

Here's one that sort of rings my chimes. Plate tectonics, a subject completely aside from biological evolution, sheds some light on similarity of species on previously-joined land masses and on past extinctions. And yet, continental drift is continuous, while speciation is episodic. Clearly aside from exactly what it is that a supernatural agent does to effect ecological change, what is the interplay here? Is that agent also moving the continents around (no, they pretty much follow know laws of physics), does the agent just watch and pay us a visit at crucial times? Okay, it's understandable in terms of evolutionary theory, let's hold it up against the alternative. Could be fun!

John: Simple answer: Show me how plate tectonics has anything to do with how life began and species arose in the first place, and we'll talk. If you believe that the original genomes contained all the information and material necessary to allow for variation, there's no problem. If you believe that continents split, then new species arose out of nowhere, you have a problem. You have to show not how new species arose, but how new information to make new species arose - what was its source, and how did it just "happen" to get everything just right and incorporate it into new species? Plate tectonics is YOUR problem, not mine.

(M. N.):

[John: As far as I'm concerned, and I have read other possibilities for the CMBR, the whole scheme is part of the desperate attempt to verify the Big Bang.]

Well, this is the first time I've heard of attempting to "justify" the Big Bang - desperation aside - and maybe the greatest reversal since Serutan. Big Bang didn't have many adherents until CMBR forced cosmology to sit up and take notice. Whyever on earth would anybody want to justify an unpopular notion. Disprove Big Bang and we can go back to an orderly, eternal universe. We have to account for the fact we can still see distant objects and for the relative abundance of the various elements, but at least we wouldn't have to deal with time doing strange, incomprehensible things. Go for it, John!

John: Don't know where you got your "information" from, but I've been studying astronomy since childhood and that's the first time I've ever heard that the BB "didn't have many adherents." The exact opposite is true, and that's why they were so desperate to find the CMBR. And if you know the story, they could not find the "lumpiness" they were desperately looking for, then suddenly, magically, they invented more "sensitive" instruments and "VOILA!" the myth was saved again! I am not against the idea of an expanding universe, nor of course even one that had a beginning. I'm against hoodwinking people into believing that some incredibly minute fluctuation in temperature explains how everything got here. BS.

(M. N.):

[John: M, I don't have to read past your first line above. Once again, the laws break down to "prove" our myth. How convenient. Too bad nobody can test and repeat it by having another universe create itself from a "singularity."]

"Convenience" born of frustration? Black holes travel with us through space and time, and yet their innards confound all our concepts of space and time. Think of it - theory predicts the breakdown of theory, time slows toward zero, light can\'t escape. It's downright unimaginable, and we use terms like "singularity" and "event horizon" to signal our frustration. It's like the old charts and maps - "Here there be tygers."

OK, as we look further back in time, we see that same phenomenon of unbelievable mass compacted into ever-shrinking space. Looks a bit like the mother of all black holes, doesn't it? Not that I'm arguing for the Big Bang here, but why wouldn't you also refer to a singularity in this case. In and of itself this model doesn't "prove" anything, and the notion of another universe self-generating is pure speculation.

But it's real ugly to think about. We're accustomed to thinking in terms of 24 hour days yesterday, tomorrow, and so forth. Moving in only one direction, but it's all orderly. To think of time actually slowing toward a stop, with an unattainable beginning - an asymptote that you could approach as near as you like, as long as you had an infinite source of energy, but never quite hit.

Yukky isn't it! Biology has been advancing along a consistent line over the past two centuries, while physics just gets progressively messier. Why don't you just stick with evolution, or maybe go to press with "Physics is Stupid!"

John: My only response to this one is that biology will continue to "advance" and has no need of the evolution myth to do so. Nobody can name one benefit of believing in evolution. I love the ones who bring up the old cheap arguments about science being responsible for cell phones, computers, etc., as if you have to believe that your ancestors were fish or monkeys in order to invent things. Those are the unthinking masses who bow to the Evo priests as if they have some sort of "inside" knowledge about our beginnings. It's the same with every false religion. There are always those who supposedly have "inside" knowledge that's not available to the average Joe and Jane, and Joe and Jane will never stop falling for it, and Evodelusionists like Richard Dawkins, who are no doubt making a fortune off it, will always be there to take the credit.

(M. N.):

[John: Speaking of which, I sincerely believe that those who won't even accept intelligent design as a possibility (I'm not talking creationism here, or the Bible, or God or anything like that) are simply, plainly, lying to themselves and to others. It is perfectly clear even to atheists like Richard Dawkins that things "appear" to be designed. Well, if they "appear" that way, how do you determine whether or not they ARE that way. What's your criterion for what's designed and what's not? Like I say in my book, how is it we can see design in a statue, but not the hands and mind that created it? They are just being dishonest - plain and simple.]

It's good you don't try to lump Dawkins in with all of your "evolutionists." Dawkins is a widely-respected scientist, but his philosophy is his own business. I might liken him to Hollywood celebrities who get deep into politics; their influence is not commensurate with their wisdom.

As for our reaction to a statue, the first thought is that it was made. We're familiar conceptually with a sculptor taking a mallet and chisel, chipping away stone until the desired form emerges. Sure, the sculptor had a design in mind all the time, but if all he had was a design, there would be no statue to reflect on. When it comes to life forms, not everyone rejects the notion of design out of hand, but don't hold it against us if we're waiting to get a glimmer of the implementation. Okay, let's accept maybe mutation resulting from cosmic radiation. What do we have, specific targeting of individual gamma rays? Do we make a single copy? A dozen? Hundreds? Millions? How do the new species supplant the old? Why is there a close correlation between life forms and the dominant environment of the era - seems that has to be controlled too. Does there have to be intervention every time a new species appears, or does the supernatural agent just drop in from time to time to put succession on the desired track? Please put your heads together and talk about not what you reject, but what you accept.

I recall the brouhaha over the next great revelation, Dembski/Wells "the Design of Life," 2008. From the jacket, I apparently laid out $35 to be enlightened as to the "theory" of intelligent design. Okay, if not a full-blown theory, maybe the tenets, principles, proposals, speculation. Nope, just 308 pages justifying a theory that is expounded, or to be expounded, somewhere else.

John: After you're done with Dembski, read The God Delusion if you really want enlightenment. I'll bet Dawkins donated all the proceeds to charity.

(M. N.):

As you may be aware, apart from the blatant frauds like Piltdown Man, Java Man, Nebraska Man, and so on, we have others like Neanderthal man who, in my lifetime, has "evolved" from a brute to a normal guy or girl who apparently had the disease Rickets.

And from there to a possibly retrograde variety of homo sapiens. Sure, and on a similar time scale, the atom progressed from a cube to a plum pudding with electrons embedded to a Saturn ringlike structure to an essentially empty space comprised of a nucleus with orbiting electrons. New information engenders new thinking.

I notice that science is either hidebound and punishing of those bringing new, heretical ideas or flighty, to suit your needs. It must be all them "evolutionists" that upset the applecart.

John: Yes, there are plenty of "retrograde" varieties of Homo sapiens around. On that we can agree.

(M. N.):

[John: One thing I want to drive home, and I'm going to really start focusing on this more, is that we have to make a distinction between "EVIDENCE" or "FACTS" and STORIES about the evidence or facts. Most evodelusionists do not make that distinction.]

John, I think the evodelusionists - known to others as scientists - understand the interrelation between facts and stories. Observe the position of planets over a period of time (evidence, facts, data), in the manner of Tycho Brahe, and eventually you may be able to trace out paths - ellipses, with the sun at one of the foci. Okay, this leads to the notion of an attractive force that is proportional to the product of respective masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between bodies. Now we have a story - the beginning of a theory - and we call it gravity. We can even represent it with an equation, as long as we're careful only to take two bdies at a time. It's not too convenient that force at a distance doesn't make much sense, but at least we have a theory.

All is well until some spoilsport points out that massless light is affected by gravity. Light travels in a straight line, so objects don't really attract one another, they bend space-time. Hmmm, and then we have gravity waves and lenses in deep space. But peer deep inside the atom, and something entirely different is gong on; objects have the temerity to attract one another by exchanging gravitons.

So there we have it. Four different versions of the same story, or as we put it, four theories dealing with the same phenomenon. Each works in its own domain, but one size does not fit all.

The point here is that science is about making up stories to fit the evidence, then modifying, discarding, re-inventing to accommodate new knowledge.

Other point - gravity sucks. Give me evolution any day!

John: All you've done is demonstrate that science is always changing its story, so that what we consider to be a scientific "truth" today, may not be tomorrow. I'm reading a neat little book about that right now, When Science Fails, by John H. Tiner. That's why I love it when someone like Sagan states that science is a "search for truth, wherever that search may lead." That is, as long as it doesn't lead to ID or a Creator. So his statement there, besides being illogical, is patently disingenuous. He gives us neither a blueprint for how to find such truth, nor a goal so we know we've reached it.

As far as I know, the debate about whether light is a wave or particle is still going on. What we still don't know about the properties of light would probably astound us (good evodelusionist word, that "probably").

However, once again you are confusing OPERATIONAL science with ORIGINS science. The former is testable, verifiable, or falsifiable, in the present. The latter is not. We can study light, its properties, etc., now. We can study the effects of what we call gravity, now. We can study planetary motions, now. We cannot test, repeat and falsify the origins of gravity, light, or planets. We can come up with stories, perhaps some of them good ones, but we can never prove our stories for absolute certain.

(M. N.):

[John: They even put the so-called "age of mankind" at somewhere between 300,000 and 100,000 years ago and admitted that was kind of "fuzzy" because we don't have enough bones yet!! Gotta love it! They read bones like Tarot cards. Amazing what stories they can get out of 'em!]

Gotta love the use of "so called." It's usually the sign of condescension on the part of someone with superior knowledge or reasoning power. Okay, your position is acknowledged.

300,000 to 100,00 years? Yeah, the generally accepted range. But here, you're looking more at the technology than the bones. External structures differ less than the rapidly-evolving toolmaking technology, and there are plenty more tools to judge from. As with so many things, it's a judgement call; some anthropologists will accept the 300,000 year old tools, while virtually all accept 100,000 as representing modern man.

John: Ok, so the "age" of man is somewhere between 300,000 - 100,000 years, but the use of "so-called" there is uncalled-for, is that what you're saying? I think I'll keep using it, if you don't mind. Especially given that the "so-called" age of man changes almost monthly. And, if you wouldn't mind, exactly what was the defining line between so-called ape-man and so-called man? The wheel? Fire? An opposable thumb? Jumping down from trees? No more knuckle-walking? Bigger heads? Straighter legs maybe? Prettier women? The invention of the razor? Making barbecues from metal instead of digging holes in the ground?

(M. N.):

[John: How do you explain the thousands of "living fossils" that completely resemble their "millions of years old" alleged ancestors? How do you explain that the Coelacanth, supposedly your ancestor, and supposedly extinct for something like 90 million years, was found off Madagascar and is now known to be still alive and unchanged?]

This is a provocative question. Apparently you're in possession of some information that implies changed conditions that should have driven these "living fossils" into extinction? The best explanation for the supposed extinction of the Coelacanth is that a living example had not previously been recorded. Seems we've gone a bit afield from the topic of evolution at this point.

John: Not even a nice try on this one. No comment.

(M. N.):

[John: And genetics should have been the final nail in the coffin of Evolution, but since it's a fanatical religion, its adherents will do what is necessary to twist the truth in order to make it appear to bolster their faith.]

Genetics proved to be the final nail in gradualism. There's no point in looking for those infinitesimally small changes, because they never existed. You would admit that creation (or ID, or whatever) contends there's no such thing, and genetics wiped it from biological theory. RIP.

John: No, M. The final nail in gradualism was the recognition, supported by Evo priests Gould and Eldredge, that the fossil record is lacking the millions of transitional fossils that should be extant, so they invented Punk Eek. Gotta love you guys. You'll attack those who believe in creation for using the "god of the gaps" then go do the same yourselves when your own systems fail.

(M. N.):

[John: Charles Darwin's "famous finches" have been famously debunked as having nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.]

Okay, when were the famous finches famously "bunked?" It's been years since my reading of "Origin," but as I recall this was an example of species radiating and exploiting ecological niches that would otherwise have been occupied by other species. Some species that succeed in out-competing on the mainland are absent, so an opportunity is exposed and exploited. This doesn't prove or disprove evolution, abiogenesis, cosmological origins or anything else to my knowledge. Did I miss some bunk somewhere?

John: The finches, which are not "Darwin's" as he didn't make them, just observed them (I'm being facetious here, but to make a point...) demonstrated nothing more than that the information for variation was already contained in their genomes, and expressed itself as conditions changed. From what I've read they reverted back to their original beaks when conditions also reversed themselves.

What you fail to understand, willingly perhaps, is that NOTHING new arose in the constitution of finches. There was just phenotypic variaion in their beaks. That has nothing whatsoever to do with how a beak arose in the first place, how evolution knew where to put it on birds (and just "happened" to get it right every time!) and how evolution knew it would be useful to birds. And of course, evolution wired up all the attendant bones and muscles to make a beak useful to a bird, too.

Evolution is just SOO amazing, isn't it?

(M. N.):

[John: If you read evolutionary literature, as you admit you have not, you will soon find that the real purpose of the Evolution religion is to avoid any notion that any god or God had anything whatsoever to do with the creation of the universe.]

You know, John, that’s close to factual - I won't include reference to horseshoes here. Science is a study of nature and naturally-occurring phenomena. Although there are admittedly some in the disciplines that believe all questions are answerable, are seking answers - as opposed to those that know the answers and reject any notion to the contrary - without certain knowledge of the end result. Think of it as a voyage of discovery.

So let's throw in an occasional "God did it." These are discontinuities, and if something like the appearance of land animals is due to a supernatural force, then there just plain won't be a natural explanation. If at first they fail to find natural cause, they could just give up. But John you know that's not in the "nature" of our species. We're innately curious (else you'd never have launched on your personal quest), and scientists will continue to seek. Undoubtedly there will be limits to what is discoverable, but we don't know just yet what those limits are.

As you are fond of pointing out, abiogenesis is a real hurdle for biologists. This is one they might not overcome, but I would argue this is a relative tissue paper in comparison to the barriers cosmologists will ultimately face. The former are working within the confines of the universe, with sensors, instruments and everyday experiences derived from that position. The latter would have to posit experiments and models completely unreachable from within our four-dimensional confines.

So in a sense your assertion that science avoids god or God is accurate, but further implication that it actively denies god I would certainly take issue with.


[M: "So let's throw in an occasional 'God did it.'"]

Or, if we're atheistic mechanistic evolutionists, we can throw in an occasional, "Time did it." The origin of things is not testable or repeatable. Evos just don't want to accept that, so have to come up with numerous "just-so" stories to accommodate their mythology. You know, like stars exploding and sending stardust out into the universe, some of which landed on Earth and turned into common folk like you and me, all by itself! But with lots of time, of course.

(M. N.):

[John: The 2nd Law is still alive and kicking in creationist literature. No reason it should not be.]

Hmmm...thought you were steering clear of creationism. Well, let's go.

The Holy Grail of creationism is that entropy is on the increase everywhere, anytime, so evolution is impossible. And yet you had the courage to mount a bicycle to cross the country in the faith that this bicycle was more organized than the steel, rubber and other components that went into its fabrication and that it would remain so. Apparently there's a special exemption for intent to the hallowed Second Law?

Look a little deeper into thermodynamics and you'll discover the act of fabricating the bike actually contributed more entropy than it absorbed. As a matter of fact, the entire biosphere operates in an entropy-deficit environment. How can this be?

Well, there's just one slight oversight by the High Priests of Creation - that part about a closed system. I don't know whether Gish was just ignorant of thermodynamics or he hoped nobody would notice he was creating his own physics, and the scripture just kept getting handed down. The reason organization can increase in the biosphere is a generous inpouring of energy, principally from the sun. The Second Law simply doesn't deal with open systems, so we'll have to reexamine our "system" if we want to apply it.

Okay, let's take in an area bounded by earth's orbit. The system isn't closed, in that there's an enormous net outpouring of energy, but we'll accept it for purposes of further discussion. Now we're enclosing a huge source of entropy contribution (the sun, if I need point it out). There's the equivalent of the biomass being converted into energy (entropy increase) every second! Whew, the Second Law is safe for the moment. And I would venture a guess that when the sun finally radiates its last, evolution would halt as well.

Now let's not take disproof of disproof as "proof." The burden of proof has not been lifted from evolution supporters. But it's time to skewer this red herring and put an end to this unbecoming end zone celebration.

John: As stated I'm not getting into creationism.

As for your "closed system" argument, that's an old one that's easily demolished. I already responded to it (probably more than once) in the Feedback section on the website, but here, for your reading pleasure, is one of my responses:

Writer: The laws of Thermodynamics are statistical, not prescriptive. Moreover, the second law of thermodynamics refers specifically to isolated systems, which the evolution of life on Earth is very clearly not. It is an open system that is powered by perpetual, dynamic cycles of consumption of energy, processing of energy, and removal of waste (just like your body).

John: Unfortunately you're not very well versed in the argument about the Earth being an open or closed system. This is a common argument brought against anti-evolutionists, and it's patently false. Regardless of whether the Earth is an open or closed system, simply adding energy to it does not produce complexity, but rather reduces it. Adding sunlight, or heat, to a system doesn't automatically guarantee that that system will become more complex. Quite the opposite, adding energy to a system, unless there is a mechanism already in place to increase complexity, REDUCES the system to a more disorganized state. Do the research. What you say is simply not true. Do an Internet search for "Does entropy contradict evolution."

Ever been to Biosphere 2? Well, let me explain to you how adding sunlight to the biomass (and structure, for that matter) in those buildings not only did not create anything new, but would have destroyed all of it had there not been human intervention to make use of the incoming energy. Get it? Oh, and if you do study creationist literature, by the way, you might be informed of the fact that they address that one too. But this isn't about creationism. It's about informing people, getting them to think, confronting their false ideas, and changing their thinking. It's about destroying evolutionary lies.

(M. N.):

[John: The expansion of the universe doesn't offend me in the least (if that is, in fact, the reason we see redshift, for instance, as there are other explanations for that, too).]

This is true, and creationists websites are eager to refer these. As I recall the favorite is commonly referred to as "tired light," the notion of some property of space that light slows as it travels long distances. I for one am willing to accept that possibility, as it seems no more far-fetched than dark matter or dark energy (or Big Bang was when first suggested). So how might a dialog play out?

Astronomer: We notice that light from distant objects (outside the twenty-or-so members of the local group of galaxies) is shifted toward the red, and the shift is directly proportional to the distance of the object. About the only cause we can think of is that these objects are moving away, again proportional to their distance, and that the universe is not static, but expanding.

True Believer: Fair enough, but maybe light slows as it travels long distances. The source isn't really moving away, it just looks that way because the speed of light isn't really constant.

Astronomer: Fair enough, but why isn't distant light less energetic if it's traveling slower? If we look at a pulsating source and the object emitting it is the same distance away at the beginning of the pulse as the end, why don't equivalent sources show the same period regardless of distance? Why is the period shift exactly in harmony with the red shift?

True believer: Fair enough, but...

Oops, that part isn't there. Just omit the counterexample or leave out the qualifier (like the Second Law) and you can come up with devastating arguments. If creationists would genuinely dialog and then bring their case to the public, they might be surprised at the support they might garner. But just end-run the dialog and jump out to dazzle the public and you're going to encounter honest skepticism.

John: The expansion of the universe doesn't bother me at all either. Why should it? What does it have to do with turning nothing into N [writer’s last name]?

Not all light is shifted toward the red (as you seem to admit yourself there). Some is blue-shifted. Problem that's exlplained by movement "in the neighborhood." But a problem nonetheless.

Redshift is ASSUMED to be directly related to distance, which includes numerous other assumptions based on other variables like the periodicity of Cepheids. There are other possible causes for redshift, like tangential motion.

EvoAstronomer: The edge of the universe (as far as we know at the present time, anyhow) is about 13 billion LY.

True Evo Follower: Wow! So, that PROVES that nothing turned into N, doesn't it?

EvoAstronomer: Yes, that is a scientific "truth."

True Evo Follower: And isn't it amazing that nothing else can travel for billions of years without getting the least bit "tired" but light can do just that?

EvoAstronomer: Yes, that is quite incredible, isn't it? And again, it proves that stardust turned into Sam after a little Bam Bam!

Well, M, I don't know the last time I've had so much fun. Sayonara for now, and please, I really don't have time to answer 18 more emails, so keep it to one or two if you would.

And do some more reasearch on that "closed system" argument, would ya?

July 24, 2013

(From M. P., WY USA):

I too liked your book. You made me laugh yet filled with keen insight.

July 8, 2013

(From R. C., USA):

Love your website! Thank you for making it and for moving forward with your book. Here's a website I've enjoyed reading for many years that I thought you'd enjoy very much as well. In fact you've probably have already heard of it but just in case here it is. (link removed – Science Against Evolution)

John: Thanks very much for your input. I may have met my match in sarcasm on that website you sent. I usually don't click on links people send (am familiar with a lot of them anyhow), but had not heard of that one, actually, so was curious enough to do so. I loved their little video presentation.

(From G. C., WY USA):

Hi John,

You have written a roll-in-the-aisle funny book about evolution. I have to confess, I got carried away with your experience on Long's Peak. A wonderful, and profound story.

Did you know that your book gets even funnier on a second read?

John: Thanks so much! [As for funnier on the second read, that’s] unless you’re the author and have read it two dozen times then find another spelling mistake on the 25th read. I’m very anal about that stuff!

July 3, 2013

(From K. W., USA):

I read your online version of your book earlier this year, and I have been mulling over it since.

John: The published version is a good bit different from what was on the website. In case you want a copy or a Kindle version, I indicate on the website where it can be purchased for a 25% discount. It's not expensive. Just if you're interested.

I'm just a college student,

John: I was "just" a college student one time many years ago too. That's the best time, as far as I'm concerned, to be thinking about this stuff. It's the time when I dumped evolution because it was obvious to me that it could not be true, and I place a high premium on honesty. If I deceive myself, that's the first step in a long downward slippery slope. I can't do that. I'm willing to pay the price of going against the flow.

and I'm always surrounded by this big debate between evolution and intelligent design/other theories.

John: Speaking of which, I sincerely believe that those who won't even accept intelligent design as a possibility (I'm not talking creationism here, or the Bible, or God or anything like that) are simply, plainly, lying to themselves and to others. It is perfectly clear even to atheists like Richard Dawkins that things "appear" to be designed. Well, if they "appear" that way, how do you determine whether or not they ARE that way. What's your criterion for what's designed and what's not? Like I say in my book, how is it we can see design in a statue, but not the hands and mind that created it? They are just being dishonest - plain and simple.

You've helped me to understand a lot about the gaps in evolutionary theory, and I appreciate your dedication in proving it to be a questionable worldview. The only thing that I have trouble digesting is this: so what about all these "hominid" fossils? If they aren't cast-off branches of the tree of human evolution, what are they?

John: This I do find interesting. And I do not mean this sarcastically. You can accept that other areas of the religion of Evolution are questionable to say the least, but have trouble with the one, as far as I'm concerned, that is most blatantly obviously patently false - namely human evolution? Let's start with stardust. Do you accept that we're stardust? Do you accept that stardust came to life magically? Do you accept that that stardust then turned into single-cell organisms that could reproduce (this is happening all by itself with no direction or purpose now, let's be clear on that point)? Do you accept that those single-cell organisms became fish, that turned into amphibians, then reptiles, then primates? If you question all that, then why would you question that primates became YOU?

As you may be aware, apart from the blatant frauds like Piltdown Man, Java Man, Nebraska Man, and so on, we have others like Neanderthal man who, in my lifetime, has "evolved" from a brute to a normal guy or girl who apparently had the disease Rickets. Others have been shown to be either human or simian, not "tweens." There is NO fossil evidence about which it can be said, "Aha! THIS ONE is for SURE the missing link!" Of course, there are those who would argue that, but all they have to go on are a few bones. Living things, especially humans, are a bit more complicated than just a few bones.

At the end of my book I suggest books for further reading, one of which is Bones of Contention, by Roger Lewin. I read it many years ago, but was amazed at how honest Lewin was about the bone wars that go on and how questionable some of the "evidence" can be. It's a good read.

Okay, so I know that scientists are probably bullied/peer-pressured in many ways to say the fossils are intermediate species.

John: That is an UNDERSTATEMENT!!! And don't be fooled for a minute that scientists look at "evidence" objectively, that is, without bias. That's one big farce of a belief about scientists. They're human just like you and me, and they have biases just like the rest of us. Reputations and jobs to protect. Pride. You name it. One thing I want to drive home, and I'm going to really start focusing on this more, is that we have to make a distinction between "EVIDENCE" or "FACTS" and STORIES about the evidence or facts. Most evodelusionists do not make that distinction. They take the STORIES about the evidence and turn them into the evidence itself. They invent the story line as they go. So, we find a few bones that appear to be simian bones. There's the FACT. Then we invent a STORY (and get an artist to create an imaginary likeness to go along with the story line), and the next thing you know the STORY is now the EVIDENCE. That's why I so often hear that there are "mountains of evidence" in favor of the religion of Evolution, then you find out they're referring to the STORIES, which have nothing whatsoever to do with the actual EVIDENCE.

I also recognize that many of the fossils are only partial reconstructions, and that the dating system is subjective, and that the origin of life cannot even be explained by evolution, and that genetic mutations do not add information.

John: Thank you! Glad I don't have to get into that just now!

But I just want to understand, are these fossils human?

John: In some cases, such as the Neanderthals, yes, they are human. In others, they are extinct species of primates. They all come down to one or the other eventually - guaranteed. There was one in the news not long ago, and I forget the name offhand but no doubt could look it up real quick and impress you like I remembered it, and like I say, these pop up every few months, but it was hailed as the missing link and the final nail in the coffin of creationism and so on and so on. But almost immediately other scientists questioned if it were a missing link at all. So there you see that if they're so cock sure, then why isn't EVERYBODY sure it's a missing link. I mean, if it's so obvious to one scientist, then why not to all? Because it's NOT a missing link, that's why. Only a STORY about the evidence, and soon the story is debunked.

Maybe a deformed human? Or are they apes/chimpanzees? Maybe long-gone species of apes? What methods do scientists use to examine and then name the teeth, the pelvis, the feet—or any other significant structure that would insinuate an "intermediate" being? How am I supposed to respond when I am confronted by images of skulls that don't really match a normal human skull but yet also don't match an ape's skull? What is it then?

John: As I said above, it may be a deformed human, like the Neanderthals, or an extinct species of primate, or even a deformed primate for that matter. This all just shows how desperate these religionists are to prove their that their faith in evolution has substance. They are DESPERATE. They'll grab at any pathetic thing they can to try to prove that the stories they invent are true. Of course, "truth" is another matter, as they have no actual definition of it. If science is a SEARCH for truth, then obviously they haven't found it! And exactly how would they know if they did? How would they know that what they consider "true" today might not be a lie tomorrow? Nobody seems to think about these things! They just all blindly move along, marching in step with their religious leaders, the priests of Evodelusion.

Not all of these fossils have been faked or created by desperate scientists, and due to improper citation of credible sources, I can't tell if anti-evolutionists have misquoted or fabricated some of their evidence against, say, Lucy. Of course, I'’m also not sure how to tell if the scientists have fabricated evidence for, say, Lucy. I just want to know the truth about these bones, so that I can finally rest in peace about them!

John: Interesting you should say that. Let's say they turn out to be real intermediate species. And let's say that evolution turns out to be for real. I guess you will then be able to rest in peace knowing:

  1. 1. That when you die, it's all over and you're nothing but fodder for bugs and other evolving things. In other words, you're not resting in peace, you're just rotting to pieces.
  2. 2. That you will NEVER, EVER have the answers to all the questions you've asked in life.
  3. 3. That your life was, basically, useless, and that you really WERE a nobody floating around in the middle of nowhere with no real purpose for your existence. A transformed monkey, and nothing else.
  4. 4. That anyone who did you or anyone else evil will never have to answer for it.
  5. 5. That all the things science did NOT answer for you will never make any difference to you after all.

We can go on, but I think you get the idea.

I'd really appreciate a response. This is the only stumbling block I have when it comes to refuting evolution. The sources I have read indicate that there's far more than a simple truck load of these strange skeletons, and they also talk about the discrepancies within anti-evolutionist circles about what the fossils are:

John: There is also a ton of material out there about the discrepancies within evolutionist circles about what the fossils are. I hope you'll read those too. It all comes down to whether you're going to believe what the actual evidence shows, or believe the stories that are paraded as evidence.

Let me know your thoughts, and if I'm just missing some glaringly obvious piece of common sense! Thanks!

John: Thank you, too! Excellent letter, and great topic for discussion.

June 25, 2013

(From S., location unknown):

People who think evolution is false are complete morons who should be prevented from reproducing so that their idiot genes never reach the next generation.

John: Thanks for such a fact-filled, intelligent response! Maybe when you reproduce your progeny will return to the ocean! Keep the faith!

June 17-18, 2013

(From P. W., location unknown):

I saw a 4WD driving around today that had signs on both sides saying "Evolution Created the Earth and all Living Things on it". What is with these people? Are they really that stupid? Obviously not talking about Organic Evolution here! Would they even know the difference?

An iPhone didn't assemble itself with all its parts coming from nothing, so how could the far more Human Body do so with its marvelous DNA and complex Brain (just to mention 2 of its parts?)

It is nothing less than pure, unmitigated, unadulterated ignorance to relegate an unproven and untested "Theory" to the realm of so-called "Fact". It takes no argument at all to prove that Evolution is patently untrue. It has never had a shred of "Real" Evidence, only lots and lots of conjecture, assumptions, fakery and forgeries. Show me one single "In Between" Fossil or Missing Link and I might give this Theory a passing glance. Proponents of Evolution have already been given over 150 years to pony up the proof. It's time we put this worthless, ineffective, sow's ear of a Theory to bed for good.

John: Thank you for writing. Love those signs! Just what I've said: They can't help but attribute some "creative" capacity to blind, mindless evolution because it's clear as day to them that things "appear to be" designed. Any fool can recognize design when he or she sees it. Some just have a hard time admitting it for fear of their peers. They're not stupid. They know full well what they're doing.

I just read (well, skimmed through as I could only take so much) a book on "evolutionary psychology." If you want to talk about inventing stories...!! Everything was "probably, might have, could have, maybe, we believe, and on and on. Any REAL evidence? None. They even put the so-called "age of mankind" at somewhere between 300,000 and 100,000 years ago and admitted that was kind of "fuzzy" because we don't have enough bones yet!! Gotta love it! They read bones like Tarot cards. Amazing what stories they can get out of 'em!

(From P. O., Australia):

It [the book] came today all Good thanks mate I convinced my Dad to read it! He is a hard core creationist who thinks the one reason people accept Evo is to refute GOD. Part true but there is more to the picture I htink. Anyway I convinced him to read it haha!

John: I hope your dad does read the book! I want people to THINK and come to the conclusion that evolution is a lie and then seek the truth for themselves. Most evolutionists know what's "out there."

Your dad is spot on with his understanding of the real reason for evolution - they want to refute God. I hope I make that clear in my book. That really is the bottom line. It has nothing to do with "science." There is no science in evolution, just storytelling.

(From S., USA):

I found it hilarious how nearly all the evolution believers kept repeating the same things over and over without any evidence, and the "evidence" they did provide you gave excellent responses. Such as "the loss of tusks" shows evolution in elephants, as opposed to the elephants growing missiles instead of losing their tusks to keep predators away. Yeah, IF elephants do grow tusks again, it would be because that genetic information was somewhere within the code already (just being overruled by the dominant "non-tusk" information, or however you might say it), but due to all the "tusk elephants" being wiped out, that code stopped being dominant within the traits, or the elephants just no longer have that information. Kinda like mixing a black cat with a white cat and then the black offspring are only mated with black cats that had black ancestors, over time they may end up with a few white kittens, but eventually if these black cats never mate with other cats that have no "white trait" in them, no white cats with be born in this family. Genetic information can only lose, not gain new information.

Aside from their "unquestionable facts" that "prove" evolution, it is pretty funny that they are so adamant to prove to everyone that they are literally nothing. There is no right or wrong because there was no intelligence in the beginning (well, they could always just say aliens came and started the Big Bang, haha, like anyone could disprove it or prove it). Which means that everything is subjective, there really is no law, we could make up stuff, but there is no one who actually tells us what is REALLY right or wrong, either term is meaningless in the evolutionary world. Sure, they could CLAIM right and wrong are "built in", but that sure took a lot of INTELLIGENCE that appeared out of "nowhere" in the beginning. Really, if a rapist thinks it is okay to rape, it is okay to rape. If the rape victim thinks rape is hurtful and wrong, it is hurtful and wrong. Neither person is wrong or right. Really, the rules that we have brought into our system are based off Biblical texts, what "evolutionary bible" is there that tells us that murder is wrong or rape is wrong? Oh yeah, there is none.

If evolution is true, then what is the big deal if people "lie" and say that the earth was made by a powerful God? We are all made from nothing anyway, so why stop people from believing that they are meaningful (even if evolution says they are not) and they will go somewhere after death? "Evolution" does not demand progress, there might be some kind of "progress" in the "supposed evolutionary chain", but if we blow ourself out of existence, big deal, like evolution cares.

And "super evolutionists" like Richard Dawkins think that telling your children that they are sinful beings that were saved by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ so that they might enter heaven - is child abuse? What about telling your kids that they came from nothing, they have NO REASON to obey their parents (the only "reason" would be to get something out of it, like toys or something), and evolution does not care if they grow up into murderers, thieves, or rapists. Yeah, that sure sounds like a blessing to tell your kids that.

Even if people cannot figure out how to determine the age of the earth (although, I believe God has told us roughly how old it is, in the Bible), looking at simple LOGICAL flaw in the evolutionary theory, such as WHAT IT WOULD ACTUALLY MEAN IF IT WERE TRUE, is ridiculously questionable. The main reason evolutionists are so comfortable in society is because of people who DO believe in a deity and DO believe that deity has given us rights and wrongs. As people keep denying those truths, society continues to crumble. Yet there are luckily people that still believe the such "theories" are nonsense.

John: Thank you for a FANTASTIC letter, S. I will post it but don't think it needs a response. It speaks volumes on its own.

(From A. D., location unknown):

The ones who believe in Evolution are the ones that DON'T understand Evolution (Hoax); the ones that discarded Evolution are the ones who REALLY understood Evolution."

I just disclose an obvious fact that no one seems to realize.

June 14, 2013

(From F., location unknown):

"Try this: Take nothing and turn it into everything with no direction, purpose, or intelligence. Then write a paper about it. I'll expect it to be submitted within 2 weeks for full peer review."

There is matter, physical laws and chemical reactions. Direction and purpose are suggestions of intelligence which we have no evidence to believe there is. If all life on Earth was wiped out, physics would not cease to exist. Even if there was an intelligence that gave the initial life, evolution still happened. I'm not sure why I got hit with a rock in my back yard yesterday. Could have been a neighbours kid, could have fallen from a tree. no matter the cause it still happened.

And living things do still evolve, Mutations occur in organisms all the time, though, the rate major changes can be seen are much slower than the time individuals are alive to observe it. If you think evolution means you will suddenly grow another arm you are sadly mistaken. If you have evidence that debunks evolution theory you may step up and receive your Nobel Prize. Until then please don't waste your time speaking about something you have demonstrated you obviously know nothing about. Thank you

John: Well, yet another one who believes their ancestor was a fish, eh? Honestly, it really is hard answering the same old pathetic arguments about mutations and "evolution happened," for which you provided not a shred of evidence other than the statement itself (I believe that's called an a priori commitment, if I'm not mistaken, and don't bore me with the real evidence). If you go through the feedback you'll see that I've already addressed the mutation argument ad nauseam. You're wrong, and apparently have no idea why, so please either do the research or don't comment on things about which you are uninformed. Just to go over it one more time, mutations work with what's ALREADY THERE. They do not create anything new. Nor do they explain where genetic information came from in the first place, and how it increased in order to turn stardust into people.

So before spouting off, do a little research, would you? And here we go again with your "proof" that "evolution happens, but we can't actually see it because it takes too much time." Do you people ever THINK about this stuff? No, you don't. Or else you just simply don't want to know that you're a blinded fanatic who believes what you believe by faith, which once again serves to demonstrate my contention that Evolution is nothing more than a modern religious system, of which you are part.

So if we're going to talk about wasting time speaking about something I know nothing about, you, who are obviously much more informed than I, can explain to us all how stardust turned into living things, and how a fish turned into you.

Looking forward to hearing all about it!

(From J. Z., location unknown):

Please return an E-Mail telling me you are just joking around right?

John: Not unless you think I should take having fish as my ancestors and believing we all came from stardust that turned itself into people seriously. If you do, you need to do some more studying and thinking.

(From N. W., USA):

I also think evolution is a load of baloney, but I always hear evolutionists saying that macroevolution is just microevolution on a larger time scale? Is that correct?

John: Yes, the microevolution argument is another Evodelusionist trick to get around the fact that we don't see evolution happening anywhere. It's another appeal to their Time goddess who works all evolutionary miracles. We can't see major changes but we can say that there are lots of minor ones that add up over time. Ok, so WHERE ARE THEY? The first thing they'll do is bring up something like antibiotic resistance, which I've addressed ad nauseam and shown that it has nothing whatsoever to do with turning a bacterium into a biologist.

The fact is, if the "microevolution" gimmick is true, we should be seeing it all over the place in the millions of species of living things that currently exist. We don't. We should also have trillions of transitional fossils in the fossil record, showing these "tiny" steps from simple to more complex. We don't. The fossil record shows fully-formed, fully functional living things, and any "transitionals" are purely the imagination of the fanatics of the religion of Evolution, trying to save the myth. Some of them, like whale evolution, have been demostrated to be patently false. Lies, that is.

Oh yes, by the way, there HAVE been many minor changes with time. Most of them are demonstrably harmful to living things. The few that have been beneficial are only so in isolated environments, and render the living thing LESS able to survive outside those environments. Again, nothing whatsoever to do with evolution from bacteria to Bob and Betty. They had the genetic information, then lost it [through mutation]. Nobody has shown where it came from in the first place, without intelligent intervention.

(From T. G., continued):

oh and another problem I have with evolution is the stories that come with it. For example am I correct in saying the following

Objection number one: chuck darwin is story telling. Every scientist knows that in order to demostrate something to be true one must apply the 3 pillars

John: Excellent. And of course, nobody ever observed what those of the Evolution religion claim happened; they "test" it using false or faulty assumptions (for just one example, where radiometric dating is concerned); and then they can't repeat it. They just make up stories about this or that happened, but we can't see it because it takes too much time. Look at the other feedback I've recently received! Proof! Observed, Tested, and Repeated!!! LOL!

Nobody has ever seen an eye evolve but theyll say' HEY IT DID FROM A MOTHERS WOMB" i respond noooo they cheating again start with whats already there. Heres what irritates me this evolution thing is mostly imagination. They look at already fully developed eye or heart and finger stories on that. Its NOT seen not demonstrated to be possible that alone should make you think but it gets worse.

John: It gets a LOT worse. Trust me. When you try to talk sense with them they call you names instead of thinking about it.

From what I understand the cell has error repairing mechanisms which millitate against chuck darwinism already because the trinity of evolution includes mutations. Without it the cell is doomed and could never develop but it gets even harder for evolutionism. The cell needs a functioning body to operate in and it goes on and on and on. Youd have to IMAGINE a path and IMAGINE a way based on a fully developed eye taking millions of years just to form. Its not documented and nobody tries to develop it to reality.

John: Actually they've come up with quite the imaginary story for how a "light sensitive spot" turned into an eye. Like Evolution knew there would be light to see, invented an eye to see it, and then wired up that eye to a brain that Evolution had also "created" and that had the ability to know the eye was seeing light and know what to do about it. Evolution is just so incredible, isn't it?

WUHAHAHAHAH! It smacks the pillars of real science of its never been shown and there is practically nooooooooooooo record of an evolving eye documented by scientists of the past. they just guess how it came to being but last time i checked relying on guesswork that is not placed out in reality is wishful thinking. People like u and i have to refute an imagination which goes to show how stupid this is.

John: The very first thing I do in my book is quote Giovanni Schiaparelli where he talks about people who use their imagination as a tool of research. That is EXACTLY what evolutionists do. They come up with science fiction scenarios like parallel universes, with no proof whatsoever, or even evidence, and everyone applauds them for it. Nothing to do with science at all. Science fiction, yes, science, no. If, for instance, a creationist came up with the idea of a parallel universe where God lives, he would be laughed out of the room. But if an evolutionist comes up with the idea, he's smart and it's something for us to really ponder.

And even on paper when read carefully is questionable. Every time an 'Example" id cited to prove evolution its normally minor changes and assumed major ones. Where I come from thats idiotic. I hope this argument is valid. Heres another problem NOBODY HAS EVER SEEN NEW INFORMATION ADDED BY MUTATIONS. this much is true and Again how can people overlook this? i plan to write about this stuff so far let me ask you how is it?

MUCH appreciation

John: It is a FACT that mutations add no new information, which of course would be absolutely necessary for evolution to be true. Also, of course, as I've said over and over and over again to the blind believers in the Evoution myth, you have to demonstrate where the information in the genome came from to begin with, not just start with ready-made genetic material. That's cheating, right?

June 11, 2013

(From T.D., continued):

Thanks for the truly hilarious responses. My favorite is where you respond that there are "NO witnesses" to my assertion that there are many fossils that show links between population. LOL Hilarious!!! So by that reasoning even if we did find a fossil of a "blob turning into something" it wouldn't really count because there wouldn't be any witnesses. I guess we should probably just do away with the science of Geology, Paleontology, and most of Archaeology along with probably many others since they don't rely on witnesses.

John: Ahh, nice try, there T! Geology and Archaeology will thrive just fine without your religious myth. Paleontology not as well, I'm afraid. Take away the storytelling and there's not much left. The last I heard was you could fit all the bones from alleged human ancestors in the rear of a pickup truck. Lots of evidence there, I'd say! Keep the faith, T! I guess you didn't read the part about Evolution guru Stephen Gould who stated that the LACK of transitional fossils was the "trade secret of paleontology." Any so-called links are purely the imagination of the fanatical followers of the faith. Apparently you're not going to take me up on reading Evolution: The Grand Experiment. Afraid it might upset the evolved applecart? Maybe you'll see something you don't like?

Look, I freely acknowledge that the hardest thing for Evolution to explain is the origin or life, from inanimate matter to animate organisms.

John: Evolution "explains" NOTHING. Just because you invent some pathetic story to supposedly fit the facts, that's not an explanation. It's a story. A just-so story. A fable. A myth.

I did not once bring that up for debate because I would never disparage what anybody believes on that front. In fact, you really don't know what I believe in those regards. It happened a long time ago,

John: Ahh, yes, it happened SOOOOOO long ago! The classic Evodelusionist cop-out. The other fave is "well, just because science hasn't found out yet, doesn't mean it won't in the future." Keep the faith!

and there isn't much evidence either way, so it basically comes down to belief.

John: Thanks so much for honestly admitting that. I'm serious now.

However, as I said, Evolution is more that just the origin of life. Your insistent argument that a species can not evolve into another species, the focus of my debate, because I can't explain how life began through Evolution is stupid!!!

John: Species do not "EVOLVE" into other species. Can we try this once more - maybe the 50th time I've brought it up in feedback, if not more: The genetic material and information was ALREADY THERE. There is NO EVOLUTION involved whatsoever. And when species become isolated, they don't "evolve" any further because their ability to reproduce has been NARROWED, not expanded. The dog species will always be the dog species. The cat species will always be the cat species. They are not "evolving" into anything but what was ALREADY in the information contained in the parent genome to begin with. That does NOT explain how cats and dogs "evolved" to begin with. Give it up. You have NO argument here.

Furthermore, let's cut the crap. You won't present an alternative hypothesis because you believe in some sort of Intelligent Design. We all know that! You are being truly disingenuous by trying to act like you just want to disprove Evolution, when in reality, the goal is to drive people towards your beliefs.

John: Another desperate attempt to divert the topic. So, like I asked you before, if you only had rotten meat to eat at home, is that what you'd eat because no alternative was presented to you? Are we getting my point yet? If you want to search for an alternative, that's up to you. If you don't like creationism, religion, God, the Bible, the Qur'an, the Talmud, intelligent design, or whatever other alternative you don't like, then come up with your OWN system to replace the defunct evolution myth. I'm sure you'd find plenty of followers.

I mean, what other alternative is there to Evolution? But you can't directly argue for Intelligent Design because then you know that we would skewer you for being an absolute hypocrite. I mean, show me ANY evidence of Intelligent Design. You bring up Galileo saying "If you lived before Galileo's time and wanted to find evidence of a geocentric universe, well, there it was!" But, you missed the point of Galileo. He disproved the theory by proving the evidence supported a heliocentric model better. You instead hide like a coward behind this act that you are just trying to disprove Evolution.

John: Actually Galileo did nothing of the sort. [see Post Script below on that one - John] There are still good models that show the possibility of a heliocentric (not geocentric) universe, believe it or not. If space is supposedly expanding equally no matter what direction we look, without an outside observer, relativistically speaking you cannot prove we're not at the center of the universe.

Galileo also believed in God, in case you didn't know that. And what most people don't know, because they've been brainwashed by you people, is that those who opposed Galileo FIRST were the "scientists" of his day - his fellow professors at the University of Padova. That is a well-known FACT. They were all influenced by Aristotle and Ptolemy, and THEY were the first to oppose him. The Roman church bought into their "science" to explain Scripture, but they were more concerned with Galileo's resistance to their authority than his cosmology and that is what got him in trouble, not heliocentrism.

Honestly you can reply to this if you want, but I won't read it. I've lost all respect for you, since you won't approach this debate from an honest position.

John: Whatever. You're another brainwashed fanatic. There's nothing I can do to change that. If you will not abandon a lie that you've been promoting just because you can't come up with an alternative, that says something about YOU, not me.

John: PS: I was being facetious about Galileo doing "nothing of the sort," btw, and using your fellow Evo's concept of the big burp expansion along with the theory of relativity to show you that we really cannot prove the sun, and some people would even say the Earth, are not at the center of the universe. You can find articles about it online.

(From J. J., location unknown):

You are really stupid to think evolution is stupid. I mean really. You really think there was a giant thing in the sky that made everything. Get ready to have your beliefs changed!

John: Thanks for the intelligent input.

So, tell me, do you believe your ancestor was a fish?

Yes I really do. It's just simple 3rd grade s--t.

[I agree on all three counts: It's simple, third-grade, and, well, you get the rest.]

Actually, J, I do believe a giant thing in the sky made everything. It's called a star. You see, stars exploded and sent debris out into the universe. Some of that debris ended up on Earth. It got together and somehow came alive. It turned into pond slime. Then it turned into fish. Then it turned into amphibians. Then simians. Then YOU and ME!! And you and I are now here to contemplate how that amazing great thing in the sky made us! Man, we're just so smart! How can we possibly believe in any other explanation? That would be stupid of us, wouldn't it?

(From J. K., U.K.):

Thank you John for the update. I have just purchased the Kindle version of your book.

I wish you all the best and please keep me updated on any future endeavors.

John: Thank you so much. I hope you like the book. It's a bit different from what I had on the website.

June 9, 2013

(From B. M., California, USA):

Hey John, I bought your book and it is better than the version you had online. It's good to see you updating your feedback again but it must be quite frustrating to have to repeat the same things over and over again. But then what else can Evolutionists say when there is "mountains of evidence", the fossil record, "evolving" bacteria, and "science" on their side? Keep up the good work!

I came across these quotes from Dawkins which, although, he didn't intend, perfectly defines his faith in evolution.

"Religion is about turning untested belief into unshakable truth through the power of institutions and the passage of time."
"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is the belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."

John: Thanks so much for your input and for purchasing the book. You never know how something's going to go over with people, so thanks for your encouragement too.

I have answered hundreds and hundreds of questions on this topic over the years, including when I worked for an agency as one of their researchers and dealt with the whole gamut from kooks like the guy who insisted apes built the pyramids, to well-known personalities. And you are right: The same questions (or contentions) come up over and over and over. So I had basically canned emails after a time, and would adjust them slightly for each individual. Some people got upset at me over that, but I'd tell them I already responded to that a number of times and really didn't have anything new to say about it! Antibiotic resistance comes to mind as a biggie. For some reason evolutionists just don't get it that that has nothing to do with evolution from particles to people, or evolution of anything else.

Your mention of Dawkins brings to mind that there is one correction to make in the book. On p. 95 at the top the Sagan book should be The Demon Haunted World (which I reference in Further Reading), not The Dragons of Eden. That one slipped by me and we've already corrected it so it should not appear in newer copies.

As far as the Dawkins quotes, he seems to continually put his foot in his mouth. Two items you need to check out are the interview that Ben Stein did with him in "Expelled," and the interview with him in the documentary "From a Frog to a Prince" where he is asked to give an example of an information-increasing mutation. I believe the latter is available on YouTube, but don't know about the former. As for the mutation one, that caused havoc with Evofanatics who immediately did all they could to come to Dawkins' defense.

As for feedback, I'm just starting to get some on the book (which has only been out 2 weeks at this point), so will post that as able. Before I was working 2 jobs, and between that and all the spam the site gets, I hardly had time to wade through and respond. That has changed, and I'm really going to make an effort to keep up with it now.

(From T. D., USA, continued):

T: Well I don't agree, but it doesn't matter, because you are missing the point. The Theory of Evolution does not depend on a creator, or guiding force or "tinkerer," So when you debate against it and associate that kind of thinking with it, then it is easy to disprove and thus seemingly strengthens your overall argument. It is like if I chose to debate Global Warming by choosing my opponent to be somebody who believed that humans have never emitted carbon into the atmosphere. This is easy to disprove and thus might seem to strengthen my position, but in truth I have not tackled the actual reasonable arguments set forth which is stupid.

John: No, T, you are missing the point, which is that Evodelusionists cannot get around using "creative" and "purposive" language. I have garnered plenty of evidence of that over the years, believe me. They can't help but impart some creative or prescient ablility to evolution, whether consciously or unconsciously. But of course they'll deny to the death that Evolution has any creative or purposive nature.

T: John, you are completely changing the subject. Evolution is more than just change from an inanimate material to animate. It is also the change of inherited characteristics of populations over successive generations. Please address the argument I am making and don't introduce other subjects to that argument that are not relevant.

John, you say you believe in Natural Selection but not Evolution, so I am assuming you believe that there is a natural variety within a species where some characteristics present themselves more strongly based on natural selective factors, but one species will never evolve into another species. I gave you a clear example where one species (a wolf) evolved into two completely different species (Chihuahua and Great Dane). Now, I realize that they are all actually the same species, but I argued if they were just discovered today, scientist would clearly label them as separate species. You dismissing this by saying they are all dogs is rediculous. Do you or don't you agree with what I have stated? The fact that a wolf could evolve into such a variety of dogs in tens of thousands of years, to me makes it quite evident that over millions of years life could change quite drastically. I think that idea is far from stupid, and in fact I think not recognizing that is stupid!

John: You are MAKING (or trying to make) Evolution more than just change from inanimate to animate. No matter how hard you try to avoid the issue, that HAD to have happened. It HAD TO. I'm sure you understand that just fine. And it is unscientific and impossible and a refutation of the law against spontaneous generation. You can NOT get around that. Life had to have come from inanimate material to begin with. And again, I get so tired of these same arguments. Inherited characteristics can only come from genetic information that was ALREADY present in the genome. Can't you grasp that? They have NOTHING whatsoever to do with demonstrating how that information arose in the first place, which is a primary requirement of evolutionary theory and mechanics. Why can't you people grasp that? The original wolf-like antecendent had all the information ALREADY present in the genome to allow for descendants that would include those in the dog family. There is NO mechanism that would have allowed it to have acquired new information to make all the dog species. The information was ALREADY THERE. They're all STILL DOGS, of the same basic species. Can't you grasp that?

T: John, I agree with you that internet searches are meaningless. What I meant, but I acknowledge I did not clearly state, was that an internet search of scientific articles yields thousands of articles on evolution full of evidence. For example, if you go to and search evolution there are 36,374 peer reviewed articles on evolution (There are 244 on UFOs for comparison and just browsing the titles many seem to state that there is no proof of their existence). Now I'm sure many of those 36,374 articles are using the term evolution in an unrelated way, or might be arguing against evolution (I would bet very few), but the majority of those are on evolution and if you are going to say there is no evidence in them, in prestigious scientific journals, well that to me is stupid. You can disagree with what the evidence means, but to say it doesn't exist is stupid.

John: Define "evidence." If you want to find "evidence" for evolution, sure, you'll find it. Surprised? Well, I'm not. If you want to find evidence that astrology works, you'll find it. If you lived before Galileo's time and wanted to find evidence of a geocentric universe, well, there it was!. If you want to find evidence that we never landed on the moon, you'll find it. And don't hit me with the "peer review" stuff, please. I've already been over that one too. You need to do some research on BIAS in peer review. What you are finding is NOT evidence for evolution, but rather stories that go along with the mythology. I've seen all the "evidence" for evolution and if you analyze it critically instead of just blindly accepting it, you'll find it's all been contradicted, or shown to be storytelling, or just someone using fancy language to dupe the public into thinking they know what they're talking about because the public puts a certain gullible trust in "experts." I don't. I question them. That's how I arrived at the conclusion that the myth of Evolution is just that. There is no evidence for it. You have the same facts that I have, and I know that the facts do not support the myth. If you want to go on believing it, nothing I tell you will change that. You can't accuse me of blindly denying the Evolution Church, because I used to be part of it.

T: You state that the fossil record doesn't show "blobs turning into things". Honestly, this comment again makes me question whether you understand Evolution.

John: YOU don't understand it. You just blindly accept it.

T: Why would there be blobs turning into things? That's stupid.

John: And just what do you propose was there before cells? Do you read about this stuff, or just pretend to? All you have to do is look at your average "evolutionary tree" and you'll find an amoeba-like blob at the bottom of it. Of course, starting with an actual amoeba is cheating. What do you suppose preceded the amoeba?

T: There are many fossils that show links between populations of animals.

John: That's your blind evolutionary faith at work. They do no such thing. Evodelusionists simply invent "connections" between the fossils to bolster the mythology. So you take a few bones that look similar and invent a story that one changed into the other, with NO actual, hard evidence, NO witnesses, and IGNORING the fact that there's a whole lot more to any organism than just bones, teeth or shells. I have a good friend who used to teach at a medical university. He taught his students how fish scales migrated into the mouth and became teeth, till two students challenged him to really think about it, and suddenly he realized that everything he had been taught, and was teaching, about evolution was a great big fabrication. Get yourself a copy of Evolution: The Grand Experiment (book or DVD). I challenge you to do so.

T: There are fossilized snakes that show tiny hind legs and baleen whales that also had a full set of teeth.

John: SO WHAT? Here we go again, showing that a LOSS of something proves it evolved in the first place!

T: Incidentally, both of these animals still sometimes have legs or teeth as embryos. There are lots of fossils that show the gradual transition from fish to four-legged terrestrial animals starting with the lobe-finned fish.

John: Your evolutionary faith and imagination at work, and nothing short of a miracle will open your eyes to it.

T: This all exists.

John: In your and your cohorts' imaginations.

T: Saying it doesn't is stupid.

John: It doesn't.

T: How do you explain that geologically speaking, the older the strata the more the fossils differ from today's organisms or that fossils of any species are only found in strata younger than their ancestor species.

John: How do you explain the thousands of "living fossils" that completely resemble their "millions of years old" alleged ancestors? How do you explain that the Coelacanth, supposedly your ancestor, and supposedly extinct for something like 90 million years, was found off Madagascar and is now known to be still alive and unchanged?

T: Why don't we find fossilized rabbits from the Permian Period? Did rabbits just magically appear? That's stupid!

John: LOL! If you believe what YOU believe, the answer to that is YES. Where do you propose they came from? Fish? Amphibians? If you don't accept the mythology of how the strata were formed, there's no problem answering that question because there's no "Permian" period to begin with. That's your mythology at work.

T: The fact that you won't present an alternative theory to explain where these rabbits materialized from is stupid and certainly doesn't help your case.

John: I wanna hear yours. Starting with stardust, if you will. And let me repeat, as I'm sure I've said this before, that regardless of whether there is an "alternative theory," that does not justify hanging onto a demonstrably false one. That's like saying that because the only thing you found in your fridge was some spoiled meat, you're going to have to eat that because there's nothing else to eat in the house.

T: Just because you have never seen Evolution in your lifetime lead to a different species doesn't disprove it. I'm an electrical engineer. I've never seen an electron, but I know they exist because when I apply voltage to a circuit is works as predicted.

John: Neither have you or anyone else seen evolution. It's too slow. Isn't that convenient? I've never seen air either, but I know it's there by its effects. NOW. In the PRESENT. I don't have to see an electron. I know it's there by its effects. NOW. In the PRESENT. I've never seen evolution because it's NOT there, neither now, nor never.

T: By the way, I'm being purposely ridiculous by calling everything stupid. I hope you picked up on that.

John: Gee, I totally missed that one. Stupid of me. (I'm being ridiculous now.)

Thanks for writing again.

June 5, 2013

(From K. E., Germany):

Hi John - as I wrote to you half a year ago I am in total agreement with you - that is, that evolution is a myth created to debase people.

Your bravado in answering people who obviously cannot or will not accept that they have been brainwashed is admirable!

That some people cannot or will not understand that you are debunking evolution and are not required to offer any substitute theories shows that many peoples' ability to reason has been severely afflicted.

Anyway, thanks alot for your patience and for sharing your learning - even against the odds of most people gaining meaningful understanding.

(From T. G., South Africa):

Sir its real good to read the feedback now to test your knowledge (lol this it) let me ask the following

DNA is said to be like a supercomputer lol dont ask who but thats  what I read it. if true explain how is  it so. Mutations are deletrous and almost all deadly. Its like spelling error or something like that. Can you explain how this is true?

John:  I think the answer to that is pretty simple, don't you?  Let's take my last name [surname], for example.  People often mis-spell it just by one letter.  So, recently I called a motel to make a reservation.  I told them that my name should be in their system, and spelled my last name for the clerk.  She mistakenly heard the letter "N" instead of "M" in my last name, so my name did not come up in her system.  When she corrected it, there was my name.  That's a simple example, but shows what a difference just one little mistake can make.  In living things that might translate into not being able to stay alive, or having a birth defect, etc.

Second question
How does duplication of information not increase information?

John:  If I say Hello Tom Hello Tom Hello Tom Hello Tom, how have I increased information?  I'm just repeating myself.  But before you get carried away with that, you have to have information to duplicate in the first place - information that has some meaning.  For instance, if I jumble the words Tmo Hloel, that is meaningless to you, even though I've just changed the letters from Hello Tom around.  When I say Hello Tom, you understand, and it has meaning.  So starting out with information already, as Evolutionists always do, the information has to have some useful meaning.  Then if you duplicate it, you've not added anything new.  Extrapolating backwards to the beginning, when particles started supposedly turning into protocells, you need a LOT of FAITH to believe that information came out of nowhere, became part of those cells, and then started replicating itself and becoming more complex.  The likelihood of that is, essentially, zero.

Cant you just take two words like sew and sew jumble them up and create a new word like lol idk and create a word like wees or something. Im not familia with this stuff and I am just curious i dont mean to throw ad hominems at you or be a cynical creep. I also am curious on genetic entropy and I am struggling to get the book so please do help here.

John:  See, you are STARTING OUT with information already there.  You need to understand that.  And you, being an intelligent being, can do something with that information.  What the Evolutionist is saying is, you start with NOTHING and it turns itself into useful information, without any intelligent direction.  That's where the religion of Evolution falls apart.

(From T. H., Netherlands):

I am disappointed you gave up on this discussion because i tough you had some great ponts.

Here look at this. It is also considered one of the many proofs of evolution. The above row is the first month or so of 8 different animal fetusus. Note in the top row the fish in the left looks much like the human on the right.

John: The reason I'm "giving up" is because you are not thinking about what you are proposing as "proofs" of evolution.  For example, Haeckel's embryos, which you show in the picture, was debunked as a FRAUD even by evolutionary scientists.  It is a LIE, do you understand that?  And even after over 100 years, it is STILL being used as a "proof" of evolution when it is nothing of the sort.  I mentioned that in my book.

(From T. D., USA. Follow-up email):

John:  You seem to have completely missed my sarcasm there.  I'm saying the EVOLUTIONISTS impart a kind of "creativity" to their mindless theory because they can't get away from it.  One feedback I recently received called Evolution a "tinkerer."  Oh really? 

T: I would agree that many people mistakenly treat evolution like some sort of guiding force  or a "tinkerer" but the majority of scientists do not, and the Theory certainly doesn't call for that or rely on that.  I stand by my point that you are beating up on a straw man. 

John 2:    I totally disagree.  Most scientists would probably DENY imparting creativity to evolution, but in their words and actions they confirm it.  Dawkins' famous statement about life showing the "appearance" of design is a classic.  I have a book in my collection with the title Nature Thought of It First.  How do you like that one?  And words like "created, designed, purpose, made, etc., pop up in Ev literature all the time.  They can't avoid it.

T: Do you believe in artificial selection then too?  Would you agree that a Chihuahua and Great Dane could never mate successfully in nature?  There's an example of what should be two different species evolving through the mechanism of artificial evolution.  I know that they are not considered two different species, but that has more to do with scientific modesty.  If hypothetically, the dogs were unknown until first discovered on some island they would certainly be considered different species.  So if artificial selection can cause evolution why couldn't natural selection?   

John 2: Obviously I "believe" in artificial selection, which is directed by human intelligence and has nothing to do with evolution.  I really get tired of evolutionists bringing up stuff like this as you all just can't seem to grasp that your STARTING POINT is NOT from inanimate material, but instead is from ready-made information-filled genetic material.  I'm asking you to demonstrate how information-filled genetic material, capable of making a Great Dane or Chihuahua, arose on its own from inanimate "stardust" to begin with.  I'd also like you all to show us where a dog is turning into something besides a dog.

T:  Just a quick internet search yields thousands of scientific articles on evolution that cite all sorts of evidence from the fossil record to genetics.  I honestly don't have time to go through them and write a book like you have (which I do admire), and even if I did, it wouldn't change your mind, so why bother.  So, I will continue to believe in the "myth" as the best explanation yet put forth and you can continue believing whatever you believe.  I will say, that the scientific method starts with proposing a hypothesis and then gathering evidence that either proves or disproves it.  If evidence better matches a different hypothesis then that becomes the prevailing view.  Evolution has thus far held up to the scrutiny.  The fact that you won't state what you believe, or hypothesize, understates your argument.  You will never be able to replace the Theory of Evolution as the prevailing view unless YOU provide an alternative view that better fits the evidence.  I would further suggest that if the point of your book is to convince people that you are right, I would lay off using words like "stupid."  Nothing entrenches somebody's point of view like calling them stupid (I don't actually recall if you call people stupid, but none the less, you imply they are stupid by calling Evolution, a Theory that millions of scientists and people believe in, as stupid).  Just my two cents. 

John 2:  I don't recall if you're the one I responded to on this before, but a quick Internet search will also yield thousands of articles that contradict every notion of evolution, and will also yield thousands, nay millions, of articles on UFOs, astrology, and other assorted quack beliefs.  Again you throw out the "scientific evidence" from the fossil record to genetics without citing anything in particular.  Ok, so let me cite some things in particular.  The fossil record shows nothing but fully-formed, fully-functional organisms.  Not blobs that are turning to things.  Fossil "trees" show fully-formed, fully-functional organisms at their branch tips, with nothing in between.  Again, that's why Stephen Gould said that the lack of transitional fossils was the "trade secret of paleontology."

And genetics should have been the final nail in the coffin of Evolution, but since it's a fanatical religion, its adherents will do what is necessary to twist the truth in order to make it appear to bolster their faith.  Let's go over this again:  Genetics BEGINS with what is ALREADY THERE.  I just don't understand why you guys can't grasp that.  Genes contain information.  If you study information theory, information CANNOT, and DOES NOT arise from inanimate matter.  It has to have an intelligent source.  Enough said.  I've repeated myself on that one too many times.

[Note: I did not call anyone "stupid" in my book. Just because we sometimes believe stupid things doesn't mean we're stupid. As I contend in my book, there are lots of reasons we believe stupid things - peer pressure being one of the biggest factors. But why beat around the bush? Evolution IS stupid. No apologies there. And regardless of what I believe, or what "alternatives" I have not presented, Evolution is still stupid. The lack of alternatives is not a factor in that determination. The theory stands or falls on its own.]

June 4, 2013

(From V. M., California, USA):

Love the book. It should be put in the hands of every school kid in the nation. I hadn't expected it to be so entertaining.

(From T. H., Netherlands):

John: Do you believe your ancestors were fish?  Answer that and we'll see if it's possible to carry the discussion any further. [Note: I requested just a "yes" or "no" and received the following instead - John]:

1. I believe all life originated from water. We consist of 70% water. With the right chemical and surrounding conditions DNA will eventually appear in a very simple and small form. this is supported with the scientific method, witch requires proof to claim something.

Therefore about 400.000.000 million years ago my ancestors where fish. every step since then to us now and before is traceable.

It is very easy to say "lol he thinks his father is an monkey and his grandma an goldfish".

2. We, humans  stopped evolving when after we founded agriculture and created civilisation in witch the weak can survive as easily acknowledge as the strong. We did however grow a lot the last 10000 years and we lost a lot of hair. and in the last 100.000 years we developed vocal folds and a bigger skull.

In nature you can however see developing organs. Like the Platypus. It has hair but still lays eggs. Also the female leaks a protein mixture from her belly for her kids to feed on. She doesn't have a fully developed milk system but she's getting there.


John: Thank you for the response.  I have no further comments.  Thank you for writing, too.  I just don't see the point in continuing our conversation, as you are so blindsided by evolution that I don't believe anything will get through to you short of a miracle.  Your arguments do not demonstrate critical thinking and logic, but rather a brainwashed individual who only sees what he wants to see.

(continued from June 3, 2013):

I like this discussion we're having. I am questioning evolution now. But still evolution is backed up with too much clear evidence to throw the theory away.

You are a creationist that believes the world is about 8.000 years old.

Sorry i keep returning to religion. A word you like to use pretty much. But if it wasn't for your believe in the bible you would never have written that book.

Someone who says evolution is stupid always believes in heaven and hell.

(T. H. Continued..)

Im sorry to have changed subject. I was only trieing to point out that Christianity, witch i guises you hold on to, is not a very logical set of ideas.

John:  Why do you have to keep on bringing up God, Christianity, etc.?  We're discussing evolution and whether or not it is true.  All you are demonstrating is that what this is REALLY about is whether or not God exists, and your blind belief in the religion of Evolution is just your substitute for believing God exists, because you have to come up with some sort of answer for where we came from, why we are here, and where we are going.  You are demonstrating beyond a shadow of doubt that this really isn't about science at all, now is it?  I've tried to avoid discussing God, Christianity, etc., and you can't help but do that.  Just like Richard Dawkins and the rest of your Evolution priests.  You can't avoid the fact that the REAL issue has nothing whatsoever to do with science.

>It is hover appealing to believe, only because it like all other religions ever created by man gives you a friend that's always there. But like Juadism (witch it ironically evolved from)

and Islam it makes the unique promise of ethereal bliss. And of course (unlike Juadism) threatens you with burning you alive if you ever even think of doubting it.

I'm sorry if you don't want to discuss Christianity. I will now return to the debated subject evolution.

You suggest that something being flawed doesn't condone a designer. It does however condone a all perfect, loving and knowing designer being present. 

God can't make mistakes. Note many disabled people.

John:  Once again you demonstrate that you cannot keep the focus on Evolution.

See it is very easy to stigmatize evolution to a theory that suggests the following:

Nothing >> (???) >> Big

bang >> (???) >> Earth >> (???) >> Fish >> (???) >> Monkeys >> (???) >> Humans

John:  Voila!  Now you have understood Evolution in a "nut" shell!  Finally!

when the theory that suggests an almighty being that loves you has put you here on earth is way more appealing at this stage.

John:  And again.....

However the theory of evolution goes way beyond that. Many very smart scientist took a long look at the world.

They saw the earth rotates around the sun and there is no angels flying around in the heavens. This made current beliefs about how the world works way less believable.

John:  That's called an appeal to authority.  So you trust your science gods to never make a mistake?  Oh, and if they do make a mistake, are you going to doubt them the same way you doubt a creator and designer of the world?  I mean, fair is fair, right.  Scientists make mistakes all the time.  So don't you think you should not believe in them?

The theory of evolution descends to the ancient Greek era and out dating Christianity itself. It wasn't told by a burning bush.

It was developed by smart people like Aristotle and Leonardo da Vincie. Later on Darwin Darwin didn't "just white it down."

Charles Darwin used his famous finches he found on different parts of the Galápagos Islands. The finches clearly shared the same ancestors because the islands

where not that old and formed by volcanic activity over time.

John:  Charles Darwin's "famous finches" have been famously debunked as having nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.  If you do your reading you'll find out why.  Charles Darwin didn't explain where finches got beaks (and how Evolution knew right where to put the beaks) in the first place.  Nor has anyone else.  But you believe Charles Darwin because he's your god, and he can do no wrong!

The different groups of finches got separated on each island and the process I explained with the giraffe kicked in and that way the diffraint groups of finches

all developed there own beak suitable for the diffraction foods each island had to offer.

I think the human eye is a better example because it is way more complex. We can see the eye from a very primitive state all the way to complex step by step in nature.

John: That you can look at the designs below [not included here] and think they're the product of a long line of accidents just demonstrates how muddled your thinking is by believing your mythology.  As I discuss in my book, the "eye evolution" bit has been debunked too.  You just read what you want to read and hear what you want to hear.  You have not THOUGHT about it.  USE YOUR BRAIN.  Then tell me how the eye not only evolved,  but how the gods of Evolution figured out just how to wire up the eye to the brain and how the gods of Evolution made a brain that could figure out what the eye was seeing.  THINK!  USE YOUR BRAIN.

You apparently know nothing about the coccyx

:I know in biology it is known as a vestigial organ.

John:  The coccyx is not vestigial.  It is a crucial bone to which muscles are attached.  And once again you're not using your brain.  First of all, virtually all of the almost 200 so-called "vestigial" organs have now been shown to have or have had a function (the appendix is a great example).  Further, to demonstrate how blindsided you are, you haven't THOUGHT through exactly how a "vestigial organ" shows how that organ evolved in the first place.  Once again, as an Evoludeluded religious fanatic, you have bought the party line.  You are using the LOSS of an organ to prove evolution.  THINK!  THINK!  THINK!

I hoped to have helped you to further understand evolution. A very interesting subject.

I cant wait for your response. You give me more understanding on creationism.


John:  Once again, we're not discussing creationism.  We're discussing the question of "How did nothing become something and turn itself into everything?"  How did stardust turn into [you?]?

How is it so hard to understand that all organisms are related to each other.

John:  "Related to each other."  What exactly does that have to do with how they supposedly evolved?  And how exactly are ants related to elephants?  You pick and choose diagrams that show you what you want to see, then invent stories about how they are related so that "proves" evolution?  No, sorry, it doesn't.  All it proves is that they have a similar function, so if a designer was involved, the designer knew it was the best function.  Sort of like a wine bottle and a milk bottle are related, right?  They didn't evolve into one another.  A wine bottle was the best for holding wine, and a milk bottle the best for holding milk.  Why is that so hard for you to understand?

(From K. E., Germany):

Hi John - I'm back. I've continued reading the comments and responses section and cannot believe how emotionally charged this "issue" is.

When I was in grade school and was being taught about the cavemen we purportedly "evolved" from, I did not believe it and never have.

Deep thinking did not cure me, but rather my own instinct. I thought "how on earth could that be true??" Something out of nothing?? The entire world must still be in flux due to evolution. Like you say, baloney.

I think people instinctively know evolution is a crock but because they have been taught from an early age to accept and embrace evolution they cannot bear the thought of it not being true. This is a side-effect of brainwashing. They feel emtionally bound with their lies and cannot face the truth, which would liberate them if they could just let go.

If people were taught or encouraged to trust their own mind and instinct, silly ideas like evolution would be embraced only by a very tiny minority. But we are taught and admonished to trust "experts" and that is where the problem begins.

(Again from T. H., Netherlands):

no, a virgin giving birth to a god that has to get killed by its own people becouse a wommen morphed from a rib and ate an apple is very logical.

John: Ok, we're keeping the topic on Evolution. Somehow you brainwashed evolutionists just can't keep that focus. Of course I know why - you have to try to divert the topic onto other things because you know your own religion of Evolution has no answers or logic to it. So you're arguing that the above is "illogical" while telling me it's logical to believe that stardust fell on Earth and turned itself into human beings of two sexes that could procreate. To you THAT is logical, and for that reason there is no purpose in trying to discuss anything rational with you. THAT is our focus here, not God, not the Bible, not apples and ribs. Oh, wait, let's talk about how apples and ribs evolved. Of course, according to you, it's perfectly logical that ribs evolved and knew right where they were supposed to be in the body. Evolution doesn't think, but it sure does a good job of getting things right, doesn't it? And isn't it amazing how evolution invented seeds, put them inside the apple, and somehow magically put all the information in the seeds to allow a new apple tree full of apples to grow! And that happened ALL BY ITSELF, with no intelligent guidance. Very logical, rational, and scientific of you to believe that. Pat yourself on the back for your astuteness!

I dont see what pointing out flaws in the design of the huiman body has to do with being unable revieving a muscito.

John: I don't see what a God getting killed by his own people has to do with whether the religion of Evolution is true or not.

You try to point out life is way to complex for the absence of a desinger. I am trying to point out that if there is a desinger, this desinger wouldnt be all perfect for giving us a tailboine with no use except hurting yourself.

John: You apparently know nothing about the coccyx other than what some of your deluded evolutionist friends have told you. So, let's follow your "train of thought" now. According to you, what YOU perceive as a flaw in the design of the coccyx (which of course YOU could have designed better) somehow proves that the coccyx and everything else in nature created itself from nothing. Yes, there's evolutionary logic for you! So following your "logic," if a computer has a flaw in it, that proves it was not designed. The Hubble telescope originally had a flaw that needed to be repaired. That proves the telescope was not designed.

I wouldnt be able to create a organism from scratch, but i would be able to play god and change the genetics and breed new spiecies of animals. something you claim to be something preserved for a all powerfull god. please check out this link:

John: Once again your "logic" shows that you haven't even thought this through. That's what's so tiring about trying to get through to you brainwashed evolutionists. Let's see if we can do it this time. Ok, you're going to "breed new species." Are you going to start with stardust, or with already fully functional genes? Oh, you're going to start with fully functional genetic material? Good. So far we've defeated any arguments in favor of genetic material arising on its own from stardust, because you're starting out with fully functional genetic material without telling me how it formed itself from stardust.

Then you're going to manipulate that genetic material. Are you an (otherwise) intelligent being with a design and purpose in mind? Or are you just going to stare at the genetic material real hard and hope it does what you want it to do? Can't you see the blatantly obvious flaws in your so-called rational reasoning? No, you can't because you're a blinded Evolutionary fanatic, that's why.

If god wanted me to belive i would belive.

John: If Evolution wanted you to believe, you'd believe. We're talking about the religion of Evolution. You are one of its fanatical adherents. You have chosen to believe it. If you wanted to believe something else, you would. That's your choice. You've chosen to believe and propagate, a lie that has no basis in fact nor reality.


(Doubting) Tomas

John: Regards to you, from one who no longer believes your pope Darwin.



Its very simple, Just leave out the tail bone, tonsil, the hiccup and cecum. A pair of wings would be fun as well, and the testicles are somewhat poor placed. The quite painful and dangerous delivery a of a child to earth is kinda poor designed for a all knowing and powerful being. But all these flaws that can be seen as proof of evolution. Especially note the tailbone.

It doesn't take a genius to note humans fit in the same category as other animals, mammals in particularly. Our body isn't much different than any other mammal species. Just take interest in some biology and don't be afraid your all loving god will torture you for it.

Also resurrecting a splashed muskito doesn't prove evolution. Note there is no missing link in the evolution theory.

Also evolution is no religion. Religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to the supernatural, to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values. You should look up exodus 21-7 for that last part.

I'm glad if this could help you better understand evolution and greetings from The Netherlands.


A god created atheist.

PS; I love you, life is beautiful.

John: If it's all so "simple" as you say, you should have no problem re-creating that squashed mosquito or designing and constructing a human being that works better (according to YOUR model, of course, which will no doubt be flawless and leave us all with evolved mouths agape). Your contentions and diagrams are so foolish that I just don't have the desire to respond, as it would be a complete waste of both my time and yours.

Keep the faith, and keep on preachin' brother!

And by the way, foolishness begins with calling yourself an atheist. Atheism starts out will illogic and deteriorates from there. Why? Well, we start with asking the atheist, "Do you know all there is to know?" Even atheists are honest enough (though they have no standard for honesty) to respond, "No."

Then we follow up with the simple question, "If you do not know all there is to know, is it possible that one of the things you do not know might be God?

That's where the atheist then breaks his honest streak because he knows he's been backed into a corner, and he's shocked at how simple it was to do so.

No one will accuse the atheist of having a corner on the logic market. That's one reason I couldn't stomach reading Dawkins' The God Delusion after about 100 pages. His arguments were so poorly reasoned that it was like listening to the rantings of a child.

And let me get one more thing straight:
If you believe you were created by COD, you're intelligent.
If you believe you were created by GOD, you're stupid.
Is that correct?

May 30, 2013

(From Alex, France):

As for witnessing Evolution: A scientist named Lenski observed over 50000 generations of E Coli bacteria for about 24 years and at about 20000the generation a sudden mutation were discovered where E coli was able to synthesize Citrate (Which is like rocks becoming edible for humans) . . . . . U can read about it Wikipedia

John: I don't need to read about it. That's just one more pathetic attempt to "prove" evolution. If it was such an exciting "proof" then why hasn't the average person been notified of this momentous news? I love the way Evodelusionists like yourself bring up these desperate, obscure "examples" about how BACTERIA evolve. As if that somehow proves that bacteria turned into people. Further, the example you bring up once again has NOTHING to do with evolution from particles to people, but EVERYTHING to do with "nature" working with what was ALREADY present. In other words, the material to supply the mutant strain was already there. You'd do well to read the OTHER side of these stories, as there's always a rebuttal to every so-called "proof" of evolution. Of course, if you're an Evofanatic, though, you'll only read what you want to see. Try this article on for size [link removed.]

As for invented fairy stories, this particular argument get thrown about a lot... better not use it.

John: Why not use it? Are you afraid it's true?


You know, Alex, I got to thinking some more about your email. I believe it's one of the best examples I've seen of how desperately you evolutionists will look for any little tiny shred of an example that MIGHT "prove" your cherished myth. Think about it: There are countless billions of living things in existence. They all supposedly evolved, right? So technically they should all STILL be evolving somehow, right? But the only example you can come up with of a "proof" that particles turned themselved into plants, animals and people, is an obscure experiment (and I remind you that experiments are designed and created, with a specific goal in mind, so right there that negates any connection with mindless evolution) where a scientist took TWENTY FOUR YEARS of culturing E. coli bacteria to come up with ONE mutation that, according to you and othe evolutionary fanatics, vindicates evolution. The fact that you are that desperate for any bit, no matter how tiny, of "proof" for the evolution myth, speaks volumes.

(From B. H., USA):

From how we evolved from nothing, that's still up for debate, there are many great theories about how life began and we are still finding out which one is correct. That is science, that's how it works, if we all took the first theory that came to us we'd all be still in the stone age.

John: Wow, you just addressed about a half dozen issues I confront in my book! Starting with evolving from "nothing," then on to the "great theories" which are really nothing more than STORIES that have nothing to do with real science, then about how "science works" by showing that the stories are really stories, then about the "stone age" that never really existed.

And by the way, evolution has been observed in the lab using E.coli. Yes, this is bacteria and it might seem to you to be insignificant because they are so small, but they are alive and evolving. If you want to see a large change in a large organism, say, a person, you're going to have to wait a long time, that's because evolution is a slow process.

John: Just hit on a few more! E. coli is not evolving by any way shape or form. That's just one pathetic example Evolutionists try to foist on the unwary public. If you're referring to antibiotic resistance, that has NOTHING to do with evolution. As for having to "wait a long time", now isn't that convenient for the Evolution mythologizer? Stop and THINK about this stuff, would

And I'm so sorry I didn't 'enlighten you', I don't have to, if your so stupid as to believe in god, Allah, the all mighty, Parvardigar, or what ever you want to call this fart of bad literature, then its probably for the best that you aren't enlightened. We don't need your idiocy.

John: You may not need my idiocy, but some education would help. And once again, we see that no matter how hard I try to keep the focus on the stupidity of Evolution, the Evo fanatics always have to try to drive down another street to avoid the issues.

If you want to know more about evolution, pick up a book about it, there are thousands. And if you, by reading one book think you know it all or more than someone who spends there entire life reading thousands of books, papers, and information, then you are clearly small minded and have no idea of what it is like to part of the scientific world.

John: ZZZzzzzzzz. I am amazed at how many of the very issues I address came up just in your one short letter. THANKS for writing!

(From G. M., USA):

I've read through your entire website and I must admit, in the first few paragraphs I got the impression that you are one of those ignorant nutters that misinterprets and misunderstands concepts and then rants about them.

John: Nutter, yes. Ignorant, no. ;-)

But I stuck with it and I came to understand what it was that you were saying. Perhaps a better title for your website would be "Atheism is Stupid" because that's what it boils down to in my opinion. (I would completely agree with the sentiment of that title as well).

John: Hmmmmm. New book? I had thought about Astrology Is Stupid, too. Maybe a series coming up! There's certainly no lack of material "out there."

I also get upset when I hear people say that everything that exists is accidental and without meaning or design; they are denialists. Is it that that divides the evolutionists to the creationists? If so, then I wonder how I would be labelled.

John: As a nutter, perhaps? That is, if you don't buy the party line that nothing became something and turned itself into everything.

I am inclined to accept theories that explain possible ways of how living organisms change and improve over time. I also don't have any problem acknowledging the theories of how life got started in the first place. For me that is what the study of nature is all about.

John: Are they "theories" or mere STORIES? Organisms do NOT improve over time. That's at least 50% of my argument. Time destroys things.

To be honest I have not read any works on evolution. What I know of it has been through word of mouth and the occasional reading on the subject. Question; Is it written, in any of these books, something to the affect of 'This book is about evolutions and therefore disproves God'? I don't understand your hatred of the subject.

John: I hate the subject because it is a lie that is being paraded as truth. Read my book. I'm not just trying to get you to buy it, but it doesn't cost a lot. I've approached other elements of the topic in the book. I hate astrology and the search for ET life fiction too, and other lies. I love truth. Evolution provides no basis for truth. Make up any story and agree or disagree with it.

My point is, if we can agree that the laws and mechanics that govern the universe, and indeed the existence of the universe itself, exists because God made it so, then why can we not study and research the notion that the universe and life did evolve? The study of evolution is a study of the natural world and in no way makes me doubt the existence of God.

John: If you read evolutionary literature, as you admit you have not, you will soon find that the real purpose of the Evolution religion is to avoid any notion that any god or God had anything whatsoever to do with the creation of the universe. Sure, evolution doesn't have to cause you to doubt the existence of God, but the question is, if Evolution is true, why do you need God? I have tried so hard to keep the focus of discussions on evolution only, but it ALWAYS comes around to God and creation and the Bible, and so on. Ask yourself why.

Oh by the way, with regards to fossil records. Fossils don't just form every time something drops dead. Fossilisation requires the right conditions. There are many reasons why failed evolutionary traits do not (and probably would not) show up as fossils. So just because they don't does not mean that they never existed.
Some of those reasons would include: the embryo would have failed before birth or if it was born, would have been unable to survive for long due to the failed hereditary trait, or lack thereof. Or let's say that it did survive and live to a ripe old age before kicking the bucket. The world is full of predators and scavengers that would have gobbled it up in no time leaving nothing TO fossilise.

John: I think you're agreeing with me there without realizing it.

Anyway, I guess the real question for me is; was life a result of divine intervention? Or was it the result of a process that was set in motion by the creator at the beginning of time? I am not holding my breath on finding that answer any time soon though.

John: Keep on thinking! One question to leave you with: If it was a process set in motion by "the creator" at the beginning, do you think that "creator" communicated that to us in any way?

(From T. D., USA):

I tried to read through most of your book and I have to say that I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. You keep acting as if the Theory of Evolution states that evolution is some kind of intelligent being that says to itself "I will give wings to these lizards now!" Or that the creatures can think to themselves that they want some mutation and by magic it happens. Whether you believe this about evolution or not that certainly is how you portray it which is completely misleading.

John: You seem to have completely missed my sarcasm there. I'm saying the EVOLUTIONISTS impart a kind of "creativity" to their mindless theory because they can't get away from it. One feedback I recently received called Evolution a "tinkerer." Oh really?

For example as evidence you state "wings and things don't just magically appear on animals and magically function just right". Do you believe that the Theory of Evolution states that one day ta dinosaur has a baby which turns out to be a chicken? It doesn't work that way. It is gradual. So I'm sure your next point is "What is the purpose of half of a wing?" Well there are plenty of advantages: a half-wing could help an early reptile glide between trees and thus escaping predators while a reptile without a half-wing gets eaten before it can propagate. And then more mutations occur where the longer the wing the better chance of survival thus propagating the mutations for longer wings. Then an animal has a mutation allowing it to primitively flap it's wings allowing it to stay in the air longer and so on. Please understand that most mutations are not helpful but that is why this process takes millions and billions of years. You point out that "in fact things fall apart with time," which seems like a reference to the Second Law of Thermodynamics which states that in a CLOSED system entropy will increase. But the Earth ain't exactly a closed system is it (think sunlight!!!)?

...I guess this means that you do believe in Natural Selection then?

John: Yes, I believe in natural selection. It has nothing to do with evolution from particles to people.

Basically, your argument seems to be that believing in Evolution is stupid because YOU can\'t wrap your head around it. The bottom line is that there is plenty of evidence supporting evolution. Look into any scientific journal. Just calling it stupid proves nothing.

John: If you say so. Read the book. As usual, the tired argument about "plenty of evidence" for evolution, and you've provided NONE. Keep on believing the myth, though!

(From M. N., USA. This letter was VERY long and has been abbreviated):

I recently came across your site and read your pronouncements with interest. Like you, I've followed the public dialog for many years, although obviously not with the constancy and intensity you have... But even 15 years out of school I caught the misapplication of the Second Law of Thermodynamics [elsewhere - John]. Obviously I'm not the only one to have caught this slight-of-hand, as this argument has since disappeared from creationist literature. As well, the determination that whales could not have evolved from land animals, for lack of intermediate fossils (in my first copy of Pandas and People), has also been purged. It's good to avoid promoting absence of proof as proof of absence, because the real world has a way of making fools of the arrogant.

John: The 2nd Law is still alive and kicking in creationist literature. No reason it should not be. As for whale evolution, you need to see Evolution: The Grand Experiment, where he exposes their deception.

...The Washington Post had a full page spread on a new Theory of Intelligent Design and a new Discovery Institute. Okay, I found their web site, and a lot of reference to this theory, but the theory itself was not there. Just statements like, the complexity of life points to the necessity of a designer, or look at all the patterns, has to have been designed. No mention of how often the designer visits, what he or she does, how a new design gets introduced and supplants the earlier one, just that there has to be one. Lots of attacks on evolutionary theory

John: The ID movement is just one more branch of those trying to crack the facade of Evolution. I realize they don't answer the question of who is the designer, but I don't either in my book. I understand what they're doing, and it's good. Have you watched the documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"?

...Instrumentation improved to the point that minute variations in the CMBR could be detected and found to correspond to mappings of galaxy clusters, it has become increasingly difficult to deny the Big Bang; apparently the universe actually did have a beginning. And let's not forget the importance of this lumpiness; without it energy would be uniformly distributed over an enormous space and the universe would be by now a cold, dark place. The lumpiness not only provides the impetus for the spin that you deride in your book, it also provides something to spin.

John: As far as I'm concerned, and I have read other possibilities for the CMBR, the whole scheme is part of the desperate attempt to verify the Big Bang. I know about the attempts to justify breaking Newton's laws of motion by appealing to the "lumpiness" but again, Evolutionists break every scientific law there is to "prove" their cherished mythology. I just read an article in Sci Am yesterday about some of the latest challenges to Alan Guth's "inflation" theory. I hadn't realized that in his theory, gravity initially had to be a "repulsive" force! I loved that one. Not to mention the fact that the initial expansion was supposedly many times faster than the speed of light. So with evolution (abiogenesis is another) we can break whatever physical laws we wish as long as it somehow "proves" the theory.

All this brings me back to my puzzlement - why does the Big Bang offend you? It's one of the few results from science that I'm aware of actually diminishing the timeline, as you appear to wish.

John: The expansion of the universe doesn't offend me in the least (if that is, in fact, the reason we see redshift, for instance, as there are other explanations for that, too). What offends me is the lie that everything made itself out of nothing, starting with the Big Bungle.

...Remember, biologists make use of evolutionary theory only because it's a useful tool - nobody is spending research money to prove evolution. If it (or Big Bang) proves useless, if something better comes along, it will be abandoned in a heartbeat, to the tune of batch new Nobels.

John: Evolution is not a useful "tool" for anything. It's totally unnecessary to the advancement of science. It's a creation myth. I attack that notion in my book.

I have to admit your treatment of singularity is novel, to say the least. A singularity is a point at which the rules of physics, as we experience them, break down...

John: M, I don't have to read past your first line above. Once again, the laws break down to "prove" our myth. How convenient. Too bad nobody can test and repeat it by having another universe create itself from a "singularity."

Thanks again for writing, but if you do so again, please make it shorter!!

(From C. C., USA. Abbreviated.):

Hi, John, wanted to write in to say that I really appreciate what you've done here. I was tempted to accept evolution once, and I decided to spend however much time (which turned out to be about ten years) researching heavily what people on both/all sides say and eventually I had to conclude that, as you say, evolution really makes no sense, and there's no actual evidence for it, at least not by any sensible definition of "evidence for" (they can invent ad hoc "patches" as I call them to explain away any inconsistency, but this is unreliable and could be done by anyone to make anything seem plausible). Wanted to say a few things, sorry if this is too long [note from John: Posted portion is abbreviated].

I, too, have noticed that, just like in their feedback comments, it is incredibly difficult to get them to stay on-topic when asked to give logically sound support for their conclusion. They always want to make it about me/us, or our views (which I personally don't mind, as I do like to explain specifically my own opinion, but I really appreciate your approach here of simply "putting their views on trial" -- the very fact that they try so hard to wiggle out of it shows that they know their emperor has no clothes). As a committed logician and truthseeker, this is what I always want in any subject...

For example, the majority believes it! (Do they? Or are they afraid of reprisals so they keep their mouths shut when it comes to their doubts, and if questioned they spout the party line because failure to express approved thoughts is just as bad as expressing unapproved thoughts? But more to the point, this thinking is fallacious -- unreliable -- because it's possible for a majority to believe something even though it's false, like that a bull in a china shop will inherently result in chaos -- watch Mythbusters.)

Then they get into the cleverer ones. You can't disagree with evolution unless you show us peer-reviewed scientific articles saying it's wrong! (But if we allow ourselves to think, is it possible for us to spot reasons it can't be true, while those running those peer review gangs have ulterior motives for refusing to allow those points to be published?) I especially love the one that doubters of evolution cannot be scientists, so even if you do link to peer-reviewed articles by scientists who doubt or disagree with evolution, explaining soundly why evolution can't be true those don't count, or if you link to even evolutionists' PRed articles showing problems, those problems can't possibly be used to argue against it because the evolutionists themselves still give lip service to the faith... er, sorry, theory... sorry... fact!

So sound logic means nothing to these guys.

Incidentally, to their insistence that you can't doubt evolution unless you present an alternative, they are unwittingly admitting that they aren't concern with seeking pure truth themselves, if you think about it. A part of the process of finding truth that I've come up with is to employ what I call "systematic uncertainty" (that's fancyspeak for "it's smart to admit when you don't know the answer" :-P). Even if only one idea had been thought of to answer a question, and that idea was shown to be such absolute lunacy as evolution has been, so be it! The better to stop distracting us from seriously researching what the TRUE answer might be! There is certainly nothing wrong with standing up for the truth, even if that truth is merely "evolution is false." (And half the time the evolutionists I talk to contradict themselves on this anyways, as they'll define science as testing and disproving bad hypotheses, lol.)

And don't ever be disheartened if it seems like you're alone or nearly so in doing so. Even if one person speaks the truth, it is still true... and you are really not alone at all. Personally I suspect, as you said too, that the vast majority of people -- even scientists! -- don't believe evolution at all, but they're just afraid...

And besides all that, I "loled out loud" (kudos for all who catch the allusion ;)) several times reading this, and you know, as the saying goes, they really had it coming. Thanks for your courage! I'll be sure to pass this on.

(From T. G., South Africa):

Wuhahahhahaha...[abbreviated!] WHAT COMEDY! I LOVE YOUR WEBSITE AND WAYS OF DEBATING. I was only in it for few minutes and I am already laughing my head off its so amazing how people will believe anything but God. People like you inspire me to wanna read science and I am so grateful that you do this, I gotta ask how did you know so much about biology. Looking forward to getting your response and maybe one day I'll speak on these matters to.

John: Glad you enjoyed it. I'm [also] glad I inspired you to want to read science, or read anything! I'm a big fan of books!

As I mentioned on my website, I studied biology and had some jobs in that field, besides reading a lot. I've also answered hundreds of questions over the years that have forced me to research things.

May 28 - March 31, 2013

(From M. G., USA):

Why should I read a book about evolution by someone who doesn't even understand evolution? Scientists don't say a fish turned into a chimpanzee turned into a human as you wrote. That would be proof against evolution.

You claim you have given me information supposedly debunking evolution, but all you have done is proven your ignorance. You spout your opinion but never give any facts. From reading your online book and from your responses on email, I've learned that you do not understand evolution or the big bang theory or the difference between the two.

I decided to look through your online book to find something you wrote that was easy to disprove with undeniable facts. I found this little ignorant gem that you wrote.

"There should be lots of fossils found under the ocean but there are none."

What!? Ever hear of fossil fuels? Wildcatters drill for oil under the ocean, you ignorant fool. Oil is a "fossil fuel" made of the decayed remains of plants and animals. But that's not all. Ocean trawlers bring up bones of mammoths, giant ground sloths, bison, horses, whales, etc. all the time. Moreover, scientists use fossils of foraminifera found in ocean sediment to determine exact past average temperatures over the past 100,000 years. They take these cores in ocean sediment.

You don't know or understand anything about science.

John: As I said, when you have to resort to ad hominems, it's proof you're a fanatic who believes blindly and is having his faith threatened.

First, you need to do your homework. There are those (including a petroleum engineer friend of mine) who believe "fossil" fuels form abiogenetically. You should like that word. Anyhow, do a bit of research on it. Regardless of how they form, a fossil "fuel" and a fossil are not the same thing, as you well know. When you show me where fossil beds containing millions of fossils were found on or beneath the ocean floor, then we'll talk.

As far as not knowing the difference between the big burp and evolution, I have plenty of company among your science priests, including (say the name in a whisper now!... Stephen Hawking). You apparently haven't read much on the subject. Even your science priests recognize that they can't divorce the origin of matter and space from the origin of species and just start out with already developed species. They had to come up with some kind of story about where the species came from in the first place. Apparently you haven't caught on to that yet.

Finally, regarding foraminifera and past "average temperatures over the last 100,000 years," again that's your mythology making assumptions. With no one actually having OBSERVED the sediments form over that time period, you BLINDLY accept that they formed under uniformitarian conditions, despite all evidence to the contrary [link to online article removed]. But despite knowing that they clearly could not have formed at an even rate, and knowing that environmental conditions would play a major factor in their formation, preservation and deposition (from my reading, some of the SAME species are found at different levels, but because of the usual Ev circular reasoning, they're decided as different species because they're found at different levels), etc., you BLINDLY accept that they "prove" your millions of years bull because you NEED them to do so.

Regardless, the foraminifera are just one more straw that the Evodelusionists have to grasp on to to bolster their faith in the myth.

(continued from M. G.):

Your list of scientists from Dissent from Darwin is full of s---.

The so-called scientists who signed that document were either not qualified scientists or they were misled into signing the document.

You claimed that there were alternative scientific theories to evolution. You failed to come up with one. You lose that point. Case closed.

BTW, abiogenesis has not been disproven. Recent studies found that self-replicating RNA could be produced in a lab. This experiment supports the possibility that abiogenesis can occur in nature.

John: You are living proof that when one is brainwashed, no amount of information to the contrary will convince you.

And your little dissertation on abiogenesis is further proof.


Evolution is considered a scientific theory by 100% of biologists.

John: Wrong. However, that's kinda like the "what flies eat" argument, isn't it? I don't need to get into what a fallacious argument you are presenting there, do I? It should be self-evident to anyone familiar with the history of the sciences. And I might remind you that I have a B.S. in Biology and have done a good bit of work in the field, and know biologists, doctors, PhD scientists, meteorologists, astronomers, petroleum engineers, ranchers, teachers, chemists, and people in lots of other professions, NONE of whom accept evolution as either factual OR scientific. It's a religious myth that attempts to answer the basic questions of who we are, why we're here, and where we're going, and nothing more or less.

Biologists are scientists, not preachers.

John: So you say.

Scientists adhere to the scientific method.

John: Scientists are not super-humans, despite the way your religion tries to paint them as such. They are fallible, and subject to the same sins of the flesh, mind and spirit as the rest of us. When it comes to money, pride, job security, and little things like that, you can bet scientists will fudge now and then. Pretty well been demonstrated.

Are you really so dumb you don't know the difference between science and evolution? You conveniently changed the subject. You falsely claimed there were alternate scientific theories to evolution. You discovered you were wrong, so you changed your argument to avoid admitting you were wrong.

John: Never falsely claimed anything. There are alternatives to evolution. Scientific ones. Good scientific ones. Plausible scientific ones. Believed by top scientists all over the world. Hope you'll join them some day and put your fantasaical myth behind you.

In our last email you admitted the big bang theory and the theory of evolution were 2 different theories from 2 different scientific disciplines. Are you a senile, forgetful, old man?

John: Stop beating around the bush. There are numerous scientific disciplines involved. But they all believe the same mythology. Get to the point and answer my question: How did nothing become something and turn itself into everything? And the nothing came from nowhere, too. But don't get on that, or I'll just repeat my question.

Astrologers and UFOologists don't get published in academically accepted scientific journals. Try reading the Journal of Evolutionary Biology. You might not think "evolution is stupid," if you actually tried to understand it which you clearly do not.

John: I'm sure an astrologer or UFOlogist would disagree, tell you to read their publications, and accuse you of not even trying to understand their "theories." Ok, now back to my question [above].

I challenge you to name 1 other scientific theory to evolution. I'm 100% sure that you can not because there are none. Zero. Zilch.

John: I challenge you to show me how something came out of nowhere and turned itself into everything. That's the issue here. You, as the rest of the brainwashed evolutionist religious fanatics, can't answer that.

Evolution can be seen, tested, and observed. There are mountains of scientific journals that have published papers supporting the theory of evolution.

John. Zzzzzzz..... Here we go with the "mountains" of support. Give me just one rock. I'm sure there are mountains of papers published by UFOlogists, astrologers, ghost hunters, and so on. Anybody who wants to prove their point and find followers to go along with it can do so, especially if there's an agenda involved.

You do not know what you are talking about. Just because science disproves your idiotic belief in a literal translation of the bible doesn't mean it's wrong. John: Tsk, tsk. I've tried so hard to keep you fanatics targeted on the point and off the diversionary tactics. We're not discussing the Bible. We're not discussing creationism. We're not discussing translations. We're attempting, at least, to discuss how something came from nothing and made itself into everything. Can we keep the focus on the "mountains" of evidence for that, please?

Ok, name 1 biologist employed by a public university who rejects the theory of evolution.

John: LOL! You have to narrow down the playing field, eh? Ok, name one biologist who belongs to your evolutionary religious system who can tell me how life sprang from non-living matter. If you want to see a big list of scientists who don't buy your darwinian mythology, go to and download the list. Have fun!

And name 1 other plausible scientific theory to the theory of evolution.

John: That doesn't exonerate your evolution myth from being stupid and untenable. That is my point. Stop going off on rabbit trails. The existence of no other "theory" does not validate yours. Keep trying.

You are incapable of doing this as your response proves.

John: My responses are trying real hard to keep you focused on my original point, viz: that evolution from stars to Starbucks is impossible, non-scientific, untenable, illogical, and a religious myth.

Looks like you are confusing 2 completely different theories again. The Theory of abiogenesis is not the same as the theory of evolution.

John: Here we go on another rabbit trail. So you and your biologist friends can show how non-living elements turned into living things, then? Go for it!

You ARE senile. You can't remember conceding a point, and then you go back to the same point when you are incapable of countering my point.

John: Now we enter into the world of ad hominems. You know you have no case, so attack the person. The classic pattern I've grown so used to from you evolution fanatics.

Your logic is the equivalent of a dog chasing its tail.

John: Ditto the above. Oh, and MY logic? Give me the logic in believing that stars exploded and threw all the right elements onto the Earth, which then came alive and turned themselves into you. If that's YOUR logic, yes, we'll get nowhere.

Your question is stupid and has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution doesn't say something came from nothing, and neither does the big bang theory.

John: Wrong again. Unless you believe the Steady State theory, which begs the question to begin with by assuming everything has always been here.

Evolution is not stupid. You are stupid.

John: Aww, shucks. I'm gonna go in a corner and suck my fortunately evolved opposing thumb right now.

May 27, 2013

(From P. O., Australia):

Hello John, thank you for your book of common sense. I have been thinking a lot about this poisonous theory and everything I have thought on it you have written in your book and more. Things like Evolution being a religion with just as many contradictions as any other religion. More in fact. The words evolutionists create; you talked on that, the stupid analogies; you; talked on that. I am so glad I read this. I started feeling alone, like no one else saw these things you wrote! Other religious people just say to me I do not believe in evolution, that denies GOD and that would be the end of there argument. Evolutionists are bent on it being a reality. Only now that I read this book of yours, have I hope that others see what I see, what you write is truth!

Thank you for standing out, you have the credentials and you are the perfect candidate to refute Evolution and not be dismissed by the millions as ignorant! You're here to fix this hahaha

John: Judging by the tone of your email, you're serious and not pulling my leg (as some try to do), so thank you VERY much!

May 20, 2013

(From B. M., California, USA):

This is a great site. I just discovered it within the last week and have read everything... You mentioned in several responses that you were getting lots of spam. I also assume you were getting a lot of feedback that you could not print - evolutionists love to use profanity. So, just in case you do check this email...Thanks!

John: Thanks very much for your feedback. And yes, I've been called every name in the book by the nice folks in Chuckie Dee land.

April 24, 2013

(From E. D., Albania):

I am from Albania and I have nothing to add to the fact that evolution is stupid. It is mind spinning to see so many "wise" men phds or whatever especially in the western world upholding this sand based theory.

I am in China now and a few days ago I talked or better tried to convince a Chinese friend over the futility of evolution. There is more wisdom in my little android phone bible then in the whole huge library of the university because none of books can lead to life.

April 13, 2013

(From C. R., Australia):

hey man. would just like to make the point that you seem to have interpretted the theory of evolution as an organism percieves the need to evolve in some way, chooses how to do so and then evolves.

Rather, the way i understand it at least, mutations occur naturally and randomly. Those organisms whose mutations allow it to have a greater chance of survival, have a greater chance of survival.

Just saying since a large portion of what i read was hating on evolution as if it was a conscious process.

John: No, I'm not the one who has interpreted it that way. The Evodelusionists have. They take something that has an obviously designed purpose and work up a story about how Evolution came up with it, as if Evolution knew that the organ or whatever was necessary to the survival of the organism, or would even function. Ask yourself, for example, "How did Evolution know there was even an atmosphere around the Earth in which birds could fly?" It didn't? Well, isn't it convenient then, that Evolution came up with all the correct apparati necessary to a fully functioning bird? How'd it do that? Well, if you read the Evodelusionist's stories, you'll see that really they're saying Evolution somehow just magically knew what the organism would need to fly. And there should be literally thousands, if not millions, of "transitional" forms (and how did THEY survive, and WHY did they need to evolve if they were surviving just fine the way they were?) between flightless and flight. There are not. What we find in the fossil record is fully functional, fully formed organisms.

As far as mutations occurring naturally and "randomly," that's right. They do. And I have tried and tried and tried to get through to Evolutionists that mutations occur in genetic material that is ALREADY there. The material and information are ALREADY present. They can't come up with where it came from in the first place, because information has to have a source. It doesn't arise on its own. And mutations are almost ALWAYS deleterious (harmful), conferring no survival "advantage" whatsoever. The few that do so almost always result in a LOSS of genetic information. There are no gains.

March 30, 2013

(From B. H., USA):

This is probably the stupidest website I have ever seen.The fact that you judged evolution to be false without providing any evidence is a horrible and utterly misleading thing to do. The way you describe how life pops out of thin air or suddenly comes from nothing truly illustrates how little you understand evolution (In your own introduction you showed your small mindedness, quote "It's for those who refuse to be told they came from chimpanzees", if you knew a shred of what evolution is about you would know that we evolved from a common ancestor not from chimpanzees themselves. This is just one example of the many idiotic writings in you book). If you are going to say evolution is false at least have the guts to provide proof.

John: Thanks for the enlightenment.

Now tell me how something came from nothing and turned itself into everything. And I sure am sorry for not saying that we "evolved from a common ancestor." That's very enlightening. Now I understand everything. I presume that you or someone else actually saw this happen and can repeat the process?

Next you'll tell me all about the "mountains of evidence" for evolution, right?

You've bought the party line and they've made you a fanatic. Welcome to the religion of Evolution.

March 8, 2013

(From A. A., USA):

Hello Creationist,

John: Nice try for a starter, but you're not going to rope me in. Get ready to be backed into a corner.

If Evolution isn't true, then what is. I don't see you presenting a better argument!

John: Figure it out yourself. My focus is on evolution. It's not a question of "if" it isn't true. It isn't. It's not an "argument" either. It's a myth and a compilation of made-up stories.

All of your reasons aren't really reasons at all, and you make big things over little things; the caveman has a circumcised penis! Ha ha in your face evolutionists, you got it wrong. Cavemen couldn't have had circumcised penises and therefore your whole theory is WRONG!!

John: Ok, you're doing a fine job trying to avoid the issue. Let's get off circumcision and tell me how the universe came out of nowhere, turned itself into particles, and those particles turned into apples, ants, anteaters and [you]. That's what I want to discuss here. If you just want to dance around the real issue, then don't bother.

Also, one of my favourite responses for creationists is - ok, so evolution doesn't exist, or so you believe. If that's the case, then how on earth does selective breeding work (dogs, cats and chickens)? - that's what evolution is, just over a period of several million years under certain conditions. The only difference with selective breeding is that we chose the characteristics that we breed.

John: Here we go again. Same tired argument over and over and over, which I've already addressed a dozen times. Ok, let's rehearse it again. Selective breeding has NOTHING to do with particles turning into plants, pandas and people. You're committing the same mistake that your fellow fanatics commit, and REFUSE to recant of, which is that you are STARTING with fully functioning, fully complete, organisms, which ALREADY contain the genetic material and information to make other breeds. You are doing NOTHING to explain where that genetic material and information came from to begin with. I'm tired of you fanatics trying to use this same old sorry argument over and over, though I do understand you have nothing better in your arsenal, if it can be called that.

Also, have you heard about the super-rat epidemic in the UK? Rats becoming resistant to Warfarin. Now how did rats become resistant to warfarin? Divine intervention? Did God feel sorry for the rats?

John: Another cheap so-called attempt to get around the real issue. I've already addressed this and bacterial resistance in my book and feedback. If you don't want to read it, then I don't want to waste my time RE-explaining it to you. However, you need to tell me, not about rats and bacterial resistance to antibiotics, but rather how rats and bacteria managed to invent themselves from dirt and water. That's the issue here. Stop trying to get around it.

The same thing is happenning in hospitals and we are getting super-bugs where bacteria has become resistant to the drugs that are meant to kill them. Explain that.

In my opinion, your 'rasons seem to be founded on your lack of understanding of the theory. Have you heard the Phrase "Know your Enemy"? Well you should definately get to know us before you rant about us being chickens and cowards.

And one last thing - if we really are such cowards, then why are people challenging your ideas?

John: I have no problem with people challenging me. That's not what I'm referring to when I speak of people being chicken or cowards. What I have a problem with is people knowing in their heart that evolution is false and unprovable, but refusing to come out and say so. Instead you come up with all sorts of pathetic arguments to try to prove to yourself that your belief in the myth is fine and you're smarter than those who don't buy it. A perfect example is your false understanding of bacterial resistance above. How does that prove that [you] evolved from dirt and water? Tell me how particles got together and turned themselves into YOU.

February 21, 2013

(From L. C., USA):

I have yet to see one shred of evidence anywhere in any of your arguments that provides an alternate explanation of the way species have changed over time and since it is very clear from the fossil record that humans weren't on planet at the same time as dinosaurs there must be change.

John: I'm still waiting for you to tell me about how inanimate matter turned into dinosaurs and humans. Then I'll worry about your interpretation of the fossil record. While you're at it, what did dinosaurs eat? Lots of vegetation you say? Then why isn't lots of what the dinosaurs ate found in the fossil records along with their bones? And how much water and sediment do you figure it took to fossilize dino bones? Lots you say? I know - all local floods. So by that reasoning, we should find lots of fossils forming in Japan after that recent tsunami, shouldn't we? No? But I thought local floods were the reason for all the billions of fossils all over the world. Do you know of anywhere in the world where numerous (or even a few) fossils are forming right now? So maybe the fossil record's not quite as "clear" as you think. Oh, and shouldn't there be countless trillions of "clear" fossil "failures" that led from particles to all species of plants, persons, and platypuses? And what about platypuses? Any intermediates there?

How's about showing me the millions of intermediates that should be in the fossil record and aren't. Oh, it's because evolution is too slow like another writer just told me? Well, isn't THAT convenient. So it's too slow to leave all the billions of failures, and just left a few billion completely functional, completely identifiable species, then eh? And isn't it incredible how many fossils HAVEN'T changed over MILLIONS of years? I mean, we can still identify them as if they hadn't changed at all. Well, maybe it's "clear" from the fossil record that they really haven't been around that long after all. Oh, you say that's not possible because we KNOW they're millions of years old? Is that because they have expiration dates written on them, or because of the assumptions of your cherished myth? Did you know that fossilized dinosaur blood has been found? Did you know it's not possible for that to be millions of years old? BUT, did those who found it come to the conclusion that maybe, just maybe, it's NOT millions of years old? NAAAAAH. They already decided it was that old, so they asked, "Wow, how can this blood be millions of years old?" Answer: It's not. Their answer: Well, now, we need to invent a new story to explain this one! (That news item got buried pretty quickly, by the way. The Ev. religious fanatics were quite aware of the implications.)

Oh wait, I forget, you people don't believe fossils have any valid "scientific" value either.

John: LOL! The usual let's get the burden off me and put it on him tactic. All you fanatics do the same thing. Nice try. Back to the issue at hand now. How did particles turne themselves into plants, pandas and people?

I remember listening to Herbert W. Armstrong explaining how the fossils in the Rocky Mtns were just ordinary sea shells put there by Noah's flood and being so amazed at such a premise I exclaimed something rude about such nonsense and was informed by my house keeper she was deeply offended that I would doubt such wisdom. Considering she was so old she was approaching senility I just let it slide there, but usually I can't pass that one up.

John: Ok, let's now get back to how particles turned themselves into clams. And while we're at it, you can tell me who saw the ocean come up and cover the Rocky Mountains with seashells. Did you actually see that happen millions of years ago? You say they used to be under the ocean? And the clams prove that? Well, now, I guess you'll accept any other explanation than Noah's Flood. Interesting though, that there are flood accounts in almost every ancient culture. Hmm, where do you think they came up with that stuff? Couldn't possibly be true! We have to belive anything ELSE in order to be considered intelligent. Like that particles turned themselves into clams all by themselves. And while they were turning into clams the ground began to lift up above the sea. And even though clams have to be buried RAPIDLY to be fossilized, you see, in our MYTH, these were SPECIAL clams that could last MILLIONS OF YEARS! while the land was lifting up and becoming the mountains. And here we are, MILLIONS OF YEARS later finding fossilized clams, when there are millions of clams that die on our beaches every year and DON'T get fossilized. Hmmm, so even though we observe that MILLIONS of clams die on beaches every year and DON'T get fossilized, you see these special EVOLUTION MYTH clams got fossilized and lasted millions of years! At least, that's our evolution story, and we're gonna believe that one because everybody's gonna think we're really smart for believing it.

(From J. A., U. K.):

The phrase 'irresistable force meets immovable object' comes to mind!

John: Are we talking about you or me here?

I do think, i have 2 master's degrees and am a PhD student. Social Anthropology and Creativity.

John: While I highly respect your desire to learn, I'm really not impressed by the number of degrees that follow one's name. I have a few myself, and it has just served to show me how LITTLE I know about all there is to know, not how much. I'm not even impressed with my OWN learning. For example, I would not know how to remove an appendix, or how to construct a bridge. I know very little about animal husbandry, and even less about oceanography. There's just so, so much to learn and know, but somehow people think if one has one measly PhD, they're experts in every field.

I think that the 'edge' here is our joint interest in, as you say "where the living things came from in the first place". Forgive me but I don't understand how intelligent design can answer this, especially given your own arguements against evolution and using them to interrogate intelligent design. What designed the intelligence?

John: My focus has always been not on God, not on the Bible, not on creationism, not on intelligent design, but rather on the stupidity of the evolutionary theory. While I have my beliefs about what you write above, what we need to do, as usual, is get off the rabbit trails that try to put the onus on me, and get back to YOUR belief about evolution. So, if you can tell me how a nervous system was "invented" by evolution, and just happened to hook itself up to a brain that could make good use of it, and then explain to me how evolution performed all the other myriad miracles it performed, we'll be back on track. Where did "intelligence" evolve from? And explain, from an evolutionary standpoint, exactly what "intelligence" is to begin with, and how do we know when we have it? If someone has TWO PhDs, does that make him lots more intelligent than you? And, in the end, if you have a DOZEN PhDs, forgive my French, but who gives a damn? You're just going to die and become fodder for more evolution, and your PhDs are going to go with you.

This line of thought of course leads to the parallel scientific question 'what came before the big bang?' I don't believe either of us is close to these answers and those who do think they are are probably on some gravy train or other.

John: On this item, we can agree!

My big worry is that science attempts (often fallably of course as we are human) but it attempts at least a pan-human objectivity.

John: That is utterly false. Scientific propagandists do attempt to project an aura of objectivity, but there is no such thing as a human who is totally free of bias. And those biases will color any "objective" interpretation a scientist comes up with.

It's answers and methods do not try to exclude people. Faith based approaches can lead to dogma because people don't wish to go back on their original leap of faith in believing in a deity in the first place.

John: You're not getting it. Evolution is a faith-based approach. It leads to dogma, and dogmatists like yourself. If believing that nothing became everything all by itself is not a leap of faith, what is? There's a book out whose tilte I really like: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be An Atheist. One of the premises of the book is that it takes more faith to believe in evolution than creation.

Scientists do the same of course! I'd look a right fool at the pearly gates! But I do believe that the Bible, Koran and other foundational texts were written in their own socio-cultural contexts for their own socio-cultural and political reasons at the time.

John: You "believe" that. Which means you're parroting something you heard or read somewhere and have not actually sought out the truth about it for yourself. Of course, if we were to use your same reasoning and say that some day we will see that the religious myth of evolution was devised for our own day's socio-cultural and political context, that would be blasphemy, right?

I find it impossible to square what they teach with the modern world, and just because it's in a book and the book is very old, it doesn't mean there is any truth in there. There are lots of wonderful and quite beautiful ideas and guidelines to positive lives, but there is in any great work of humanity. Facts about the world cannot be taken from them though. How old is the Earth? Explain dinosaurs. Please try to avoid the paranoid language of conspiracy theory.

John: How old is the Earth? Well, the evolution religion says a couple billion years, give or take a few million, but who's counting. What "proof" do they have of that? Well, none really. Oh, there are some rocks that have dates written on them? No? Well, is it possible that our dating methods might be flawed? Oh, no way, not if you believe the myth! Explain the dinousaurs? That's easy! You see, clouds of gas turned into dirt, which became the Earth. Then water fell to the Earth from comets. Inorganic stuff was in the water and it got hit by lightning. That turned it into living cells! The next thing you know those cells turned into fish, and eventually they became dinosaurs! Voila! Nothing to it!

Your point about the fossil record not having imperfect individuals shows a lack of understanding on your part. Evolution is a *long* process.

John: LOL! Parrot those party lines J! You see, evolution is conveniently too slow for us to actually see it. Again, you don't even realize you're putting your foot in your mouth. If evolution is such a long process, we should have trillions upon trillions of failed "experiments" in the fossil record that demonstrate this "long process" from inanimate material to dinosaurs, to monkeys to humans. Do you know why Stephen Gould invented "punctuated equilibrium?" It's because he recognized the failure of the fossil record to produce all the failed "experiments." So he proposed that evolution took place in "spurts" followed by "stasis." That was his attempt to get evolutionists out of a corner as pertains to the fossil record. Any lack of understanding is on your part, my friend. I believe I recommended the book "Evolution: The Grand Experiment" to you. If not, you need to get it and see how it exposes the failure of the fossil record. If you're going to be an "immovable object" against an "irresistible force" however, then don't waste your time.

The indviduals change slowly over time. They die. Some need to change, some do not, or perhaps they do but unobservably slowly! A snapshot like a fossil will show a lifeform formed perfectly enough for it to survive a while. I think my point is that nothing is perfect. If it was it would not die, or would live a very very very long time!

John: That's a very nice "story." And that's all it is. No basis in actual fact. And by the way, in case you didn't notice, dead things don't evolve.

Perhaps in the USA the arguement is more polarised than here in the UK. It would be impossible to teach intelligent design as truth in our schools. Any mention of God is politcal suicide here!

John: Now THERE'S open mindedness for you! Exactly what, pray tell, are they afraid of? That maybe someone will puncture their fanatical mythology? I lived in Europe a number of years. I know about your spiritual apathy. People are no longer taught to think. They're taught to swallow the party lines or else.

But you will find creationists who have made up their own minds, my girlfiend's friend is one of them. Talking to her i see vast difference in the way she uses faith to understand and i use proof.

John: So, tell me J, what "proof" have you given your friend that particles turned into plants, pandas and people all by themselves. You say you never actually saw that happen? So you believe it by, what was that word, Faith? Naw! Say it isn't so, J!!!

For her faith is proof. Yes i have 'faith' in the proofs of science but they are undeniable.

John: Forgive me, but you can't possibly be that naive. How many times have people believed something "Science" told them, only to find out it was completely wrong? Undeniable? Tell that to Galileo. Oh, you say the "church" was at fault there? Then you've never read the history of the matter. It was Galileo's "scientist" colleagues (though they didn't call themselves scientists back then) who originally believed in the Ptolemaic system, and they were the first to attack him, not the church. That's just one example. And I've got news for you: There are a whole slew of evolutionary "theories" and "proofs" that have been shot down over the years too. But at first they were "undeniable!" Come on now, don't be so gullible!

And no-one gets burned at a stake or tortured when what was undeniable (eg - light is a particle) becomes provably deniable (eg - light is a wave. No, wait, it's a wave AND a particle at the same time. Who knew? Kill the particlists!).

John: You're absolutely right! They just form atheistic regimes that slaughter MILLIONS of innocent people, usually their own. If you've not read about how Darwinism influenced the behavior of some of the greatest tyrants in modern history, you need to educate yourself. Or you can keep your head in the sand. Of course, the fact that one man (I assume you're referring to Bruno -don't recall any others just now) was burned at the stake PROVES that particles turned themselves into plants, pandas and people, right? Oh, it doesn't? Then we need to get off another rabbit trail and back to the issue.

Anyway, sorry must dash, have a dog to walk.

John: Amazing how evolution rigged everything up just right so we could take a walk, isn't it? Even down to the balancing function of our ear apparatus. Who'da thunk it! Evolution figured it all out! It just took "TIME."

(From K. P., USA):

I can't tell for sure if this site is serious or a parody, but I'm going to assume the former since nothing I saw stood out as the latter.

So, are you aware that your own body is proof of evolution? Also, are you aware that we have a thousand different missing links? Also, are you aware that evolution has actually been observed in fruit flies and plants? Also, are you aware that the big issue with bacteria becoming immune to antibiotics is proof of evolution? Also, are you aware that human embryos have vestigial tissues inherited from ancestors that go away as we develop? Also, are you aware that every biologist on the planet considers evolution to be factual and has for some time? Also, are you aware that DNA studies have corroborated fossil evidence in demonstrating evolutionary trends? Also, are you aware that there actually is no controversy at all, only a fabricated one set up by the religious right in the US?

If this site is indeed serious and not an attempt at being facetious, you are actually a blithering idiot who doesn't even possess a rudimentary knowledge of life science and you are spreading that ignorance to the general populace, which is the last thing the US needs at this point.

John: Got a good chuckle out of your letter. Thanks for writing. First, it's both serious and a parody. Evolution is a farce, and I don't mince words. I will mock it because that's all it's worth. Second, my body is only a proof of evolution to those who are already brainwashed and cannot see it otherwise. Actually, my body is proof of entropy, which is contrary to evolution.

As for the thousand missing links, that's hilarious! If they're missing, how do you know that? If you never saw the word "ASTRONOMY" before in your entire existence nor had anyone else, and I spelled it "ASTRNMY" how would you know the letters "O" were missing?

Evolution observed in fruit flies? Really! You mean they turned into something else? No, I didn't know that. I did know that some pathetic examples of mutations have been put forth as "proofs" of evolution in fruit flies. Too bad those mutations rendered the poor flies useless in most cases, like having extra wings that were useless. Did YOU know that nobody has made a fruit fly from nothing, which would REALLY prove that fruit flies evolved? Did you know that the mutations that supposedly prove evolution occurred in genetic material that was ALREADY there, and do nothing to demonstrate where the genetic information to make a wing, etc., came from in the first place? Sorry to upset your applecart, but your religious faith in evolution is blind.

I have already addressed the tired and false notion that antibiotic resistance proves that dirt turned itself into people who could study antibiotic resistance. Anyone who is informed on that, and on vestigial organs, most of which at this point are understood to have or have had valid functions, knows that those "evolution proofs" have been debunked. However, no matter how much new information arises to show that those ideas are false, you evolutionists keep holding onto them for dear life because you have nothing else. A vestigial ORGAN is just that. It is something that either has a function we don't understand, or that has become useless. How does that demostrate where the ORGAN arose from in the first place, and how it acquired its function? It doesn't. The best you evolutionists can do is point out DOWNWARD changes - deteriorations in form and fuction - and say, "See! The fact that this organ is now USELESS proves that evolution is true!" Pathetic.

As for spreading ignorance, you're doing a good job of it yourself here by bringing up the same old pathetic "proofs" like a typical evolutionary religious fanatic who can't see the forest for the trees. Antibiotic resistance "proves" that everything came from nothing and made itself into everything, eh? Now there's some good science that's bound to propel America forward. Did it occur to you that the education level of the average American student has deteriorated from about the time evolution started to become a popular teaching? How is teaching kids they came from slime that turned into simians making them good students? Did it put us on the moon? We're turning out a bunch of morons, and it's in large part due to the blather to which you subscribe, not I. Teach a kid he's an animal and he'll act like one.

First, entropy does not contradict evolution, whatsoever.

John: Yes it does. Continuing....

The laws of Thermodynamics are statistical, not prescriptive. Moreover, the second law of thermodynamics refers specifically to isolated systems, which the evolution of life on Earth is very clearly not. It is an open system that is powered by perpetual, dynamic cycles of consumption of energy, processing of energy, and removal of waste (just like your body).

John: Unfortunately you're not very well versed in the argument about the Earth being an open or closed system. This is a common argument brought against anti-evolutionists, and it's patently false. Regardless of whether the Earth is an open or closed system, simply adding energy to it does not produce complexity, but rather reduces it. Adding sunlight, or heat, to a system doesn't automatically guarantee that that system will become more complex. Quite the opposite, adding energy to a system, unless there is a mechanism already in place to increase complexity, REDUCES the system to a more disorganized state. Do the research. What you say is simply not true. Do an Internet search for "Does entropy contradict evolution."

Second, I only said "missing links" to mockingly refer to them as you do. They are actually not missing. We have thousands upon thousands of fossils of transitional forms, both intermediary between human and other primates as well as a plethora of other species.

John: Wrong again. We don't have thousands of any such thing. Even Stephen Gould called the lack of transitional forms "the trade secret of paleontology." That's why he invented Punctuated Equilibrium, exactly to try to get around the lack of transitionals. What we "have" are IMAGINARY transitional forms that evolution religious fanatics have invented to try to save their precious derrieres. Pick up a copy of the book or DVD "Evolution: The Grand Experiment." I don't think anyone does a better job of destroying the lies about transitional forms than the author of that work did. If you want to keep your head in the sand about it, then don't pick up a copy.

All you have to do to see them is step foot in a god damn natural history museum.

John: That's one of the more laughable statements you've made. Get the book (or DVD). The author set foot in LOTS of Natural History Cathedrals all over the world.

Sure, there are gaps, as is to be expected when you're talking about a history as long as life on Earth's combined with the relatively rare circumstances required to form fossils. The gaps are not nearly large enough to contradict the veritable mountains of evidence in support of evolution, unfortunately for you.

John: Here we go with the just-so statement about "MOUNTAINS OF EVIDENCE" while you haven't even presented a grain of sand yet.

Third, making a fruit fly from nothing = evolution. As most moronic creationists do, you are conflating entirely separate theories, and your understanding of the one you are accidentally referring to here (Abiogenesis) is just as poor as your understanding of Evolution.

John: Make one.

Fourth, you display your feeble mental capacity perfectly in your excessive use of childish hyperboles to craft nonsensical strawman arguments in a laughable attempt to make your own points seem less benighted and unreasonable.

Here's the simple reality: apart from being observationally obvious when you're well educated, when you understand it well enough, evolution actually becomes common sense also. Individuals with disadvantageous traits are less likely to survive to reproduce.

John: That's not common sense. It's your just-so storytelling, and has no basis in fact. First you have to define what a "disadvantageous trait" is. You can't, that is, without making up one of your stories.

This, combined with the way procreation works (combination, recombination of genes/alleles with both deterministic and random influences, and the tendency for populations to become geographically and reproductively isolated), results in steady, dynamic shifts in the face of life as you see with literally everything else in existence like the birth and death of stars, the rise and fall of nations, etc.

John: I don't believe in starbirth either. The only reason anyone believes it is because they believe in the lie of evolution. So, stars "must" be being born, right? We can't see it though, because, conveniently, it takes millions of years. Do we see any evidence of star DEATH though? Plenty. Don't need to use our imaginations for that one.

The simple fact is this: if evolution wasn't real, we'd all look exactly the same, because your kids and your parents would statically remain genetically identical to you. I'm just happy as a lark that your ilk are gradually dying out as your world-shattering stupidity is more and more exposed to the general public.

John: Why are you evolutionists so dense when it comes to this simple fact: You are STARTING with ALREADY EXISTING DNA which contains the ALREADY EXISTENT information to create a life form. That's called CHEATING. Get it? No, you don't. Because you have to hold onto that in order for your fanatical story to work.

God, what an utter waste of life to spend so much time and energy attempting to disprove something that not only won't ever be disproved, but doesn't even matter in the slightest. You think I would ever set up an entire website dedicated to punching holes in creationists' theories? No, why? Because it's entirely a waste of time, those people are altogether unmoved by facts and will end up being left behind as society drifts away from religious programming. Thanks for dodging several of my points though, it allows me to feel less bad about not rebutting yours.

Good riddance.

John: LOL! Did you write Richard Dawkins with the same message? Maybe you don't know who he is, so look him up. Spends an awful lot of time, money and energy disproving the existence of something he claims doesn't exist. You can discover for your own what that is. Oh, and he spends a lot of time, effort and money trying to prove your religion of evolution too. He's just one example. While you're at it, you might also wish to contact some astrologers, some UFOlogists, etc. and let them know they're wasting their efforts too. Would you mind doing that? Please do contact them. And when you do, be sure to ask if they're also evolutionists.

As for dodging points, I don't do that if the point is sharp and I know it might stick. If it's dull, why worry?

So I guess you won't be wasting any more time writing. Thanks.

February 18, 2013

(From H. F., USA):

As far as I see it we all have different opinions and beliefs, no one is better than another and no one should inflict their beliefs on others without consent.

John: How does one "inflict" beliefs on someone without their consent? Maybe they do that in school, huh? Have you ever gone to school and been taught something and then had to pass an exam about it? In any event, you sound rather closed minded. Just because people have differing opinions and beliefs doesn't mean they're all right, now does it? We can't ALL be right if we believe completely opposite things. That's pretty much a law of logic. Therefore, the best thing to do is consider one's own beliefs, consider the beliefs of others, study them, weigh them logically, scientifically, spiritually, or whatever, and then come to a conclusion as to what's right and what's not. That is what being "open minded" is about. And even when one comes to a conclusion about one's own beliefs, they can still be open to listening to others. That helps both solidify the belief and learn what the opposition believes.

We are all equal and all different, and if everyone just lived and let live then the world would be a better place.

John: Apparently that applies to others but not you? If you didn't disagree with me, you wouldn't be writing. If everyone just lived and let live, evil would overtake the world even faster than it is doing now. Somebody has to draw the line somewhere. You have a rather naive, simplistic view of life, which leads me to believe you're a young person. There's nothing wrong with ideals, but yours are a bit misdirected and unrealistic.

I guess I am a little guilty of trying to persuade you that your views are wrong, and who am i to judge your opinion? We shall agree to disagree :)

John: You've judged my opinion by your very statement above. You disagree with me, right? What's important is for you to think through exactly why you disagree, and is your argument true, valid, and defenisible?

Have a good day, and keep on learning.

February 17, 2013

(From J. A., U.K.)

So you honestly think that a book written by men (from 2000 years ago, who therefore knew about not much more than fire and wheels and needed to understand stuff they had no way of understanding apart from making stuff up. Oh, and whilst I'm on the subject, where are the women in the bible? - all just whores or wombs?- virgin birth? She just slept with some other carpenter guy, Joseph or Jacob or whichever primitive it was, and didn't tell him and he's so deluded he thought she was impregnated by god!) then changed by Roman Emperors and subsequently popes, kings, archbishops, etc to allow them more and more control over their subjects, do you honestly believe in the stuff in there? If god is omnipotent why did she have to rest on the seventh day? And before you say anything, no, I am not possessed by satan, I have free will.

Your sad mind set (religion) actually denigrates human beings and enslaves them into structures of living which they themselves maintain in order to hinder their own progression. god is a lie. Stop spreading it.

John: So you honestly think a book written by one man over 150 years ago who knew nothing of the science we know today, like genetics and information science... (I deliberately did not complete my sentence there because you didn't complete yours either, though I know exactly what you're getting at. It's a pathetic argument. The age of a book or who wrote it is not what determines whether or not it's true. So because something is 2000 years old, or whatever, it can't be true? By your own reckoning, then, how can a scientist know something that happend two MILLION years ago? You're more than happy to put your faith in THAT, now aren't you? That's because you belong to the blind faith religion of Evolution, where you have no problem believing what the scientist priests tell you happened two million years ago, but you DO have problems with an EYEWITNESS account that happened two thousand years ago. Gotta love that!

While we're on sad mindsets that denigrate human beings, your religion of Evolution says your ancestors started out as slime, then became stinking fish and then filthy monkeys that turned into you. And guess what, just like Hitler you can do whatever you want to your fellow humans, or corrupt the Earth however you wish, because it's all about survival of the fittest, and you'll never have to answer for it. That's YOUR religion

Evolution is based on observations of the physical world in the here and now, adaptations, fossil records etc...

John: The problem is, observations of the physical world in the here and now do not support evolution. You parrot the party lines and use the "catchwords" of the Chuckie Club there, without actually offering any evidence. I have tried and tried again to drill into the minds of evolutionists like yourself (particularly if you read the feedback section) that adaptations have absolutely nothing to do with where anything came from in the first place. THAT is evolution. Adapting to different environments is an ability that is already built in to living things. You need to show me not adaptations, but where the living things came from in the first place, how they "invented" DNA and replication, where the information contained in that DNA (that ALLOWS for adaptations) came from in the fist place, etc. The fossil record should be filled with COUNTLESS "FAILED" experiments, not just a pathetic handful of so-called "transitions" that have been invented by evolutionists to try to save their myth. Instead, the fossil record shows fully formed, fully functional living things. Keep in mind that those of us who no longer accept the myth of evolution observe the same physical world that you do. We just interpret it differently.

It is provable. Actually, physically provable.

John: Another evolutionist Just-so statement.

Your strange reaction to the fact that we came from, as you put it with obvious disgust, "slime, then became stinking fish and then filthy monkeys" is irrelevant.

John: That's not my statement. It's what you believe. So you agree that what you believe is irrelevant?

For whatever reason you are disgusted at what are probably in your minset 'God's creations' is irrelevant. Slime is just slime. Monkeys are very clean animals. Don't fret. You don't have to believe in evolution for it to be true. It just is true. I know it's difficult to get your mind around the huge span of time that these things need to happen, but try; you're a human, you can do anything. You don't have to bow down to some social control construct. Open your mind. Read.

John: So far you've done nothing to prove evolution. You made a pretty confident statement up above there. Now let's see the proof. You're just avoiding the issue, beating around the bush, and trying to back me in a corner. You're the one in the corner. Now get out.

Your equation of 'survival of the fittest = National Socialism' is typical of the flawed reasoning religious types (who through their own choice don't think deeply enough, otherwise they wouldn't be religious) use to try to scaremonger a reaction they desire. Usually religion uses fear to keep people in check. Fear of hell, social banishment, sexual guilt etc. There is little morality in there anymore really. The guys who wrote the Jesus book obviously had some lovely ideas, such as do unto others as you would have done unto yourself; love thy neighbour; thou shall not kill. All very commendable. But any right minded human would do these things anyway and be judged by their peers. Nazism was allowed to happen because good people failed to act, (you know, they just said stuff like "oh, I'm just supplying the train" or "all these extra orders for my barbed wire are very welcome"!) not because the nazis were somehow stronger and fitter!

John: I am still waiting for the proof of evolution. Can we get on to that now?

Anyway, I don't know why i'm getting so wound up.

John: I do. It's because you're an evolutionary religious fanatic. But don't worry, the cure is out there!

I guess i happily don't mind people believing in what they want.

John: I know, as long as it doesn't affect YOU personally, it really doesn't matter what people believe, right? Wrong. What people believe determines what they do. That's why prisons are filled. That's why kids are being taught the lies of evolution in school, then going out and acting like animals because that's what they figure they are anyhow, right? What the Nazis believed didn't matter to some people too, until it came knocking at their door. Just put your head in the sand and pretend it doesn't matter what people believe. It didn't matter what the radical Muslims believed till they crashed planes into our buildings. Then it mattered, right?

Obviously in our democracies they should be allowed freedom of worship. What gets me is when they preach that others are wrong

John: Which is exactly what you're doing right now. But that's ok. It doesn't matter what you believe...... And, by the way, what if the others ARE wrong? Does that matter? I mean, you're aware that if you have conflicting arguments, everybody can't be right, right? And why do they have to be "preaching?" Can't someone correct someone else's stupidity or ignorance and just be teaching them or trying to help them? You have a pretty poor attitude about learning, it seems to me.

and teach incorrect (factually, proveably incorrect) things to children.

John: Like evolution.

I find that undemocratic in fact because it's taking the free will out of it. Creationist (and other zealous believers such as Muslim extremist)

John: Let's not forget evolutionary zealots now. In all fairness, you know?

parents are forcing a belief on their children, not teaching them a truth. And that stinks.

John: I agree, but again you're contradicting your own words. If it doesn't matter what anyone believes, why are you so concerned about this?

If the kid wants to believe in Jedis, Gandalf, Jesus, Mohammed or any other character then fair enough. But allow them all the facts first.

John: Are we blaming parents for all this? You can't think for yourself? I don't believe a lot of what my parents believe or believed. Because I studied things for myself and came to my own conclusions. As a parent myself, I encourage my kids to do the same. Don't just accept it because I said it, but you'd better be able to come up with a better argument if you're going to refute me!

And before you argue that evolution and other scientific processes are forced upon children, remember how many people died in order for us to have such freedoms and how many are dieing fighting the Taliban and other religious extremeists in order for us to have such freedoms.

John: Lots of people have died in evolutionary, atheistic regimes in the past century. Millions upon millions. Undeniable fact. Look it up.

Religion suppresses women, removes freedom and narrows minds.

John: You still haven't given me a shred of proof for evolution. You've gone off on lots of rabbit trails, now you're parroting the same old boring arguments about "religion" that you heard from someone else. I want to hear why your religion of evolution is so great. Wait, let's think about your statement above. If women have been "suppressed", and we really did evolve, then there must have been some EVOLUTIONARY reason they were suppressed. If you can't find one, you can always invent one, and nobody will argue with you if it sounds plausible enough.

Now, back to all that proof of evolution. Please?

Cheers, all the best (honestly, I have no gripe with you personally!)

John: Same here. I have no grudge against evolutionists. Used to be one, as I've said over and over. I just want people to THINK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

February 16, 2013

(From H. D., India(?)):

I had a lot of laughs at your web site. It is always fun to read idiotic morbidity written by people with rubber balls for a head. And fyi, i have some serious questions about how silly your claims are. If interested, mail me. Only written debate and i will post the whole thing on facebook. Only the text and no editing. assured. i have sent this same request over 1 yr period to 23 sites. none accepted. so your call. to be or not to be... that is the question

John: Not to be. Thanks for the invitation, but it's pretty obvious it ain't gonna go nowhere. You can quote me on that.

Like I said... Just that now its 24 sites. If you cant substantiate, kindly dont instill evil in peoples minds... Religion causes more trouble than anything in this world... So either stand up for your beliefs or privately continue the activity.

John: You are correct. The religion of Evolution has been responsible for more deaths in the last century than all other religions combined throughout history. And you're its follower. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Oh, and be sure if you need help or are sick or whatever that you go to an atheist-run shelter or hospital with lots of atheists who will be more than willing to help their fellow man.

(From H. L., USA):

Evolution makes sense.
Its common sense.
Even the pope believes it.
The only thing that is stupid, is you.

Guess what is evolving right now in front of your eyes...other than everything? Elephants. See, elephants in the future won't have tusks. You know why?
Because of us.

They aren't CHOOSING to "oh, I better not grow tusks!" No, see poachers really like to kill them for ivory. Following me? Some male elephants have a bad defect that doesn't allow them to grow tusks. Or at least not very big. Poachers tend to ignore them.

See, elephants are the biggest damn animal on land - they virtually have no predators except age and humans. As we hunt them down, the elephants that DON'T have tusks, live on. Because they get ignored. THEY pass on their genetic defect to their children (no tusks).

Future elephants will have no tusks because nobody is killing the elephants with no tusks. Elephants WITH tusks, die.

No god involved, just something called NATURAL SELECTION. Ensuring the survival of their species. Assuming they don't all get killed.

John: Ok, so that fully explains where tusks came from in the first place. Oh, and also where elephants came from. Oh, and people too. Thanks.

Let's get this straight. I hope I can make you understand this concept : The LOSS of something does not prove how it evolved in the first place. Got that? In your fantasy, elephants with small or no tusks somehow proves evolution. It doesn't. Do you understand that the LOSS of tusks does not demonstrate how, or why, or when, or where, tusks evolved in the first place?

And what's gonna happen if the poaching stops? Are tusks gonna get really, really big, which will also prove evolution? You see, whatever you want to imagine can be used to "prove" your religion.

"They pass on their GENETIC DEFECT to their children." Stop. Take a deep breath. Then THINK about that statement. THINK ABOUT IT! GOT THAT?

(H. L. continued):

"The loss of something does not prove how it evolved in the first place." Where the hell did you even get that?

John: Is that your best response to it?

I love how you think each thing correlates with direct effect. Like the "Stopping of poaching = LONG tusks".

John: That would be just the kind of "just so" story that would fit the evolutionist to a T. After all, if poaching were stopped, there would be no predation. If there were no predation, tusks would have more of a chance to grow. VOILA! Evolution explains it again! All we have to do is invent the story!

You don't know how evolution works. Evolution is proven by f---ing farms, we use g-ddamn genetic mutations, and SELECTIVE BREEDING for the type of crops/animals we want.

John: Let's see now.... Farms create and run themselves, right? And selective breeding? Are you suggesting (voice goes down to a whisper here) some INTELLIGENCE is involved?

Goats in the future might not even be able to RUN anymore, if every farmer deems the trait of "fainting goat syndom" beneficial.

John: "Might not"? Now, now, you're not inventing a story about the future are you? Next time you read an article about evolution, take note of how many "might, probably, may have, possibly, we think, we believe" and so on are used in the article. And aren't farmers intelligent beings? I thought we couldn't involve any of those.

Now think, if nature deemed a trait positive to its survival, CRUCIAL, to its survival. Then those that don't have the traits, then die.

John: "If nature deemed"? Just can't get away from it, can you? You mean your goddess "Nature" really does THINK and can determine the direction of evolution? I thought evolution was mindless and undirected. Silly me. Nature can "deem" a trait positive, eh? Apparently you didn't get my cynicism about bacteria, my friend. If they were surviving just fine, and are still surviving, why did "Nature" deem that they had to invent anything else for survival?

I.E. Tusks from elephants.

John: Ahh, your "just so" story about why elephants have tusks. So, why don't rabbits have them too? They seem to be surviving just fine without them. Let's hear your story for that next. Oh, I know, rabbits got fast. So how did they survive being slow? And did "Nature" deem that they had to get fast? Turtles are slow. So our story for that is "Nature" deemed they should grow shells! Isn't evolution great! You can make a story up for anything!

Egh, you could at least LEARN what evolution is - like really? If you knew ANY science at ALL you'd know why what you just said, made you a dumbass. Its no better than creationists going "HURR THERMODYNAMICS RULE NUMBER 2!!!"

As if they knew what that meant.

John: Obviously my scientific prowess can not hold a candle to yours, so I'd better give up now as Nature has deemed it's good for my survival in a world full of evolutionary religious fanatics.

(From D. McI., USA):

Outstanding! I came across this one morning surfing on my cell phone while I was sending my son off to school. "A few minutes later" he was walking in from school at the end of the day! I couldn't put this down. I read it all and on a 1" cell phone screen to boot! Just when I thought I was done, I came across your comment(s) section! I would like to touch base with you and the fine folks that contribute with some scientific/general points and/or questions, but I'm not sure if you still engage this site. Seems like a 24/7, if you let it. Anyway, extremely well done. Professor Dick Dawkins must love you!


What an outstanding body of work you have created here. The book certainly, but also the way in which you refuse to let folks divert from the topic. Anybody's faith has nothing to do with SCIENCE. In its simplest from, and in my humble opinion, the only question that needs to be asked is this: Does the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE support Darwinian Evolution, Yes or No? Clearly the answer is no.

This "no" is true for any and all specific fields of science, Biology, Micro Biology, Paleontology, Physics, Astrology, Archeology, Chemistry, Bio Chemistry, and so on...

Does the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE support Darwinian Evolution, Yes or No?

If we are consistently taught something that IS factually sound, it's called education. Conversely, if we are consistently taught something that is NOT factually sound, it's called INDOCTRINATION. That's why folks with a higher "education" are harder to convince that there is no SCIENCE to support the theory. If we can keep the question in it's simplest form and continue to engage folks in a considerate, professional manner without questioning their motives, I believe in real short order this theory will be completely abandoned. Mostly these are good people without an agenda that unfortunately were just indoctrinated for so many years. That must be a hard realization to come to grips with after so much time and effort were exhausted, not to mention the price of a higher education. The professionals however, will probably never admit to this fact since their very livelihoods could be at stake. That is completely understandable.

Does the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE support Darwinian Evolution, Yes or No?

As only a lay person, I am convinced that even I could debate the likes of a Richard Dawkins and corner him within just a few minutes. He constantly, and almost immediately uses nothing but just-so stories and irrelevant analogies to make his "scientific" point. Analogies have nothing to do with SCIENTIFIC evidence. I would like for Mr. Dawkins to please show me the mathematical formula that supports Darwinian Evolution. It's clear why he wont debate anyone on "eeevolution." Sorry Mr. Dawkins, just a light hearted jab at your pronunciation mate.

Does the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE support Darwinian Evolution, Yes or No?

If anybody has just one, any one piece of scientific evidence that supports this theory, I would be appreciative. Please don't tell of the "mountains" of evidence (giving only one should than be extremely easy) or the peer reviewed body of work as that is only a story and a consensus. I'm just looking for a SCIENTIFIC fact to support Darwinian Evolution. I am not dogmatic and very often will be the first to concede a point after a common sense evaluation of the "facts" indicates that "I stand corrected". I have no intellectual pride at stake and can be convinced if I see SCIENTIFIC evidence. Thank you.

Does the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE support Darwinian Evolution, Yes or No?

Keep up the nice work John.

John: Awesome! Thanks so much for a fun read, too!

(From J. T., USA):

You are an extreme radical p---k.

John: Wow, thanks for the input - heavy on the science!

(From T. G., South Africa?):

Dear John I love your site and I really appreciate what you do please continue exposing these liars whom plant doubt into peoples head I love your website and yo I gotta ask am I wrong for obssessing on disproving evolution cause its crap and all you're doing is showing it. Thanks for seeking truth and God bless you.

(From R. S., USA):

Thank you for your web site on the stupidity of Evolution. I myself think about the theory and constantly discover more problems with it. Many of which you mention in your essay. It also seems that some people believe in Evolution out of necessity. Creation speaks with a loud voice that God exists. While Evolution's screaming non-sense drowns it out.

(From G. H., location unknown):

I can't even acknowledge how STUPID YOU ARE!!! Wings popping out of lizards? Don't you understand that it took millions, I repeat, MILLIONS of years for the slightest changes to appear?! It is PROVEN you fools!!

John: Oh, no! I'm undone! However, I can prove beyond a shadow of doubt that stupidity appeared very early on, and does not appear to have mutated at all. It's still with us bigtime, and that, my friend, is how evolution manages to survive.

By the way, were you or anyone else there to watch all this marvelous transformation over millions of years? No? Well, I'll be!

(From E. H., South Carolina, USA):

Let me just say this. Thank you. As a student, I can tell you how hard it is to not believe in evolution, and (because I am young, I suppose) anything I say doesn't seem to count. If you disagree with the lesson, people start looking at you like a fool and the first thing they question is "are you a creationist"? I'm always struck dumb that they never seem to want to argue the facts. They simply want to repeat themselves or change the subject. It's like arguing with a five year old whose best comeback is "because." In school, we're taught how it was once believed that the universe revolved around the earth, and that the body produced blood in the heart and pumped it out to be harvested and absorbed by the cells instead of circulating. However, these theories which were once accepted as fact were both put into question and, obviously, we know today that they are not true. It seems today that evolutionists are holding onto their theory of evolution just as much as the ancient church who once held onto the idea of a universe revolving around the world all those years ago. I think it's strange, to be honest. I thought scientists were supposed to want to discover the truth of how this and that worked, not just accept something without doubt. Sorry this is so long. Thanks again!

John: THANK YOU for a great email, and you're absolutely right on all counts, but I do want to clarify one thing. It was actually the "scientists" of the day who accepted the Ptolemaic theory of the universe revolving around the Earth. The organized church just decided to adopt that, turned it into dogma, and you know the rest of the story. So it really didn't start with the church. Unfortunately, the modern church has repeated the mistake, this time by adopting Darwinism. And once again, they're wrong.

Have a great day and thanks again for the very useful input. I'm in the process of turning this into a book and am going to use some of the very arguments you brought up, which I too have experienced countless times over the many years I've fought evolutionists.

(From J. C., USA):

I love your sense of humor, and this stuff is good. Thanks for taking the time to speak of the obvious.

(From A. M., location unknown):

While I no doubt share many of your views, you have clearly misunderstood what the Big Bang Theory claims:

The Big Bang Theory has nothing to do with Darwin. The Theory of Evolution deals with changes in living organisms over time. It says nothing about the origins of the universe...

Big Bang Theory says nothing about the kind of "explosion" you describe.

BBT describes an EXPANSION of the space-time dimensions (not the explosion of a mass so that the fragments chaotically disperse where the explosive energies propel them.)

And by the way, the Big Bang Theory was first proposed by a Bible-believing Christian clergyman who was also a prominent astrophysicist. So I hope you are not assuming that the BBT is somehow an invention of godless Bible-haters.

They use the balloon analogy because most people cannot conceptualize the complex mathematics of the underlying calculations of the theory, and because they want people to understand the difference between an explosion and an expansion.

For criticisms of the Big Bang Theory to have merit in educating people in general and in edifying the people of God specifically, they should be based upon scientific evidence and competent exegesis of the Word of God. I encourage you to correct your website to reflect an honest and accurate understanding of the relevant topics. Sarcasm, wit, and even ridicule can be appropriate when criticizing a scientific theory but only when accompanied by adequate knowledge of the topic and a goal of honesty in the presentation -- along with a spirit of humility that honors Christ. Such humility and honesty includes heeding the exhortations and corrections of those who have tried to help you to understand these topics more accurately. The Bible demands nothing less of us.

John: I KNOW the Big Burp has nothing to do with Darwinism. And you know that it has everything to do with evolution and Darwinists can't get around tying the two together. Otherwise you have classical Darwinism starting with things that are already evolved with no explanation of where they came from to begin with. So neo-Darwinists have recognized the fact that they need to come up with a myth to explain that, too. Ever heard of astrobiology?

I made it quite clear that I understand the physical description of the Big Burp as other than a literal explosion. Frankly I don't think the most highly educated physicist can really explain how it could really have happened that way any better than a layman can. Maybe he could use more impressive words to smokescreen the layman, but one way or another it's still foolishness. The term Big Bang was coined by Fred Hoyle, a fact which I noted in my book. That and some other things you say (I mention Georges Lemaitre, for instance, who was Roman Catholic, not necessarily a Bible believing Christian as some of us understand the term) make me wonder if you even read my tome. As for my comparing the BB to the balloon explosion, that was all tongue-in-cheek. I would hope that people could discern my sarcasm from my serious tone.

As for my "credibility" no matter what I say, no matter what "credentials" I present, to the evolutionary religious fanatic those are irrelevant. My goal is to get people to think about how dumb the whole evolutionary scenario is so they'll at least think for themselves, not to impress them that I know matter expanded into space as space/time was stretched out, a concept as nebulous to the best physicist as it is to you and me.

January 19, 2013

(From S. M., Russia?):

First of all, we aren't an evolved monkey: we come from a common ancestor, which doesn't necessarily have to be a monkey.

John: Boy, you evolutionists are such literalists! The concept of "monkey to man" has been pretty much widely accepted among the common gentry as the evolutionary scheme of things. Regardless of whether it was a monkey, or an ape, or a chimp, whatever, it's a simian. Calling it a "common ancestor" does nothing to change the picture most of us have in mind, thanks to the Leakeys and others of the world. And regardless, it's stupid no matter how you arrange it.

If you sequence DNA you could get phylogenetics trees, which is the way the Biology explains evolution since 2005: Phylogenetics.

John: Anyone who's up on their stuff in this argument knows that phylogenetic trees show fully formed and functional (and recognizable) organisms at their extremities, but NOTHING on the branches. In other words, and even Stephen Gould recognized this, the transitional species are MISSING from the tree.

You could keep arguing in your living room the logics of a theory from 200 years ago, or you could read about DNA sequenciation and PCR to know about genes conservation, the way evolution is explained nowadays. If you keep believing that Darwin postulates are still in force you are wrong, but you haven't ever been in a biology lab, so you can't know what a nucleotid is, aside from what you learned in the school.

John: I get the impression you're trying to impress me with your scientific prowess. It's not working. Show me where DNA came from not that it exists and can do things.

What some examples? Please, prove me wrong WITH INFORMATION, NOT WITH LOGICS, because what you see or believe might not be what happens in the universe. I want to know what in the following states is wrong, not that I am ingenuous:

John: Ok, let's see what INFORMATION you are providing for ME!

You claim that antibiotic resistance is a myth because there are two types of bacteria: resistant and non-resistand, in a Lamark-ish claim that proves that you don\'t know what a mutation is and how DNA replication works.

John: No, sir, I did not "claim" that about antibiotic resistance at all. It's a known fact. The resistant bacteria are already present. Add the antibiotic and they take over. Remove the antibiotic and the original bacteria re-populate. It has nothing to do with mutations. And again, in cases where mutations DO come into play they are always DOWNWARD - a LOSS of something. Mutations always place a LIMIT to survival in environments. In other words, if an organism was previously able to survive in a wide range of environmental conditions, after a mutation (which takes place, I remind you, in genetic material that ALREADY exists, and does not CREATE anything new), the organism is more LIMITED as to where it can survive. This has been demonstrated without exception. So, while a mutation may render an organism better able to survive in certain conditions, the overall survivability of the mutated organism is REDUCED.

Why can we induce mutation in a microorganism by radiating it with isotopes? Do you know that if you sow only ONE bacteria in a Petri dish with agar it will multiplicate their descendants are supossed to be clones, but due to errors in DNA-polymerase there would be mutated bacterias, some of which would be inmune to the antibiotics of an antibiogram?

John: And just how does that prove that bacteria turned into other things? You're not understanding. You have mutated genetic material that was ALREADY present. You have not demonstrated where the genetic material came from to begin with, much less the information it contains to make another bacterium. And that information would have to increase astronomically to make a human being. You are saying that mindless, undirected evolution knew just what to do in order to accomplish that feat.

Since only these would survive their following descendants would be inmune to antibiotics. But one thing that you don't know is that every anti-antibiotic system could be saturated, but you might not know that because you don't know what an enzyme is.

John: Thanks for telling me all about what I don't know. Now if you can tell me you know how an enzyme evolved from nothing and developed its ability to aid protein synthesis by blind chance evolution, that would help.

What is the reason why flu viruses are different from year to year?, maybe because the virus resistant to our anti-bodies are sleeping and take turns every year? By the way, we are not inmunized against every possible pathogen: we can produce defenses against every possible one, which is very different.

John: They are still viruses. I don't know of one that turned into anything else. Has nothing to do with evolution.

About the age of the humanity, do you know what C-14 is? It's a technique that allows us to know the age of the bones of a skeleton via natural radiactive degradation of carbon-14 isotopes. Surely you could say that this technique is a fake but still don't prove why, because you just keep rambling and disgressing without telling us information.

John: C-14 dating, as with all radiometric dating processes, depends on certain assumptions that cannot possibly be determined beforehand. I have already discussed this. You have to know how much parent material was present to begin with, you have to know whether any daughter product was already present and how much, you have to be absolutely certain that no factors affected the rate of decay from parent to daughter product, and there were no contaminating or environmental effects that could have affected the outcome of your age determination. All of that is IMPOSSIBLE to know for sure, unless you were actually there, and I don't believe any of us have been around for thousands of years. Also, if you do your reading, C-14 has been found in fossils that are supposedly millions of years old, which should not be possible, but of couse scientists will say THAT was because of contamination, not that the fossil simply is NOT millions of years old, because otherwise that would be an admission that their cherished evolutionary theory just "might" be wrong.

"Hamburguers" and "McDonald's" created from a "point" is stupid, but a man created from the nothingness is a valid argument because it is written in a book?

John: I MEANT IT TO BE STUPID. Because if you are going to believe something as stupid as evolution you have to also admit hamburger meat came from evolution. True or False?

This is the reason why claims must be done by experimenting. Trying to argue against experiments from your sofa without even knowing what a cell is might be good arguments for people who doesn't know anything about phylogenetics. Please, give us SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION, NOT LOGIC CLAIMS. "It is wrong because it's stupid" is not a valid argument, regardless of what all of you believe.

John: Experimenting on what? Who can perform an experiment turning inanimate material into a human being? Or even a fly? And even if they did, all they would prove is that an intelligent creator was involved. Fight against that all you want, that's it.

Feedback Continued

Dear Sir Can you tell me how god created the Earth?
--P. M. (Australia)

Hi P.

Thank you for responding to My desire is to keep the focus on evolution itself, so I'd rather not get into issues of God or creation. Just evolution. So, now, may I ask you how evolution created the earth, and where your proof lies?



I really liked your book John. Here is a comment on a really stupid "proof" of evolution that is found in most of the schoolbooks on evolution. Eyes. Evolutionists give as evidence that eyes gradually evolved the fact that fish which live for many generations in dark caves lose their eyesight. Textbooks which try to build faith in evolution don't seem to notice that this example goes backward, but use it as as evidence to support their speculation that eyes gradually evolved from dark spots on the skin. The best eye lenses ever found, however, were in fossils of trilobites, sea animals of the Cambrian period which evolutionists say had the world's earliest complex animals. Well-known evolutionist Niles Eldredge marveled: "We can be justifiably amazed that these trilobites, very early in the history of life on Earth, hit upon the best possible lens design that optical physics has ever been able to formulate." The fact that the eyes of the earliest complex animal had the best lenses is conveniently left out of textbooks promoting evolution. It would be hard to build faith in evolutionary speculation if the students knew that the best lenses ever, were around before the primitive black spots. --T. H. (Oregon, USA)
Hi John

Evolution didn`t create the earth. Evolution just works to change organic items so they have a better chance of surviving. So it is a pointless argument to say that you don`t believe evolution created the earth. No biologist believes that evolution created the earth. Well, no biologist that I`m aware of anyway. Kind Regards, --P. M. (Australia)

Hi P.,

Evolutionary cosmology begins with the big bang, without which there would be no earth on which biological evolution could occur.

Evolution does not "work" on anything. You are confusing "change" and "adaptation" both of which work with ALREADY EXISTING genetic information and physical capabilities, with classical evolution from "simple" to complex, which simply does not occur, and never has. Evolution of life from inorganic matter is impossible, no matter how much Time you add. Even if you begin with a gene (we'll take it for granted that it just magically appeared over time, and was able to reproduce itself), in order for classical evolution to occur, the genome must increase in information content, and that simply does not happen (mutations sometimes duplicate information (which, again, is ALREADY present), but mostly corrupt it). And even if it did, you still need a mechanism in place to express that information and put it to use. There is no such mechanism that could have started it all, and increased information and complexity without an intelligent source.

In other words, Chuck Darwinists tout things like mutations and natural selection, but both mutations and selection work with genetic material that ALREADY EXISTS, and do not create anything new. Nor do they explain where genetic information and genes themselves came from in the first place.

As far as "survival," if you think about it, there's a whole lot more to life than just "survival" and the whole survival of the fittest thing is a tautology. As I point out in my e-book, bacteria were surviving just fine, and there is absolutely no reason, apart from evolutionary mythology and story telling, that they ever had to change into anything else just to survive. There is CERTAINLY no reason they had to become more complex. It's just evolutionary story weaving. Obviously, if something is extinct, we're going to say right away that the reason is that it was not "fit." But that's just the evolution myth. There were actually many MORE living species - plants and animals - long ago than there are now. So really it's not that what's alive now was any more "fit" than they were, but rather that the great diversity of life that once existed is slowly disappearing. Within that great diversity was also genetic diversity, hence animals and plants could diversify, spread out and occupy ecological niches. But as they did so, they actually became LESS able to survive OUTSIDE OF those niches, and that's why they became extinct. So, what really happened was not that plants and animals, thanks to evolution, were BETTER able to survive. Rather, because of adaptation and genetic DETERIORATION, they became LESS able to survive except under special conditions. For example, you start with an original bear. That bear contains the genetic information to diversify into various kinds of bears, which lose some of the genetic information the original bear carried, thus rendering them able only to survive in special conditions, such as polar bears, which survive best in arctic conditions.

Antibiotic resistance is another "example" Chuckie Dees like to tout, but it has NOTHING to do with evolution. Resistant bacteria already exist, and the antibiotic kills off the hardy bacteria, leaving only resistant ones, which thrive in the presence of the antibiotic. Thus, they are LESS able to survive, because if you remove the antibiotic, the resistant strain dies off again, and the hardy strain takes over once again, because it does not need the presence of the antibiotic to survive.

By the way, I also mentioned that I have a degree in Biology, so I'm pretty familiar with what biologists believe.

In any event, I hope you did not miss the point of my book, which is that evolution's explanation for how life arose and increased in complexity is totally bankrupt and devoid of real science. It is a religious, faith belief, and nothing more.

Thanks for writing again,


Butterflies Defeat Darwin

Darwin wrote: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” He felt that natural selection would preserve individuals with the best modifications. When a butterfly egg hatches, a caterpillar steps out, eats, then goes into the pupal stage in which its organs dissolve into a thick liquid from which a butterfly forms. Thick liquid has no selective advantage over caterpillars. Neither could successive slight modifications to either a caterpillar or to the thick liquid into which it dissolves ever produce either a butterfly, or any of its complex organs. Darwin’s theory breaks down under the weight of the butterfly! --T. H. (Oregon, USA)

Hi John

Just so I can get my bearings and know exactly where we are going, are you a young earth creationist? If so, there is plenty of things that science currently, is unable to answer. That doesn`t mean that we should immeditely assign the reason we are here to magic. Because shorn of all it`s glitter, that is what people who believe in a "god" of creation believe. One minute we weren`t here and then "bang", you are here or adam, at least, was here. You are talking creation according to "genesis", aren`t you? Kind Regards, P. M. (Australia)

Hello P.,

Thanks for responding.

What I am is irrelevant to the discussion, which is about the merits of evolution. You see, the first thing people want to do is move the discussion away from evolution and on to other things (which from my perspective is a form of fanaticism and unwillingness to face the facts), and I am not going to allow that to happen.

Where we are going is, hopefully, in the direction of abandoning evolution, because it is not only silly, but also irrelevant to anything having to do with real science.

Yes, I realize there are many things that science is currently unable to answer. However, once again I must point out that that is the faith of the evolutionist in action. Despite the fact that evolutionary cosmology continues to raise far more questions than it is able to, or ever will be able to, answer, people refuse to let it go, preferring to believe, IN FAITH, that one day their religion of evolutionary "science" will provide the answers they're looking for. It won't do any such thing. Ever.

So please let us keep the focus on evolution, and just how, to paraphrase you, "Bang!" - and the entire universe was formed, including all living things, and man, who can contemplate it all. If that is what you believe, then yes, you believe in magic. You believe in something that has never been seen, and never will. It is a modern religious myth, and nothing more.

Sincerely, John

Hello.I really like this book! Are you going to publish it? I wonder if you can start a forum so we can comment? Post answers to these questions maybe on the first page? --C. S. (location and email address unknown)

Thanks for writing, C. As you can see, I have opened up a feedback page, and hope for some lively discussion. I also do hope to publish this in actual book form in the near future, but there's still a lot to say, and I'll be adding to what I've written as time permits.

Definitely a Book that needs to be in print. Your work has to be the most [insert any superlative here] One question. Since the promotion of Darwin didn't come to us before the 19 century, what were the leaders of education 500 years before teaching? Could we dare call it intelligent design or creationism? --R. P. (Arizona, USA)

Thanks you for your input, R.!

Dear John, I'll be a monkey's uncle if that ain't a real hootin' and a hollerin' and dang mighty fine theory you have there. Hey! Wait a minute... I AM a monkey's uncle! Ciao Phophet, JD

Well, JD, all in fun, but I sure hope we see some more evidence of human intelligence in future posts. ;-) --JV

Like your Evolution is Got to go to work or I'd type more. --M. H., (Wyoming, USA)

Please do write more when you have a chance, M. H. If you're at work, though, you'd better watch behind your back, because if someone sees you don't believe in evolution, they might report you to the thought police.

Happy to keep corresponding with you and more than happy to debate. I think in the interests of honesty and knowing where we are both coming from, I wanted to establish a few facts is all.

Now, I think it is relevent to the discussion of "Evolution of the Universe" or "Biological Evolution" for that matter, your views on creation. Because, if you are going to say that evolution doesn`t work, you will have to say what, in your opinion, is the answer. As a theory, it has a lot more going for it than any thing else around today. If you have a better idea, I`ll be happy to hear it, I am a skeptic, however, like all good skeptics, I can be convinced otherwise.

John, scientists have established that all the galaxies in the universe are all moving away from one another, i.e. nothing is moving toward anything else, just like a balloon being blown up with dots on it, all the dots are moving away from one another.

Through the process of "red shift" they have come up with a speed. So they they can approximate when the "Big Bang" happened. There is good scientific theory behind this.

600 years ago, most of the people in the world thought it was flat, is it? About the same time, people thought that the Sun rotated around the Earth, does it?

Science is a "work in progress", because it doesn`t know now, doesn`t mean it won`t. I have faith in Science because although it plods, it usually gets there in the end. No, at the moment, scientists can`t say definitively how the "cosmic egg" formed. It may be wrong, however, to date, it is the only theory that fits the bill with the available know -how.

No John, I don`t believe in magic, I believe that Science will keep striving and as more information becomes available more things will be revealed. Like they will one day find a cure for cancer, cosmology will move on.

Please, produce one scintilla of evidence that the Universe was created by magic and I will happily concede the field. --P. M. (Australia)

"Please, produce one scintilla of evidence that the Universe was created by magic and I will happily concede the field."

Thank you for ending your letter with that sentence. It makes my job simpler. I am telling you, that I am not going to engage anyone in a debate about whether creationism or any other ism is right or not. My focus is on evolution, and evolution alone. And evolution has NOTHING to do with finding a cure for cancer, or any other scientific or medical discipline. If a cure is found, it will be because intelligent people worked with their intelligent minds to find one, using real science and medicine, and not because of some blarney explanation of how everything came about. There is simply, plainly, no scientific or other discipline that needs the theory of evolution in order to advance. None.

Now, I ask you, please produce one iota of evidence that evolution is true, and I will concede the field. Show me one reason why molecules to man evolution is "has more going for it" than any other theory of origins. It's nothing but a fabricated myth backed by just-so stories that have no basis in reality nor scientific evidence. Evolution does NOT work, and never has, and that is my point, and that is what I am working to drive home. Whatever you wish to search for as an alternative is up to you. I am just saying that evolution is NOT one of them.

As for redshift, I am an amateur astronomer. What you are not told in the average astronomy text is that there are a few other JUST AS VALID explanations for redshift besides that the universe is expanding from a big bang. Among them are tangential motion, gravitation, and a simple loss of energy over time and distance. I find it unimaginable that a beam of light could travel for billions of years from its source, and still have the same energy that it had when it left the source.

Further, as with my example of the bicycle trip somehow proving that bears evolved in Alaska (a non sequitur), your argument is the same. Whether the universe is expanding or not is immaterial to the fact that life could not have sprung into existence on its own, and become more complex, as the evolutionists would have us believe. It could not, and did not, happen, no matter how much Time you want to add to the equation. It is also not true that everything is moving away from everything else. The Andromeda galaxy is one example among many of what is called 'blue shift' and it is moving toward us, just as there are examples of galaxies that have collided, or are attached by spiral arms.

As for people thinking the world was flat, that is an old canard, as the Greeks knew well that it was not true, the Hebrew Bible states that the world "hangs upon nothing" in the book of Job. And if people believed it was flat, Columbus would not have taken his journey, which followed countless journeys by ship before his time, by experienced mariners who no doubt were intelligent enough to realize that horizons don't just disappear for no reason. The flat idea comes in part from a semi-fictitious account of Columbus's life and voyages written by Washington Irving, and not from factual history.

Thanks again, John

Never have believed in evolution and never will. The thought of decending from an ape makes me want to puke. If we did come from apes surely we would have retained some of the characteristics. Mainly the body hair. We wouldn't need clothes. we would be stupid. I cannot for the life of me figure out that if we came from apes how the brain would have evolved to make us smart to be able to sew clothes, cook, read, write, etc. To me that is too mind boggling to think about. I mean to trace an ape's brain evolving to our brain oh gee never mind. I think you know what I am trying to say. --M. H. (Wyoming, USA)
I don't blame you for "calling a queer a queer". Fags have a vested interest in opposing evolution. As we both know, virtually all proponents of evolution are members of the Democratic Party, or other groups dedicated to Satan. Don't you think you should print all my remarks so people can really see what kind of scum oppose evolution, and that there is no thinking person who actually believes in it ? Don't you think THAT is your Christian Duty? Obviously, you are vastly more intelligent than any member of the National Academy of Sciences. I think you should definitely print this letter! --R. N. (USA)

Well, I'll certainly print part of it, as the rest has nothing to do with this website. And thanks for toning down your comments (at least some) so they can be printed. We wouldn't want people thinking that all those who defend evolution do it your way. Although this might be a good time to point out that the majority of (or perhaps all) people who believe in things like astrology, the paranormal, flying saucers, extraterrestrials, trance channeling, crystal powers, ghosts, reincarnation, and so on, without any scientific evidence to back them up, are also evolutionists. Carl Sagan, one of the biggest proponents of the non-scientific false myth of evolution, decried all the weird things people believe in his book The Demon Haunted World. A classic case of being able to clearly see the faults of others, while ignoring his own.

But you have not interacted at all with the material in this website. For one, I did not call anyone a queer, nor a fag. I simply pointed out that, from a strictly evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality does not make sense. Since you are of the opinion that many thinking people believe in evolution (and that's certainly true), then there must be some pretty good evidence to back it up, right? So, why don't we start there. Give me one shred of factual, testable, repeatable evidence for how particles popped into existence, and then turned into plants, pandas, and people, all on their own. You see, even thinking people need to believe something about origins, so they have chosen this particular myth, which has no basis in reality. I don't care what you think about Christians or any other -ian. Tell me why evolution is true and not STUPID, and why I should believe it. That's what this website is about.

Thanks, John

Hello Peter, I pretty much expected some duped evolutionist to post something on the xxx board [another discussion board P and I utilize --JV] about the "stardust building blocks." Apparently you missed the point in my e-book about just that sort of thing. But of course, as we all well know, evolutionists will come up with some just-so story as to how this is earth-shattering, despite the fact that organic molecules in space is really nothing new, nor are they turning into anything but organic molecules. But I'm sure you find this all very exciting as it bolsters your faith that the science god will come up with magic answers. I sure hope you'll really think about this stuff.


Hi John I am considering whether I should continue debating with you. I have a reply, half finished in my drafts that I don`t see the point of wasting the time to finish. You just knock Darwinian Evolution without saying what did happen. Thats not a debate. A debate is when you put forward a theory and defend it, you don`t just say that the other persons idea is rubbish because I say so.

It is like me saying there is no god because there`s no evidence, I don`t know that for a fact, it is just the way the lack evidence points. You maybe proved right in the end and evolution isn`t a fact. The thing is, until you can produce evidence to the contrary, the smoking gun lies at the feet of evolution.

Don`t get me wrong, you are more than entitled to your opinion and if you are happy with it, thats fine. I`m not upset about it, it just seems pointless to discuss it if you don`t have an open mind.

Yes, I`m aware of the fossil record not being complete, I`m aware for the reasons it is not complete. You say you are a biologist, fair enough, well having a scientific background, you should know how hard it is for a fossil to form. In actual fact, it is amazing that we have as many as we do.

I could ask you a question, like for instance, why do we have an appendix, what was it`s function and why does it have no discernible function now?

John, there is enough of a fossil record to show that evolution is more than likely the reason we are,as we are, today. If you don`t accept the evidence of eminent scientists, then nothing I say, a mere amateur with a keen interest, is going to convince you.

I have gleaned, that you are a creationist, what about the formation of varves? They caould not have been formed in the time frame of noah`s flood.

I`m happy to continue only if you tell me your opinion of what happened and produce some facts to support it. Theres plenty of holes in the theory of evolution, theres a hell of a lot more in any other theory though.

Kind Regards, P. (Australia)

Hello P., I never said anything about a debate. There is no debate, and your responses are really helping to demonstrate that, if you think about it. Let's see why.

First, 'I just knock Darwinian evolution without saying what did happen.' Again, the point of my argument (not debate) is that DARWINIAN EVOLUTION IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED. Can you bring yourself to admit that? Apparently not. Even though you have no factual, demonstrable evidence for your belief in Chuckism, you refuse to chuck it for no other reason than you 'have no better alternative.' I never asked you for a better alternative. I've only asked that you, and other honest people, admit that Darwinian evolution could not have happened, and did not happen. I do not need to 'put forward a theory' as that is not my purpose. I am putting forward a thesis: that Darwinian evolution is a mythological lie. You can either agree or disagree. If you disagree, then I'm simply asking you why, and to provide evidence to the contrary. As with most brainwashed evolutionists, rather than do that, you go off on rabbit trails and tangents, and just can't focus on the point, which is, once again, that the THEORY OF EVOLUTION is false. So, is it, or isn't it? If it is not, then why not?

Second, as for being 'entitled to [my] opinion,' my opinion is only a small part of what I wrote on the website. I gave plenty of evidence for why evolution is false: building blocks don't build themselves; mutations in already existing genetic material don't explain where that genetic material came from in the first place; information content does not arise on its own and then increase without intelligent input; natural selection works on what's already there, and does not improve survivability, but rather narrows it; life can not arise spontaneously - oh, excuse me - 'abiogenetically'; wings and things don't just magically appear on animals and magically function just right; there's no reason things had to get bigger or more complex; and on, and on, and on. The 'evidence' AGAINST evolution is so overwhelming as to render the theory laughable. And yes, I do think it's funny that any thinking person would even believe it. But I know the reasons for such beliefs.

And no, I have no more open mind than you do. Because I WAS an evolutionist at one time, but now I'm not. But when I was an evolutionist, I really didn't know why. But now that I'm NOT an evolutionist, I know EXACTLY why, and that is because there is not a shred of evidence in favor of it, and I believed it blindly, just as you do now. The 'You don't have an open mind' accusation is yet another smoke and mirrors ploy that evolutionists use to get out of having to defend their indefensible position. Please don't fall into that trap.

You have not researched the appendix very well. Nor other so-called 'vestigial' organs. Just because you are not aware of the function, or former function, of something, does not mean it does not, or did not, have a function. There were once well over 100 so-called 'vestigial' organs, most of which have since been clearly determined to have a function. And you see, once again, in your mind the reasoning goes: I don't know a function for the appendix, so that PROVES that particles turned into people all by themselves. You're using your non-knowledge of the function of an organ to justify your belief in the myth.

Third, now here we go with the appeal to 'eminent scientists.' You see, if the PRIESTS of evolution themselves believe it, it MUST be true, and WHO AM I to question it, even if none of it makes any sense, nor has any basis in scientific reality? I suppose you've never heard of any 'eminent' scientist who was wrong? Are they gods, that we should never question them, nor their motives, prejudices, and presuppositions? We are talking about what they teach happened millions and billions of years ago here. I suppose they're all in 100 percent agreement about it, too, because they were all there to watch it unfold, right? And I, and you, are not to question any of it, right? You'll question ME, because I question THEM, but you will NEVER question THEM, will you? They are your priests, and you are just to listen, and believe, and not ask too many questions, right?

So now, P, EXACTLY WHAT EVIDENCE DO THE EMINENT SCIENTISTS HAVE THAT THE UNIVERSE SPRANG INTO EXISTENCE AND EVERYTHING ELSE FOLLOWED, INCLUDING YOU? You have appealed to the gods, now show us their stuff. Where's the evidence? If you want to convince me, give me something convincing. Don't just tell me that you believe it because 'eminent scientists' say it's true. I want hard, scientific evidence. Show me where, in the lab, the whole evolutionary cosmology sequence has been tested and repeated, without any outside interference. In other words, I'm not going to be convinced until I can see everything making itself again with no scientist or anyone else involved. Can you do that for me?

Ok, then, if you can't do that, show me this fossil record that has convinced you that evolution is the reason we're here today. I want to see a clear progression from particles right on up to people, not some imaginary tree that an artist invented. I want cold, hard fossils, and I don't want just bones and shells put next to each other in some imaginary progression. I want to see all the soft parts, too, and how they evolved. And I want to see all the failed evolutionary experiments. I don't know of a single fossil where evolutionary scientists have not applied some purpose to an appendage or organ. I want to see all the 'useless' intermediate stages, too. I'm a real doubting Thomas, and I won't be convinced until I see all the stages that led to the human nervous system, the human digestive system, the human excretory system, the circulatory and lymphatic systems, and on and on. I don't want some evolutionist's imagination. I want to see all the stages that led to these things. And more than that, I want to see how all those systems managed to come together in one creature, and function together so beautifully. Don't give me your evolutionary faith belief. I want FACTS and EVIDENCE, ok? Not just a few bones in an imaginary progression.

And oh, the varves. A fave of evolutionists, and I believe you have just been parroting some things you've heard from them. Varves prove nothing other than that sediment bearing water produces them. They can form rapidly, and do not need millions of years, as was demonstrated when layers of sediment were formed in a few hours in the Mt St Helens eruption here in the states. Varves don't need the right TIME to form (there's your goddess Time again), they need the right CONDITIONS, just like fossils. Further, here we go again with the typical evolutionist non sequiturs. How does the presence of varves prove that particles turned into plants, animals, and people, all by themselves? Back to my bike trip across America and how it proves that grizzly bears evolved in Alaska.

If you do not wish to continue, that's up to you. My purpose is to demonstrate that evolution is false and get people to finally admit it, who otherwise are too cowardly to do so. I believe you know full well that it is false, and so do many other evolutionists. You're just not going to give it up. You will keep on holding, and keep on hoping, that sooner or later the 'silver bullet' will be there that will finally prove that it all happened just like you hoped it would. But you're wrong, and you never will find that bullet. You believe by faith, and you are fanatical about it too, and that's why you cannot admit it might be wrong.


Please produce your varve research John.

Smoke and mirrors. Rabbit trails. Typical evolutionist diversionary tactic, P. Let's get John trying to defend himself and produce HIS research, and that will free me up from having to produce MY research which demonstrates how varves prove that the universe and all the diversity of life on earth evolved from nothing, all by itself. I won't fall for it. You show me YOUR research, and we'll get somewhere.

Sincerely, John

Do you know a fella named J P Holding. You apologists sing exactly from the same song sheet, I`d swear it is the same person talking.

What does that have to do with how blind chance, mechanistic evolution produced the universe and all the marvelous diversity of life on earth?

It just occured to me, why is your scientific research right and everyone elses is wrong? You say something, it is holy writ. I`m quite happy to cite my scientific sources, will you? You say that the way varve`s are laid down doesn`t prove anything, show me why it doesn``t prove anything.Also, you might answer what happened to all the water from noahs flood.If you could leave of the old apologist "Oh, don`t tell me you fell for that!" Cite the evidence why I shouldn`t have fallen for that!

Well, P, here we go again. More smoke and mirrors and diversionary tactics. You have yet to give me any scientific evidence for why YOUR blind belief in Darwinism is true, but now we're trying the tactic of questioning MY 'scientific research.' The next thing you'll do, which is also a common diversionary tactic of evolutionists, is to question the credentials of scientists who oppose the false myth of evolution, even though many of them, both present and past, are highly qualified - as much or more so than many evolutionary scientists.

So, I ask you, tell me why YOUR evolutionism is right, and anyone who disagrees with it is wrong. I really don't care what 'scientific' sources you quote. I can quote 'em too. I want to hear, from YOU, why you believe that particles popped into existence all by themselves, and then turned themselves into plants, animals, and people. Can you tell me why YOU believe that, and what 'scientific' evidence you have to prove it? Let's start by YOU showing ME how varves prove that particles turned into plants, animals and people all by themselves. How about that? And tell me what happened to all the water from the flood on Mars, which evolutionary scientists insist occurred. If Mars could have a flood, and all the water disappear, is there some reason it couldn't happen here too? I guess not, if you're an evolutionist! More diversionary tactics. Now let's get him arguing about Noah's flood, and that will take the burden off US to have to demonstrate how evolution is true. Keep trying, P! Sooner or later, you're going to have to look in the mirror and admit that you have no defense for the indefensible!


Tried to read this site. A bit too evangelical for me, had that double glazing or possibly insurance salesman bible approach to argument. A dishonest outpouring.

Hi there! "A bit too evangelical" huh? That sounds like one of the many excuses I've heard over the years that gets you off the hook so you don't actually have to interact with the material and decide whether or not it's true. You've already decided it's not before you even read it, and don't want to be bored with the facts, right?


Hi there! Definate insurance salesman. Lots of zeal. Full of 'facts'

Big A

Hello Big A,

Well, now, my guess would be that if you're like most people, you have insurance coverage (likely more than one type), and I certainly hope you're nice to the people who sell it to you. You also appear to be rather zealous about whatever it is you believe. So, why don't you provide some of your own 'facts' so that we can discuss them and see if they merit throwing my website away?

Dear Evolution is Stupid,Can you tell me what facts you have to back up cumulative natural selection?

J. H.

Hello J, Could you please give an example of what you mean by "cumulative natural selection"? Exactly what evidence do you have that something "accumulated" apart from the fruits of someone's imagination? The fact is that natural selection produces absolutely nothing new. That is a KNOWN FACT. Natural selection works with what already exists, and usually results in a DECREASED ability to survive outside a specific environment or niche. For example, fish that live in caves can lose their eyesight, which may render them better able to survive as they turn to other senses to feel their way around. So this is touted as an example of natural selection and evolution in action. However, a LOSS of eyesight does not answer the question of where eyesight came from to begin with, which, by the way, requires not just eyes, but an ability to use light, transmit it to a brain, and the ability of the brain to interpret it. So, any imagined "sequence" of eye evolution has to take into account not just the structure of the eye, but musculature, a circulatory system to nourish it and keep it working, a brain to interpret and control it, and so on. Again, natural selection works with what ALREADY exists, and does not "create" anything new at all. Further, again assuming I understand what you mean by "cumulative natural selection," you have to REALLY stretch your faith to believe that this sort of "cumulative" mechanism resulted in EVERY KNOWN LIVING THING, when there is NO evidence for any such "ladder of life" in the fossil or any other record. There should be COUNTLESS FAILED "EXPERIMENTS" if what you're saying is true, and there simply are not. And there are numerous examples, such as the blood clotting mechanism, that could not possibly have resulted from numerous accumulations. Darwin said that if it could be demonstrated that something did not result from numerous accumulated minor changes, his theory would fail. It has failed time and again, but the fanatics are not about to give it up.

--John V.

John, because of your book and really "right to the point" style of writing, I have come to my personal conclusion that evolution is a false claim made by people who really do not consider any other possibilities. Please publish the book.

T. J.

Dear T,

If you are really serious about this, would you mind writing again with a little more detail? If you'd like to have some private dialogue, we could do that, too.

Sincerely, John

My comments to you are you are right about everything in this book. I am a very strong christian believer. I believe that God created the world in 7 days. So that would make the earth only about 6,000-10,000 years old. It just upsets me when someone says "a million years ago this was created". It is pointless to try to prove a theory that is and never will be correct. If you go directly to the bible you can put down any one of there theories. Well I thank you for reading my comments. I am looking forward to your feedback on them.

T. T.

Dear T. T.,

Thank you for writing. Though I believe the Bible, which is no doubt obvious from what I've written, I decided to focus on evolution itself, and how silly its tenets are. People need to recognize that evolution is a religious myth, and its adherents are just as brainwashed and fanatical and exclusive as any cult. The priesthood of evolutionary scientists wants to keep people in the dark about the fact that evolution has no basis in reality, because that's how they maintain their positions in higher institutions of learning, and scientific disciplines. If they come out and admit evolution is stupid, they may just lose their jobs and status. Keep studying, and keep thinking!

Dear Sir,I have read your e-book. I have also read some of your work on Answers in Genesis's website. I feel that your work is very well written, and your book has facts that many evolutionists can not back up. Are you planning to publish it?

F. P.

Dear F.,

Thank you very much for your comments. I would like to publish the book, but have not been able to do so yet. I also have much more to add to it, when I have the time. Right now I am busy with many things, including answering questions at a weekly seminar someone else is hosting, where we are discussing creation, evolution, and intelligent design.



I am working on things for a debate at my high school, and I was just wondering if you would allow me to use some of the things that you have said in my arguments. (not plagarism, of course)I really like reading things like this, that get to the point and are not afraid to call stupid people stupid

T. R.

Hi T,

You and anyone else who wishes have my permission to use anything from this website. I’d appreciate if you’d mention the site or give credit to it if you do, however.


Good book. A lot of good points!

M. W.


That last piece of feedback. BRILLIANT! Hard hitting and insightful...............whats more, they agreed with you!!!!!I must say, I can hardly wait for the book as well. I`m sure it will be well referenced with up to date scientifically, researched information and not one reference to anything said by certain people in the employ of AN organisation, who shall remain nameless........... Heaven on a stick.

P. M.

Hi P, I see you’re back! After over 30 years of dealing with this issue, I can assure you there’s nothing new that evolutionists have come up, so don’t worry, I have plenty of resources old and new. Now tell me what up-to-date, scientifically researched data you have that demonstrates that particles popped into existence and turned themselves into plants, pythons and people.

I hate to be picky, didn`t god, according to your good book, make the world in Six days?It`s just poor TT (good christian that he states) seems to think he made it in Seven. Wasn`t he having a smoko on the seventh ?????I know your a big one for this inerrancy caper, I thought I may save you some trouble.No need to thank me.

P. M.

P, you are picky. Face it. Also perhaps a pickle shy of a barrel full, but we want to try to be nice here. I’m not getting into what God did. I want to focus on what evolutionists say that goddess Nature and miracle worker Time did, which is made everything by random, materialistic, undirected processes.

Hi In the interests of not believing everything that someone tells me as you so very rightly point out, could you please point me to the "phlogiston" research you are basing your assertions on please? I would like to marry it up with what I`ve been looking at. I have heaps of stuff to compare with you. We will have much fun comparing research and sources.As you say, it is right that science should be held to account.

P. M.

I am sure you have enough resources in Australia to look up something about phlogiston.

You say that it`s a bit rich to believe that time and space started with the BB. I remember you saying in another place that gonzo exists outside time and space so when he made the universe is not relevant to why he suddenly decided to make everything. Two questions on this one.A/ Don`t you think your being inconsistent on this, not allowing space and time, as we know it, not to exist until the BB. B/ Where in the bible does it say gonzo exists outside space and time?

P. M.

You’re persistent. But so am I. I’m not getting tangled in discussions about God and the Bible here. That is an evolutionist diversionary tactic. I want YOU to tell ME how YOUR goddess Nature and miracle worker Time made everything out of nothing, and why you believe it’s true, and what evidence you have to back it up.

You say there is no proof that everything came from nothing and only theories prevail. Fair Enough.Do you have an alternate theory and your scientific basis for that theory?Only fair when were talking science, don`t you think?

P. M.

First you have to recognize that science is not infallible. It is not “god.” There are many questions in life that science cannot answer nor will ever be able to answer. One of them is where we came from. Another is why we’re here. Another is where we’re going. As to the first question, there have been many attempts, both religious and scientific, to answer it, evolution being the latest. Yes, I do have a “theory” about it, but again, that’s not my focus here, and I’m not going to let you divert us off topic. The topic is evolution. The focus is evolution. The question is whether evolution is a valid theory, and what evidence there is to back it up. And that’s where I’m going to stay, not stray.

Hi J Arent there still some restless ones out there, or is it that theyve seen what weve become, and decided its best not to evolve into people any more?" (From this exciting work called agree mate, I assume you wouldn`t be a great Terry Pratchett reader? In "Eric", which has a lot to say about the nature of gods, demons and the afterlife. There is a bit where the two protaganists, Eric and Rincewind, go back to the beginning of creation. They are discussing how to get back to their own time, when in despair, Eric says,"What are we going to do?" Rincewind replies, "Well, if you see something trying to crawl out of the water you could tell it not to bother!"I`m sure they have adopted this policy.

P. M.

P, I think you’re finally catching on! Yes, it appears there is a moratorium on ape evolution, as I have not seen, nor has anyone else, any apes showing the least desire to become humans. I have, however, seen a number of humans regressing some toward apehood, but of course Mother evolution would never allow that to happen now, would she? As for the “something crawling out of water,” let’s go back to the question of why they’d ever have done that to begin with. You are once again attributing some mysterious (shall we say “metaphysical?”) force to matter that urges it to become more complex. There is no reason in creation why it should do so without some outside impetus, and there is no impetus unless you believe in some imaginary evoluitonary “force” that moves things toward higher complexity. That is the reason the “anthropomorphic principle” was invented, in fact. So, it is preposterous to believe that fish moved onto land and turned into flamingoes, felines, and Freddie. They had no reason to do so. They still have no reason to do so, which is why we don’t see that happening. I have, however, seen a number of humans regressing toward fishhood. The evidence can be found on beaches all over the world in summertime.

-- J.

Evolution is a scientific theory. That basically means that it is a model that has been validated by experimental data. One piece of evidence that is consistent with the theory of evolution is that when you put molecules that could have been in the atmosphere a long time ago in a flask, along with sparks (to represent lightning), some amino acids form. A second piece of evidence is that important parts of animals DNA stay the same from animal to animal, while less important parts change radically from species to species. Both of these pieces of evidence are said to be consistent with the theory of evolution. A lot of the questions on your website (where did the "period" at the start of the universe come from? and where is the rest of the fossil record?) try to imply that since there are not answers to these questions, evolution is stupid. I think that logic is flawed. We should 'throw out' or modify models only when evidence is inconsistent with that scientific model. Yes I said modify. A common theme on your website is that when 'backed in to a corner' scientists just quickly change the scientific theory to make it consistent with the evidence. I agree with you. In science models are changed all of the time without people throwing a fit about it. For example, classical mechanics is used to model motion when dealing things that are not too small, but when dealing with very small things quantum mechanics is used. Prior to approximately 1900 classical mechanics was thought to descirbe all motion. So why wasn't there an outcry to throw out all of the principles we had learned from classical mechanics? Because when a model doesn't fit experimental data you modify that model. Models or scientific theories are not set in stone. They can be altered to fit evidence. That is all for now. I will check back later to clarify my comments or respond to your comments. Thank you.

L. K.

Thanks for writing, L. I’ll respond point by point.

Yes, evolution is a theory. A bad one. And the fact that it is a theory does NOT mean it has been validated. If it is validated, it then becomes a fact. Evolution has never been validated. Everything from mutations to natural selection has been demonstrated to NOT support the theory of evolution from “simple” to complex. That is the whole point of my website. There is NO validation for the theory and it should be abandoned.

I discussed the “molecules that ‘could’ [as you say] have been in the atmosphere a long time ago” in my treatise. That is the Miller-Urey experiment which has been INVALIDATED on the following premises: First, no one can prove what any “original atmosphere” was made of. It’s all guesswork. And the alleged atmosphere that Miller used has now been challenged by new information. He and Urey proposed a reducing atmosphere, and now scientists (as often happens) have taken an about face and said it was probably oxidizing. Second, putting molecules in a flask requires a creator and designer, who creates and designs the experiment, sets all the parameters so that he gets the outcome he’s hoping for, starts the experiment, and ends it. The experiment did not create and run itself. It was created and run by an outside intelligence. That alone negates it as any sort of “proof” of evolution. And I make that clear in my book. If Miller had not ended the experiment when he was satisfied that he had some results, whatever was in the flask would have eventually been destroyed. Finally, the fact that a few amino acids were CREATED by an experimenter means absolutely nothing. Hence my diatribe against the whole “building blocks” scenario, which is meaningless if there’s no intelligence to do something with the “blocks.” Hence, another invalidation of Darwinism.

On your next point, I have no idea what you mean by “important” pieces of DNA. And let’s go over this again: The fact that something happens to DNA has NOTHING TO DO WITH EXPLAINING WHERE IT CAME FROM IN THE FIRST PLACE! Sorry for yelling, but I tried so hard to get that point across in my book. Evolutionists point to mutations in DNA, copies of DNA, substitution of DNA and proudly trumpet their “proofs” for how evolution took place because of changes in DNA. They conveniently avoid telling us HOW DNA EVOLVED in the first place. DNA has incredible amounts of information stored in its molecules, and here we are saying that all came about on its own. Well, it is a well-known SCIENTIFIC FACT that information does not arise on its own. It has to have a source. It has to have a code. It has to have a mode of transmission, a mode of reception, a mode of translation, and apparati in place to utilize it. This does not happen on its own. Thus, yet another invalidation of Chuckism.

As to your statement about the non-answers to my question about where the Big Burp “period” (or singularity if you want to get fancy) came from, you “think that logic is flawed”? That is a typical evolutionist response. I happen to think YOUR logic is flawed. Because there is no logic in the universe that allows us to believe that everything in creation began as a “something” the size of a period or smaller. It’s blackboard mythology, can never be proved because no one was there, and nobody that I know of is making new universes using it. And to allege that just because we don’t have answers to it now doesn’t mean we won’t in the future is nothing more than evolutionary fanatic faith in action. You want to believe it because you don’t know what else to believe.

The “evidence” IS inconsistent with evolution. That’s why more and more scientists are beginning to admit it. Have you heard of the document “A Dissent from Darwinism” which has been signed by hundreds of top scientists, and still more every month? And the numerous books like Evolution : A Theory in Crisis, by Michael Denton, which is just one of the good books BY EVOLUTIONISTS that question the validity of Chuckie Deeism? I fully recognize that scientific method is to replace theories with new ones that better fit the facts. The fact is that evolution does not fit ANY of the facts. You speak of quantum and classical mechanics. Those are testable and observable (to a degree). Evolution is not. No one has ever seen an information-increasing mutation, which would be absolutely necessary for the theory of evolution to be validated, nor have they proposed any mechanism whereby the information contained in DNA and the DNA molecule itself could have arisen on their own, begun reproducing, and made every living thing in existence. That is STUPID, L. K., and I hope you come to recognize it.

Sincerely, John

John,Before I reply could you provide sources for the following arguments you proposed:"That is the Miller-Urey experiment which has been INVALIDATED on the following premises: First, no one can prove what any original atmosphere was made of. Its all guesswork. And the alleged atmosphere that Miller used has now been challenged by new information. He and Urey proposed a reducing atmosphere, and now scientists (as often happens) have taken an about face and said it was probably oxidizing."I would like sources for any of this information so that I can look it up and read it."Well, it is a well-known SCIENTIFIC FACT that information does not arise on its own."I need a source here. Is this statement based on experimental data?A Dissent from DarwinismWhere can I find this document?

L. K.

Hi L, Is there some reason you cannot reply without my having to provide you documentation, which is abundantly available if you look for it? I replied to your statements without demanding such from you. You can find any number of articles online that take issue with Miller-Urey. And you can read Jonathan Wells’ book Icons of Evolution and find out why the experiment does nothing to demonstrate evolution from particles to plants, pythons and people. Check this article out, for just one:

As for information never arising on its own without a source, that is both common sense, and a fact of information science. If you can demonstrate otherwise, I’m game. Information must have a source, and to be utilized it must have a code, mode of transmission, mode of reception, mode of interpretation, and mode of application. Information simply does not arise on its own. For example, if I say “paint it red,” my brain is the source of the information and encoding of the letters (as I already have an understanding of what I wish to convey), my voice the mode of transmission, your ears the receptors, your brain the instrument of interpretation, and then you can apply it by using your hands and arms and a paintbrush. If I say those same words to someone who does not speak English, they are meaningless. So you see, for DNA to arise on its own until it contained the billions of bits of information necessary to make a living thing, and to transmit them, translate them, and make something out of them, with NO direction whatsoever, is a miraculous act far beyond anything anyone could ever imagine, and is science fiction, not fact.


Just a brief follow-up to that last post, one thing I’ve found interesting in my many years of dealing with evolutionists is that they RARELY require documentation of anything an evolutionist tells them. For instance, our friend obviously has no problem believing that Stanley Miller and Harold Urey knew EXACTLY what the atmosphere of the earth was composed of BILLIONS of years ago. After all, they’re “experts” and who is to question their assumptions. But if you DO question them, you’d better provide documentation for why you disagree.
Is your name evolution? --Austen

No, that is the name of a religious system.

Hey John I really like the book! --P. K. (USA)

Great! Thanks! Hope you’ll pass the word on.

comments: It is great to see someone like yourself who is educated in biology making a stand against this theory. I am just amazed that even when someone takes a stand that is educated on the topic the first thing evolutionist do is try and discredit him. They will believe someone who had a bachleor of theology was a great scientist but that a trained biologist cannot make informed observations. I am no scientist but it would stand to reason that if reptiles flapping their limbs or falling out of trees would create wings that in a while longer skydivers should not need their chutes. If bears swimming in the water can turn into whales I am not taking the kids to the beach anymore because we don't have a bowl at home big enough for them. –S. P. (Canada)

Exactly, and thanks for your comments. Wait till you see the letter following yours.

There are thousands of scientists who don’t believe in evolution. They’re just not as vocal or powerful a force (yet) as the evolutionary religionists. But the façade is crumbling as more and more people are recognizing that evolution has no basis in reality.


The devil is in the details. To obsess over how evolutiom might be disproved is ridiculous.As a BSBS with a concentration in Microbiology, I spent a few years studying the idea of phylogeny recapitulates ontology. It does and only a complete idiot would not see this point give the data. Are you confused by the big words? That is sign #1 that you are an idiot.Each human is just a divergence from the ultimate embryonic development. At the moment, Humans are the most evolved. This just means they achieve the latest stage of biological development.Someday, some species will develop further. Natural selection will assure they inherit the earth as we humans have at the moment.This s--- is so ----ing simple. I would feel like a jack-ass if I could not see how obvious it is. Shame on stupid morons who think evolution make no sense. How ----ing stupid can you be?Just as American Motors, the "Pacer" was not selected by car buyers. The result=no more Pacers. It is so simple.Find a gun and commit suicide. Only a worthless moron would challenge the obvious nature of evolution. It happened and forever will happen. As a result humans exist.Proving evolution is false is like killing your parents. It is absurd, stupid, and serves no beneficial purpose. Evolution makes sense of the world.Your opinions make clear that life would be better if you kept your ignorant mouth shut. Evolution is obvious fact. Only a complete moron would be blind to this.I guess you are a complete moron.Hope it make you happy to stand out amongst the brain-alive members of society.Let's make it simple. I read your article and I found it free of reason. The natural corollary is you are stupid.There, two different systems of measurement show you to be a sack of crap.Find a shot gun and blow your head off. Everybody on Earth will benefit from fewer crap-stupid-morons like you.Claiming evolution is false just proves you have joined the most stupid and worthless sacks of crap in history. Get a clue and terminate your web access. Humanity (all of it) is smarter than you.I would cry if I were as intellectually-challenged as you have proven yourself to be.Shame and embarassment is your only reward. Your Mom gave up her figure for your worthless ass. Damn, that was a bad decision.Never, ever post another one of your opinions. I say your life is a waste of carbon. The world will be a better place I --D. T.

Hi D. T.,

Very enlightening letter. You certainly demonstrate the fact that evolutionists are fanatics just like any other. For some reason many of you can’t defend your faith without resorting to foul language and ad hominems to “make your point,” whatever it is. Let’s take a look…

Of course, as a fanatic you do not want people “obsessing” over how evolution “might be” disproved. They might actually find out it has been.

I am not sure what a BSBS is (perhaps a bit of symbolism there), but if that’s intended to impress somebody, it didn’t work. I don’t care how many degrees you have. Evolution is false, and your letter does nothing to prove otherwise. It’s typical smoke and mirrors type stuff, with lots of expletives, and no substance. If you know science, show science. You apparently don’t even know that the phrase regarding embryology is “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” even though you spent “a few years” studying it. And any honest evolutionary scientist will inform you that that theory was debunked almost from the time Haeckel invented it. No reputable biologist believes that in our day, despite the fact that it’s still promulgated as true in many textbooks. And you could not begin to demonstrate WHY it should be true either, apart from your imagination, or HOW it could possibly have come about. To say that the development of two germ cells into a human being “recapitulates” the evolution of the human species you’d better be prepared to demonstrate how the enormous amount of information contained in those germ cells came into existence, how it organized itself to be able to form a human being, how the sperm and egg “evolved” independently yet work together to make a human being, and how the entire birth mechanism evolved just right to be able to allow the entire process of gestation, and so on and so on. Your oversimplification of the actual facts is a common evolutionist ploy to make everything “work” for your system. You should also be able to demonstrate the MILLIONS of “failed” experiments on the way to the human germ cell and birth mechanism in the fossil record.

I loved your statement “at the moment, Humans are the most evolved.” Prove it. If everything has supposedly evolved just right to fill a particular niche, then why are we filling ours any better than any other evolved life form? Your next one is even better: Some day some species will develop further. I’m sure glad we have the likes of you to predict the evolutionary future with such accuracy!

Even more I like what you say after that, and then follow with “Evolution makes sense of the world.” Your religion? No thanks. “Evolution is obvious fact”? Typical “just-so” statements with absolutely no substance behind them. I guess you do a lot of crying. And maybe drive a Pacer? Too bad you were cut off at the end there, but that might be symbolic too.


Hi John,

Seems you and I are on different sides of the coin. I studied myself out of special creation when I was faced with some very strong evidence with respect to evolution and the realization that what I was taught at seminary was both outdated and wrong. I have been a minister for 8 years and now a doctoral student in biological sciences for the past 3 years so think I have a pretty good handle on the subject. I have read propaganda like yours plenty of times, but because a good friend recommended reading your webpage (I am sure in hopes of saving my wayward soul) I figured Id indulge myself once more. The problem has become all the more evident; you and yours prey on the ignorance of humankind and their desire to latch on to something meaningful in their meaningless existence. The fact that you do not know what you are speaking of should be clear to anyone who has cracked the pages of a biology text book (high school student and college undergrads alike); yet, I am sure because you are religious, people will believe you; you lie, either intentionally or in ignorance. Either way, it is really sad. Okto the pointa few comments on the first chapter just becausewell, just because it is the first one. Kissing bacteria? Sex was invented by bacteria and that bacteria changed into humans? Who believes that? My friend, there are now recognized six domains of life with two major splits between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Yes, prokaryotes (e.g., bacteria) can reproduce sexually and asexually, but it is a far cry from how eukaryotes reproduce. No one believes eukaryotic sex evolved from prokaryotic sex. My challenge for you is to find a single bit of research that suggests this is the case. Eukaryotic sex evolved long after there was a divergence from prokaryotes. We even know the developmental and genetic mechanisms for which sex is determined. And bird flight? Have you even read a book or a research article on the theories of the development of flight? I think maybe the movies you saw were not in the Smithsonian but at the local cinemaDisney maybe? Nobody believes that one day a lizard grew wings so it could fly. Natural selection is a tinkerer, and it is thought, over many millions of years, small changes occur and sometimes are co-opted for reasons other than they originally were selected. It is very clear you do not understand the basic tenets of natural selectionmaybe it is not what is stupid. Try reading a little of what Stephen J. Gould wrote on exaptation, maybe the Spandrels of San Marco would be a good starting place. Let me also suggest some Richard Dawkins, maybe The Blind Watchmaker. Dont worry it is not too scientific. He wrote for the scientific illiterate. Might I also suggest you familiarize yourself with Apologetics Press and ICR, who can at least provide you with somewhat relevant talking points so that anyone who knows anything might take you a little more seriously. It still surprises me (though it shouldnt by now) that your kind seems to have expertise in so many different fields. You write about zoology, evolution, cosmology, paleontology, geology and physics just to name a few subject areas. Knowing so much about so many fields indeed is remarkableor maybe just suspect. Honestly, my friend, you should be ashamed of yourself. Beware of false teachers, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits.... D. McE (North Dakota, USA)

Dear D,

Well that is a long, involved letter. My responses are in bold, interpolated within your letter, following the "John:"

Hi John, Seems you and I are on different sides of the coin. I studied myself out of special creation when I was faced with some very strong evidence with respect to evolution and the realization that what I was taught at seminary was both outdated and wrong.

John: Yes, I would call that opposite sides of the coin, for sure. My university Biology textbooks were what really convinced me that evolution was baloney, and then I went on to seminary to get a Master's degree in Theology, and the truth of what I was taught there has been reinforced over the years. I guess it's your predisposition when you go into it that determines what you'll get out of it. Perhaps you did not go to seminary actually wanting a seminary education, but rather looking for chinks in the armor? Or maybe you didn't go to a very good seminary. I know guys who went to liberal seminaries and came out for the worse at the other end. Sounds like your case.

I have been a minister for 8 years and now a doctoral student in biological sciences for the past 3 years so think I have a pretty good handle on the subject.

John: I have been in ministry over 30 years and have a B. S. in Biology, with experience in that field, metallurgical engineering, and astronomy. I've also been heavily involved in the realm of creation/evolution for most of those 30 years. So I think I too have a pretty good handle on the subject from both a scientific and theological perspective, and they're not mutually exclusive at all.

I have read propaganda like yours plenty of times, but because a good friend recommended reading your webpage (I am sure in hopes of saving my wayward soul) I figured Id indulge myself once more.

John: Well, as you can imagine, I've had my fill of evolutionary propaganda over the past 30 years, too. I'm in a pretty revealing discussion right now elsewhere with people who are trying to deny that Hitler was influenced by darwinian concepts, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

The problem has become all the more evident; you and yours prey on the ignorance of humankind and their desire to latch on to something meaningful in their meaningless existence.

John: Apparently you have not latched onto anything meaningful, and misery loves company. Funny, but of course I believe it is YOU and YOURS who are preying on ignorance. Evoloution is religious mythology, with no basis in reality, as will be further demonstrated shortly. And apparently you have missed the fact that evolutionists too seek to impart some meaning to life. Recently an evolutionist who is certain (though I know not how) that there is no life after death told me that my primary raison d'etre should be, like his, to enjoy my wife and kids, and find things that make me happy. Yes, of course. Then I die. Very meaningful.

The fact that you do not know what you are speaking of should be clear to anyone who has cracked the pages of a biology text book (high school student and college undergrads alike);

John: That is a typical evolutionist smoke and mirrors statement, which will shortly be demolished. I'll pit my 30 years' experience against your eight any day.

yet, I am sure because you are religious, people will believe you; you lie, either intentionally or in ignorance.

John: I'm not sure I understand that statement, but I guess you meant "your lie". No, my friend, you are the one who believes a lie. There is not one shred of evidence to back up the myth you believe in. And let me point out right now that YOU have a vested interest in defending evolution. I don't. You're a doctoral student in biology, right? So if you don't defend the myth that you are required to believe unquestioningly by the priests who are teaching you their religion, you'll be booted out. I don't have to be concerned about that. If I say evolution is a pile of doo doo, I won't lose my job or be refused my degree. You will. Because you're part of a religious system that expects unquestioning obedience and allegiance.

Either way, it is really sad. Okto the pointa few comments on the first chapter just becausewell, just because it is the first one. Kissing bacteria?

John: Yep, that is exactly what the movie showed. Then they turned into other creatures that could have sex.

Sex was invented by bacteria and that bacteria changed into humans? Who believes that?

John: Evolutionists. Apparently it has been lost on you that according to evolution, the universe generated itself from nothing and nowhere to become everything and everywhere, and then particles magically appeared and began to accrete and become molecules which got together and formed chains, which began to replicate and then magically came to life, and then they magically became prokaryotes, which then magically became eukaryotes, which eventually magically turned into plants, animals and humans. If that's not the story of evolution in a "nut" shell, then what is ("nut" is in quotes intentionally)? So, sex had to creep in there somewhere, right? Well, according to a Public Broadcasting System special on evolution not long ago, exactly what I said happened in the movie I saw, happened in their documentary too. Kissing bacteria turned into cavorting humans, with NO explanation whatsoever as to how that could possibly have happened, no matter how many millions of years you add. And keep in mind, lengthy Time periods are the miracle workers of the religion of evolution.

My friend, there are now recognized six domains of life with two major splits between prokaryotes and eukaryotes.

John: Well, that's just wonderful. Six domains of life. In other words, life just keeps on gettin' more complex, doesn't it? Now tell me where life came from. Recognizing life and explaining its origin and HOW inanimate material became prokaryotes and eukaryotes are two quite different ball games.

Yes, prokaryotes (e.g., bacteria) can reproduce sexually and asexually, but it is a far cry from how eukaryotes reproduce.

John: So what? I want you to tell me how reproducing organisms "evolved" in the first place, not about what capabilities they have. So far you haven't done much to undermine my thesis.

No one believes eukaryotic sex evolved from prokaryotic sex.

John: I don't believe EITHER of them evolved, so that's no problem for me! The question is, "Where did sex come from?" And so far all you are telling me is where it did NOT come from.

My challenge for you is to find a single bit of research that suggests this is the case.

John: Prokaryotic cells preceded eukaryotic ones, correct? Well, it took google a split second to find this, just ONE of many articles apparently demonstrating that you did not do your homework:

Biologists are almost certain that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes because:

John: Now, that may not be referring specifically to the manner in which pros and eus reproduce, but if one evolved from the other, is it not logical to presume that the later reproductive system incorporated mechanisms of the former? In other words, one "evolved" into the other. But it's a moot point, because NEITHER of them evolved from anything. What you are doing is taking two organisms that ALREADY exist, and two systems of reproduction that ALREADY exist, and drawing an IMAGINARY line extrapolating backwards, and saying "this is where it evolved from." That is IMAGINATION. It is NOT science. NOT testable. NOT repeatable. It's already done, and you're just building your creation mythology on it.

Eukaryotic sex evolved long after there was a divergence from prokaryotes. We even know the developmental and genetic mechanisms for which sex is determined.

John: Again, you have provided NOTHING that refutes my thesis. You're taking what ALREADY exists, i.e., developmental and genetic MECHANISMS which are ALREADY IN PLACE and using your evolution-tainted mythology to draw some imaginary scenario depicting the origin of those MECHANISMS which are ALREADY in place.

And bird flight? Have you even read a book or a research article on the theories of the development of flight?

John: If by "theories" you are referring to evolutionary mythological stories about how flight developed, yes, I have. They are a bunch of baloney. Have you ever read an article or book that explains ALL the physiological changes - neuro-muscular, skeletal, respiratory, structural, etc., that would be necessary ALL AT ONCE for flight to have magically evolved like your myth tries to propound? Nor can you begin to answer WHY flight "evolved." Was there some reason creatures had to fly when they were surviving just fine without it? Well, of course, the mythologizers will invent some explanation about having to escape from predators. Any half genius can see the stupidity and illogic of that argument, but evolutionists who have nothing else to hold onto will grasp at it with eager hands (that might turn to wings in a few million years).

I think maybe the movies you saw were not in the Smithsonian but at the local cinemaDisney maybe?

John: I told you where I saw them: The Museum of Natural History (aka one of evolution's cathedrals) in London.

Nobody believes that one day a lizard grew wings so it could fly.

John: You're right about that! Couldn't possibly have happened in a day like the video showed. So let's throw in the evolution religion's miracle worker: Time! Let's add a few million years, and VOILA'! We have flight! Well, you can add all the years you want. For any creature to have "evolved" flight is a plain and simple impossibility, for the reasons I have outlined. It's not just a matter of flapping arms turning to wings. You have to have massive changes in physiology, and all that has to be wired to a brain that knows what changes have taken place and how to utilize them. Any budding rocket scientist can see something like that did not evolve. But that's not the end of the story. You're not just saying flight evolved, but EVERY OTHER METABOLIC AND PHYSIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTIC AND PROCESS IN EVERY OTHER LIVING THING DID TOO. You're saying that ALL THE ASTOUNDING COMPLEXITY OF ALL LIVING THINGS ALL PUT TOGETHER MAGICALLY CAME ABOUT BY ITSELF just because you added millions of years. Well, Dan, you're going to have to show me some evidence that the Time goddess created everything. I've seen time destroying lots of things around me. That's thermodynamics in action. Haven't seen it create anything new all by itself yet, though.

Natural selection is a tinkerer,

John: I always love it when evolutionists anthropomorphize. Can't avoid it, can you? As if Natural Selection has some ability to know what it's doing. That's why words like "tinker" and "create" and "made" are used so often in evolutionspeak. The fallacy of your statement should be patently clear to any thinking person, as it was even to Darwin. If what you say is true, then that "tinkerer" should have left BILLIONS and BILLIONS of FAILED and JUNKED experiments laying around in the fossil record. Is that what we find? Not even a chance. What we find are well-defined structures to which clear functions can be attributed, not a bunch of half-formed pieces that your "Natural Selection tinkerer" discarded.

and it is thought, over many millions of years, small changes occur and sometimes are co-opted for reasons other than they originally were selected.

John: Well "it is thought" wrongly. Millions of years are your Savior. They are your Miracle Worker. Without them your myth falls apart. Because you KNOW that if you say something happened one, two or three million years ago (and who cares about accuracy - heck, throw in a plus or minus 500,000 if you want!), you KNOW nobody can say they were there and actually saw it, so you can't lose, right?

John: And "small changes" in what? IN WHAT? Let me answer: in what ALREADY EXISTS. Do you understand that? You need to tell me where the material in which those "small changes" are taking place came from IN THE FIRST PLACE. Then tell me what evidence you have that those "small changes" turned into large ones with time. NONE. They didn't. It's nothing but your imagination, and there is no mechanism known by which genetic information could have arisen on its own from base, inanimate material with no outside input, and then that information increased to make more and more complex organisms. INFORMATION JUST DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. I discussed that in my book, so no need to rehash it here. Further, you then have to come up with some mythical explanation as to WHY THINGS GOT MORE COMPLEX. Is there some magical law at work that forces things to go from simple to complex? No, there is not. However, GOOD SCIENCE tells us that everything is tending toward entropy, or toward less complexity. And don't give me the line about crystal formation proving matter can organize itself into more complex things, or life itself going contrary to thermodynamics. The NET result is always a gain in entropy.

It is very clear you do not understand the basic tenets of natural selectionmaybe it is not what is stupid.

John: I understand them very well. You don't understand why they have NOTHING to do with evolution. Natural selection works with WHAT ALREADY EXISTS. It does NOT create anything new at all. If you can demonstrate otherwise, go for it. And if you can demonstrate that any mutation has ever INCREASED the amount of information contained in a genome, go for that too. If you want to see a revealing interview, get a copy of the DVD or video "From a Frog to a Prince." In that Richard Dawkins is asked if he can indicate one example of an information-producing mutation, such as would be absolutely necessary for evolution to have proceeded from simple to complex. The question is met with silence. Dawkins had egg on his face and went on a campaign of misinformation and trying to clean up after that interview.

Try reading a little of what Stephen J. Gould wrote on exaptation, maybe the Spandrels of San Marco would be a good starting place.

John: Ahh, Gould said it. I believe it. That does it. One of my favorite twists on a popular bumper sticker. I've read plenty of evolutionary High Priest Gould's works. I actually like the way he writes, but too bad he was blinded by the mythology. Of course, if he ever admitted that evolution was bunk, that would have ended a career of popularity, fame and fortune, now wouldn't it have?

Let me also suggest some Richard Dawkins, maybe The Blind Watchmaker.

John: D,let me suggest you re-read Dawkins and Gould, and instead of taking what they say at face value because you respect them as the high priests of your religion, with all the insights into the secrets of life and the universe that the peon public is too dumb to know about, you ask a lot of HOW COULD THAT POSSIBLY BE? questions. And then maybe the same thing will happen to you that happened to me.

Dont worry it is not too scientific. He wrote for the scientific illiterate.

John: Perhaps you should be the one worrying. If you're getting a doctorate in biology and can't see that the astounding complexity of life could not possibly have evolved, and are suckered into believing what Gould and Dawkins tell you, then I consider you to be scientifically illiterate. Try reading Michael Denton's "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" for a change of scenery.

Might I also suggest you familiarize yourself with Apologetics Press and ICR, who can at least provide you with somewhat relevant talking points so that anyone who knows anything might take you a little more seriously.

John: I'm more familiar with them than you might think. But I don't want to get heavily into a creation and evolution thing here. As I said, my purpose is more to show simply that evolution is stupid, and has duped an unwitting public into believing what amounts to the modern creation myth.

It still surprises me (though it shouldnt by now) that your kind seems to have expertise in so many different fields.

John: Well thank you! You see, because the evolution myth has crept into everything from psychology to why people are overweight, if we want to be able to show people why they've been blindsided we have to know a little about what we're talking about, and that covers a lot of subjects. Because evolution is a religious worldview, it has insinuated itself into everything in our day.

You write about zoology, evolution, cosmology, paleontology, geology and physics just to name a few subject areas. Knowing so much about so many fields indeed is remarkableor maybe just suspect. Honestly, my friend, you should be ashamed of yourself. Beware of false teachers, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits....

John: Of course, you wouldn't be referring to Darwin, Dawkins and Gould, now would you?

Do you realize you did not answer my questions? Instead, you ignored them and made me appear to say things I didn't (e.g., I never said eukaryotes did not evolve from prokaryotes; What I did say was eukaryotic sex did not evolve from prokaryotic sex). My friend, what you have done is erect what some would call a "straw man" (or really in your case "straw men"). Typically, this is done when one cannot directly answer a charge, which of course you can't since you have a poor understand of evolutionary theory. You should be ashamed of yourself. And, by the way, of course you do not mean that "evolution is stupid"; since "evolution" doesn't have a mind it really cannot be stupid. What you mean to say is that people who believe evolution are stupid. Now is that all in the spirit of Christian love? Just curious? Thanks, D

Hello again, D,

A somewhat disingenuous letter, I have to say. I answered whatever questions you posed to me, as can be plainly seen by reading my responses to you. The only thing you bring up that I supposedly did not answer is the eukaryote-prokaryote issue, and if you will READ my response, you will see that I never accused you of having said that eukaryotes did not evolve from prokaryotes. So much for straw men.

Sorry that I have a poor understanding of evolutionary theory. But at least you call it a theory and not a fact or law of science, which it clearly is not. “Ashamed” of myself? Why’s that? If I’m only a bunch of random molecules with no meaning to my existence other than that which I invent to try to give meaning to it, what is “shame” that I should be “ashamed?” I’m only trying to explain my existence according to what my evolved brain molecules make of it, right? So, why is my explanation any more “shameful” than yours?

The old blarney about evolution not having a “mind” isn’t going to work here. Perhaps you’ve heard the well-known quote from evolutionist pope Richard Dawkins, wherein he affirms that things have the “appearance of having been designed” but in reality they have no design nor purpose? Well, besides evoking the question that, if that is true, why should we even bother listening to what he has to say, the fact is that evolutionists can’t get around marveling at the “appearance” of design and purpose they see in everything, hence they can’t avoid words like “design” or “created” or “purpose” or “reason.” It’s just that they have an a priori commitment to denying it whatever the cost. So much for scientists seeking “truth.” Many are avoiding it, but there are some brave souls ( in one case, over 600 have signed the “Dissent from Darwinism” so far) who are stepping out and calling a fake a fake.

No, I do not think that everyone who believes evolution is stupid. They are deceived. Or else willingly in denial. Or they don’t know any better and are trusting those who think they do. Or they’re afraid of losing their status or jobs, being ostracized and criticized, which is part of the evolution religion’s way of keeping the brainwashed in fear. Or they just don’t care.

As for the “Christian love” bit, I told you I’m not getting into that here because it has nothing to do with the facts and is just one more diversionary tactic that evolutionists use. But I will say that one aspect of Christian love is telling the truth, and that’s usually not easy, and you certainly are not practicing it, if you’re setting yourself up as a “good” “Christian evolutionist,” in judgment of me.

Just for your information - I am not a "Christian evolutionist"...I have come to the conclusion that Christianity is a farce. I'd say I am more agnostic to the whole thing. I do see design in nature, and would even agree that every design suggests a designer; however, and here is the brilliance of Darwin's work, the "designer" is sufficiently explained with natural causes. There is no need for a God. Nature selects, or if you will, "designs". The design is more of a product than it is a goal. And, how can you spout the things you do and then say that this is not about Christianity. If it is not about that, then what is it about? If we are stupid (or deceived) in believing in evolution then what alternative is there? And, if you, as you say, "have a poor understanding of evolutionary theory" how is it that you can write an e-book about it? Finally, your premise that if evolution has occurred then one should not "feel" (e.g., "what is shame that I should be ashamed") is unfounded. Who is to say morality cannot exist without a God? Who is to say that our behaviors, thoughts, and feelings are not also a product of natural selection? --D

Hello D,

You know, it really frightens me to think that you are a PhD candidate and cannot see the fallacies in what you say.

First of all, let’s go over this once again: It’s not about Christianity, God, theism, etc. You apparently are unaware of the fact that there are, for example, Muslims who don’t believe in evolution, including a very vocal one named Harun Yahyah. And there are also those like David Berlinski, Jonathan Wells, Michael Denton, and the 600 plus who have signed the “Dissent from Darwinism” who do not necessarily have anything to do with Christian creationism, but are adamant that Darwinism is a theory which should be abandoned.

However, we are talking about the religion of evolution here, and why it is a religion, and why it is wrong. And your letter is just one more piece of evidence that evolution IS a religion.

You “see” design in nature, yet you BELIEVE that nature “created” things by random processes. So you are echoing evolutionary high priest Richard Dawkins, who said that things give the “appearance” of having been designed, but they’re not. The foolishness of such a statement can only be discerned by someone who takes a few minutes to THINK about it. How many things do you know that are the product of random processes that “appear to be designed?” They may appear to be DESTROYED, but certainly not designed.

Now, as to the “brilliance” of Darwin’s work, you have chosen, because of your evolutionary religious faith, to deny all the scientific discoveries of the past 150 years that prove Darwin false. The discoveries in molecular biology alone are enough to prove his theory false. According to pope Darwin himself, if anything could be demonstrated to NOT have come about by numerous tiny modifications over time, it would prove his theory false. Well, Michael Behe is just one of many modern scientists who have demonstrated that biological processes like the coagulation cascade of blood could not have come about by numerous tiny modifications. Any living thing “evolving” blood coagulation would be dead. And dead things don’t evolve.

Sorry you did not pick up on the sarcasm in my statement about having a poor understanding of evolutionary theory. I’ll just leave it at that.

I particularly like your ending, though. “Who is to say?” That is MY point exactly: Who are YOU to tell ME that I am wrong? Why should we listen to Mr PhD candidate, or any other PhD? Does that make YOU God? I think so! You’re saying, “LISTEN TO ME!!! LISTEN TO ME!!!!” and then asking the question, “Who is to say?” Apparently you believe YOU are to say, no??!! If what you believe is true, viz., that there is no design in nature, and that the only purpose in anything is what our evolved chemicals which we call a brain assign to it, then who are YOU to say that what you believe is the “right” thing, and what I believe is “wrong”? You don’t even seem to be able to comprehend your own illogic! WHY should anything that evolved be “moral?” WHAT is “morality” if, by evolution, it’s nothing more than the product of a bunch of random molecular processes? You have NO BASIS for morality, other than what YOU decide it is. And if I decide differently, then that’s too bad for you. My evolved molecules just think differently from yours.

So, if we’re going to talk religion here, we need to address YOUR religion of evolution, not anyone else’s faith beliefs. That is what this website is all about.


If you are going to write something of this calibur, please use spell check. Every time you spell something wrong, God kills a penguin. Please, think of the Penguins.

-- C------, Proud Member of the "CDC"

Hi C------,

It's calibEr, not calibUr. There goes another penguin! But don't worry, they need to die to evolve!

Thanks for writing,

Awesome web site! Have you written any books? Have you made any videos on this subject? I would really like more material from you. I too don't believe in evolution. I have many funny stories to tell you that I have personally experienced. Here is one of them.This happened at N--- University this year (2006) while I was enrolled in [Geology] with Dr. K---. He was telling us about how the planets came into existence. He said, "A ball of heated gas exploded and the bits flew across the galaxy and formed planets. The left over hot ball became the sun. The heavier material didn't go far because it weighed more and made the planets close to the sun ie.. Mars, Earth,etc.. The lighter stuff went farther and became gassier planents far away like Saturn and Jupiter." I said, "sir what do you mean heavy? There is no weight in outer space. And what made the planets stop and go into orbit after the explosion? An object in motion tends to continue in motion.........?" He thought for a moment and said, "Ahh but solar winds act against the planets to stop them." I said, "noooo the solar winds from the explosion of the sun was pushing them farther away from it, not stopping it." You could see a little light bulb turn on maybe for the first time in his life. LOL I have many stories like this one with my experiences in college. I say keep the professors thinking by showing the absurdity they teach and believe. Next time I'll have to tell you about a proffessor at V--- Community College who hit the book with his fist when we discussed evolution openly in class. He lost big time.

Hi J,

Well, I'm finally getting around to responding to you and the others to follow. Thanks for your patience. We just moved residences, had to get new Internet service, and we have an online business among many other activities and work responsibilities, so this had to be put on the back burner for a bit.

I have only written a little booklet, but have written lots of magazine articles, editorial items, and other such endeavors. I'd like to write a full-fledged book one of these days, but that day doesn't look like it will arrive too soon. Thank you for your kind remarks. I've tried to write something that was more challenging and different from your average 'I don't believe evolution so nyah nyah nyah.' Had a little fun with it too!

I have done lots of speaking on this issue, including outside the USA, and have been taped on occasion, but I do not have any videos. There are lots of good ones out there, though.

Your story about Dr. K--- reflects my own experience, and demonstrates the reason I abandoned evolution in college. You get bombarded with just-so stories about how this and that happened and came into existence. And everybody just drinks it all in unquestioningly. Well, I questioned, and that's why I abandoned. The arrogance of these people astounds me! Try asking the good professor why we should buy his story. Was he there to observe all he said happened? Did anyone else observe it? Can it be repeated, and is it being repeated anywhere? No, it's not. The pictures we're shown (Hubble images of, for example, the Eagle Nebula) that supposedly show zones of star birth, really show nothing of the sort, and what we're being fed is someone's evolution-tainted imagination and nothing more.

Yes, J, keep the professors thinking! A friend of mine was a dental instructor at a large university, and after a few of his students challenged his thinking about evolution, he abandoned it, and is perhaps even more rabidly against it than I am. And he has written some books and done some videos, too. His name is Dr Jobe Martin. Look him up! And keep using your brain! Don't let 'em wash it!


John,It seems that many of those people, with whom you are in dialog, just cant let go of the evolutionary model. To do so would mean to relinquish the meaning of life to vanity or worse yet Faith. As a person of Faith (in the Creator) I find the truths you reveal refreshing, but I can see that for those without Faith, grasping onto illogical thought processes (flawed as they are) is the best alternative. I sense a real tooth and nail attempt to wish that Darwinism be real. Their desire for you to offer an alternative (non-scientific theory) is based in the reality that, if they accept that biological determinism is false, then the meaning one gets from it is debased, too. The result is meaninglessness followed by despair. The aversion to a Faith alternative is so deep that they will embrace bad science and really a type of faith. As a Christian I would encourage your readers to take science as the observation of that which is and go no further. Do not make assumptions about origins based on what is observed. Perhaps, too, there is someone out there who is also ready to acknowledge Another Reality by faith. I know this is a scientific forum but I am concerned about the philosophical corner people have backed themselves into. I would be especially interested in the views of those agnostics you mentioned who dont accept Darwinian Evolution. I would find them to be in quite a predicament.

-- S. P. Wyoming, USA

Hi S,

You have hit the nail on the head. No, they can't let go, and it's obvious to anyone who analyzes what's going on here that the evolutionists are rabid fundamentalists who believe what they believe despite all the evidence to the contrary. And they're going to hold onto it for dear life because they know the ramifications of giving it up. It takes a strong individual to stand against the tide, and one who is willing to endure the attacks and criticism that he or she will face by doing so.

I agree fully with what you say, but would like to challenge you on one point. Everyone has faith in something. It's just that often it's faith without substance. The evolutionist is a person of tremendous faith! How can one say they believe in so many things that no one has ever seen without having faith? The big bang? FAITH! Transitions from particles to plants, pandas and people? FAITH! Planets forming from exploded star balls? FAITH!! Brains to contemplate it all evolving on their own with no direction? You got it: FAITH!! That's why a couple of guys wrote a book entitled, 'I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be An Atheist'! Because the atheist has perhaps the most faith of all!

I love your 'meaninglessness followed by despair.' If that is not the evolutionist's plight, then what is? That's another thing that absolutely amazes me about the evolutionist. His only hope is to return to the dirt and become fodder for future evolution, but he'll fight you to the death if you try to convince him that there's something more to life than his stupid theory. And if you try to convict him of the stupidity of it all by pointing out that if he's consistent then he has to admit that whatever he believes is nothing more than the outcome of some evolved chemical reactions and therefore meaningless, he'll do all he can to convince you that his belief has more meaning than yours! It's utter insanity!

Yes, the agnostic who does not accept evolution is in a predicament. And so, frankly, is the one who believes in Intelligent Design while refusing to name a Designer! The bottom line is, there are only two possibilities: a Creator did it, or blind chance Evolution did it. Both are faith beliefs, but believing something by faith does not have to mean believing it blindly. I believe when I sit in my chair it's not going to collapse. That's faith, but it's based on observable realities. And some day it might collapse, but that does not then negate my faith that the chair should not collapse when I sit in it. There's just another explanation for why it collapsed that explains it just fine.

When it comes to evolution, there is neither logical, reasonable, nor scientific data to support any of it, so my faith belief is nothing short of blind fanaticism. I WANT to believe it, so that's why I do. Just like flying saucers, planet-forming stardust, astrology, and all the other kooky things we choose to believe with no rational reason for doing so.

Thanks for writing,

Hey John Great Book. I never believed in evolution and I never will. As I was taught (and as mentioned in your book) that about 20 billion year ago there was NOTHING there. And all the matter in the universe (AGAIN NOTHING) was condensed into a small dot [which] began to spin faster and faster and out of that dot came the whole universe and all matter. If you let another man convince you of that you need intensive help!!! I think the problem is that people get lost in the "Science"(whatever little there may actually be) and lose their common sense. Under no circumstances will an ORGANIC SOUP AKA ROCKS ever come alive. And Evolutionist let me guess I'm Ignorant right. See what the evolutionist will do is propose all these dumb theories that they know very well can't be proven, but then they will put the burden of proof on you to disprove it??? Evolutionists can you give me JUST ONE living example of a species currently in transitional form??? No you can't and let me guess, It takes hundreds of thousands of "tinkering" for things to evolve, and everything by random chance evolves at the exact same time at the exact same rate, and all the diversity on the planet came from 1 single celled organism PLEASE!!! Anyway, sorry about that John sometimes this situation can be frustrating as you know, I just would like to tell you great book, keep up the great, and GOD bless. P.S John Do you have any information on where I could take up Creation Science. I've heard it a rapidly growing field??? [Edited for clarity by John]

-- T. C.

Hi T,

Thanks for writing, and again an apology for taking so long to respond.

I'm glad there are people out there who never believed in evolution. Unfortunately I'm not one of them. But perhaps that's one reason I'm so strongly against it now, because I know what a deception it is, and I think many people who teach and profess it know full well that it's a deception, and they just don't care.

As for your question about Creation Science, you'd do well to just google that. I do know many Creation Science organizations, but again that's not the purpose of this website/book. My main focus here is getting evolutionists to admit that Darwinism is dead. Once we get there, we can continue our journey.


Hello L,

Your letter is long, so I've copied and pasted it, and will interpolate my responses.

I haven't written for a while because I was put off by your broad generalization that you imposed upon me.

J: I haven't written back for a while because I was too busy. So touche'! On the other hand, I've been 'put off' quite a bit in over 30 years of responding to evolutionists, but it still hasn't stopped me from responding.

I merely asked for some sources of your information.

J: 'Sources' are not going to matter much. I've got plenty of 'em. If you're going to choose to believe in evolution, my 'sources' aren't going to change a thing. Let me explain. You see, if I quoted a secular source, you'd say I misquoted or misunderstood it. If I quote, say a 'religious scientist' you'd say he wasn't a 'real' scientist. If I cite a particular book in my defense, you'll just cite another in yours. Bottom line: We've both made a choice, and you're going to defend yours, and I'm going to defend mine. It remains for the observer to decide which side he'll take, once the facts have been presented and the logic and reason defended.

You have no idea what sources I ask for from people I have learned from. In fact, the few scientific facts I stated to you were shown to me with sources which I later looked up and found the experimental methods they used. Now as to your assertion that I believe Urey and Miller knew EXACTLY what the atmosphere was composed of, I never said that.

J: That's good to know. I don't recall having ever said you did, nor would I. The plain fact is that Miller and Urey do not, could not, and never will know what any so-called primitive atmosphere was really made of, for the simple reason that neither they nor anyone else was there, so the best they can do is use their imagination, and that's what they did.

In addition, Urey and Miller made the assumption that the atmosphere was composed of certain chemicals,

J: And you know what happens when we ASSUME, don't you? Suppose I tell you I ASSUME Miller and Urey were wrong (as many others have, in fact, to this point). Is there some reason you wouldn't take sides with ME?

and then showed that if the assumption were true some important biological molecules could form.

J: So what? It's the PHILOSOPHICAL CONCLUSION they and others drew (and continue to draw) from it that's at issue here. Any scientist can spark a bunch of chemicals and make more complex ones from them. But to then say VOILA'! HERE'S WHERE LIFE CAME FROM! is nothing short of arrogant imagination.

I looked at your online article, and I think it's ridiculous that when someone finds that a single assumption made in the process of collecting facts is faulty that a whole body of scientific theory is faulty.

J: Sorry, we're not talking 'single' issues here. Miller and Urey are just one of COUNTLESS (and I mean that literally) ASSUMPTIONS (wrong ones, cough cough) that are made in 'support' of the theory of evolution.

As to your reply about the online articles, I think we should generally discourage the public from just searching the net for articles as there main source of information. You and I both know that you can post whatever you want on the internet, and that you can always find usually always find someone that agrees with you on the internet.

J: Evolutionists are very adept at that, in fact. They'll scrounge up some obscure article that 'proves' their point every time. Fanaticism at its best.

I was looking for some data or information that was based on fact, and possibly reviewed.

J: Ahh, the old 'peer review' trick. That's another one. My information is no good because it was not 'peer reviewed.' Well, I got news for you, even when I've presented 'peer reviewed' information to evolutionists, the 'peers' were never adequate 'reviewers.' And the whole peer review process, in my opinion, is a joke for the most part. Do a little research on some of the issues involved, and you may wind up agreeing.

In regards to information science showing that information cannot arise on its own, I could not find a good source to learn quickly about the background and assumptions required to make that statement.

J: You just confirmed everything I said above. You could not find a 'GOOD' source. In evolutionspeak, that translates to, 'I found sources that confirmed what my opponent is saying, but couldn't dig up anything in support of the opposing point of view, so I'd better just say I couldn't find a 'GOOD' source of information on the subject.'

Where did you learn this from information science?

J: To answer your question with a question, why don't you just give me some peer reviewed article that proves that useful information can arise on its own from material sources, without any external input, and we'll be done with it?

Is there a book showing some of the mathematics and assumptions behind it?

J: A couple of them. And if you really did research online, then you know that without my telling you. However, they're likely not 'GOOD' books in your evolution-tainted estimation.

That was what I was asking for, so that I too could take a look at where you got your ideas.

J: Suppose my ideas were original ones? Would that make them wrong? Not necessarily at all! Would you not agree that even if they're not my ideas, they must have originated somewhere? So, are you going to keep pressing and pressing till you identify the original source of every idea? Or do original sources only count in this argument, because you can use that as one of your excuses to keep the evolutionary faith? In other words, either you give me original sources, or I'm going to keep believing what I believe, even though I don't have original sources for that either. Do you think evolution originated with Darwin? Well, it didn't. So what? It's the idea, not necessarily who originated it or when or where, that is in question here. If the source is a fallible human being, then the idea just may be fallible too, right?

In thinking about your language example, I agree that another language would make no sense but your broad jump to DNA is suspect.

J: However, you have no problem with the broad jump from a few amino acids in a flask to a human being, do you?

If RNA were to bind in a strand that could catalyze the formation of phospholipids, then that RNA strand would be more likely to be enclosed in a phospholipid bilayer, which form spontaneously.

J: You are very handily STARTING OUT with already incredibly complex materials. That's called cheating. Phospholipids must have come from somewhere, right? Phospholipid bilayers form 'spontaneously' under extremely limited conditions in the right environment. Meaningless if you're trying to somehow use this to prove evolution, or making yet another philosophical leap.

Therefore the information of the RNA could be encapsulated for a period of time.

J: Which means nothing, really. The information is already there. The RNA is already there. Encapsulated information? What good is it? Suppose I put a message in a bottle and send it out in the ocean and it winds up on a shore somewhere and is subsequently buried. What good is my 'encapsulated information'? However, if another human being finds it, who can open the bottle and read the message it contains, and make some sense of it, then the information becomes something useful, perhaps. But the whole process, from beginning to end, was directed by intelligence.

That of course is an example I thought that might or might not lead to 'information arising on its own'. I know there is much more to reply to, but I don't have time to address it right now. I just wanted to stress that if you really want to show that the current scientific theory of evolution is not science, then I think it's appropriate to encourage people to check sources of scientific data that support your claim rather than insult those who actually want to check the facts.

J: The scientific sources refuting evolution at this point are countless. Anyone who really wants information on the topic can find it very easily. It's not my purpose here to get bogged down quoting sources for every jot and tittle. That's another evolutionary ploy. The evolutionist never confronts another evolutionist about his 'sources' but if you contradict the evolutionary faith, suddenly you're bombarded with demands for 'sources' for what you believe. Well, my first 'source' is my brain - I THINK about things and QUESTION them, rather than just believing what someone tells me.


[Continuing with another long letter from L]:

I recently found an article about the early atmosphere and the Urey-Miller experiment. Current calculations are showing that H2 escaping earth's atmosphere was energy limited, and therefore the atmosphere could have been a reducing atmosphere due to a hydrogen mixing ratio of greater than 30%. I also found some older rigorous studies of production of biomolecules in a weakly reducing atmosphere (as opposed to the stronger reducing atmospheres previously assumed). Models and experimental data showed production of formaldehyde was possible, which is a reactive intermediate that can lead to several important biomolecules.

J: Ok, let's stop here a minute and take a breather. What you're saying here is you're about to embark on a philosophical expedition to prove to the world that Miller and Urey's experiment really does have some value in demonstrating that human beings started out as something similar to a glop of molecules in a glass flask. Hence the use of the word 'important' when referring to the molecules in question. You see, they're not just any old molecules. They're IMPORTANT molecules, because they're about to be used to bolster your religious belief in evolution. Ok, I have not read the rest of your letter below yet, so let's see if my prediction is correct.

The importance of the Urey-Miller experiment was that biomolecules are indeed producible from simple molecules.

J: So far it appears I'm on target.

Your comments about a designer are unfounded.

J: That's 2 points for John now! You're now going to try to convince me that Miller and Urey's experiment had no design, no purpose, and no intended outcome behind it, right?

First of all, you are basically saying that anything performed in a lab will not emulate nature without a designer because a designer performed the experiment.

J: Did I say that? If so, even I am impressed!

The experiment was set up using the assumptions

J: There's that A-word again!

that they clearly stated (that may or may not be true), then the flask was sealed and the experiment was performed.

J: All without an intelligent designer, of course. And just like Nature would've done it!

If you have a problem with there experimental techniques then say so, but I will not accept the argument that merely having someone set up the experiment implies that a designer had to do it in nature.

J: I'm gonna have to really think that one through.... Can we say conversely that if it happened in nature without a designer, then having someone set up an experiment does not emulate anything that happened in nature, and hence is invalid as a proof?

You then state that had the experiment been left on, then all of the molecules would have been destroyed. Really?

J: I believe Miller himself recognized that one. Yes, really. Any scientist will tell you the same thing.

Did you test that to find it out?

J: Not recently, but I do recall having left something in the oven once or twice, and though it formed a gloppy molecular structure at first, it was eventually destroyed completely, and a mess to clean up, to boot! Of course, if Miller and Urey's experiment were still sparking away, there'd probably be a human being in that flask by now!

Second, you are saying that building blocks couldnt be put together without a child to play with them (in the example in your text).

J: That's a fair exposition of what I said, yes. And yes, I did test it to find out. And the blocks are still sitting in the box where I put them. I probably should check though to see if they've made themselves into something at this point.

That is a ridiculous example, and I think you should immediately remove it from your text.

J: Why, I'll do no such thing! That is, unless I find the blocks have made themselves into something. Hold on, I'll go check................ ............ ............ I'm back, and those blocks are still just sitting in the box where I left them. And I had high hopes, too.

Single molecules are nothing like a childs building blocks.

J: They certainly aren't are they!? BUT THEY DID MAKE THEMSELVES BY THEMSELVES, RIGHT? So far, my original contention about your defense of the religious faith of evolution has not failed to come true.

A childs building blocks, as a whole, have no kinetic energy and will not form bonds with each other. Molecules on the other hand are moving very fast, and form bonds with each other; therefore molecular building blocks can put themselves together!

J: Ain't that amazing! Well, now, where did kinetic energy come from? Did it arise on its own? Sorry, but you have not recognized the fallacy in your attempt to defend the faith. First of all, kinetic energy does not create itself. Secondly, the fact that molecules can bond is not the fortunate result of blind chance processes like you imagine. Third, the fact that molecules exist at all has to be explained, and you have not done that. You've STARTED with the molecules, not the whatever that made them in the first place. Fourth, the fact that molecules fortuitously bond to make useful things, and living things, cannot be explained by your blind chance religion.

Using your example of building blocks not assembling themselves, a lot of chemistry doesnt make sense. You could say I put acetone and sodium hydride in a container, but they would not react because someone has to put those building blocks together, but actually they would react.

J: Ditto all the above. And now let me throw a monkey wrench (pun intended) into the equation. If you know anything about chemistry, you also know that energy can BREAK bonds. And that is EXACTLY what would have happened to any so-called complex molecules that formed in the original alleged primordial 'soup.' The bonds would have been broken by UV rays and cosmic rays. Also, the molecules would have dissipated in the medium (ocean, pond, whatever) in which they formed. So once again your religious faith fails when put to the test.

You also mentioned something about how molecules disperse in a liquid.

J: Just mentioned it again, too.

I agree, but that doesnt happen immediately. Local higher concentrations can occur if some event causes molecules to form.

J: Gawwwwlly! No ASSUMPTIONS involved HERE, are there???!!!!

In regards to DNA, with important I was referring to parts of DNA that were very important for survival. Regardless, the point of my post was that the facts were consistent with the scientific theory of evolution.

J: I WIN! My original contention has now been proved beyond a shadow of doubt! Bottom line: Miller and Urey's experiment creating a few amino acids in a glass flask has now been VINDICATED! Evolution is once again saved from the jaws of death! Human beings evolved from a glop of molecules that didn't dissipate but rather came together, got more complex, and finally evolved brains that could invent these stories! Truth shall prevail! Whatever truth is. Eventually we'll figure out which molecules evolved to make truth.

DNA being conserved across several animals is scientific data that is consistent with evolution.

J: Yep, just like wheels being conserved across several vehicles proves one vehicle turned into another. Of course, once again you're STARTING with the wheel, not telling me where the wheel came from to begin with.

You are very insistent that a lot of evidence for evolution DOESNT PROVE ANYTHING.

J: Ummm, can we try that again? I am very insistent that there is NO evidence for evolution, so there's nothing to prove.

Well, you know what? Nothing in science is ever absolutely proved.

J: Good! Then you're admitting that maybe evolution is wrong?

We will never ever prove that any scientific theory is absolutely true.

J: You're sure trying though!

So if the point of your website is that the scientific theory of evolution is not proved to be absolutely true, then I agree.

J: Well, thanks then. We're getting somewhere.

But, I thought the point of your website was to show that the theory of evolution was not science.

J: It's not. Thank you for picking up on that. It is one of my points. It is NOT science. Evolution is a faith belief, defended by fanatics.

In regards to referring to my statement about your logic as a typical evolutionist response, I am not really sure how to respond. In showing that some things are not known absolutely, you do not discredit a scientific theory. There is evidence the big bang occurred (for instance the relative abundances of light elements, cosmic microwave background radiation, and red shift).

J: You are committing the classical evolutionist fallacy of confusing 'evidence' with 'interpretation.' The EVIDENCE may exist in the form of red shift, CMBR, etc. But your INTERPRETATION is that they support the big bang. There are other interpretations of that evidence that are NOT consistent with big bang theory. I believe I've already presented some, such as the fact that the CMBR could be simply the temperature of interstellar space (after all, those stars put out a lot of heat, don't they?), and that redshift has other explanations such as tangential motion, or gravitational stretching, or simply light becoming 'tired' (losing energy) after traveling great distances. But the evolutionist ignores the other interpretations because they conflict with his religious faith.

In the end of your reply you blatantly state that the scientific theory of evolution is not testable.

J: It's not.

Well, I guess if you rule out all of the experiments (because someone performed them of course), and all of the data in nature that is consistent with evolution,

J: This is so typical of you guys. We always hear about 'all the data that supports evolution' but then when we ask for some examples it's always the same old tired, debunked bunkum because nobody has ever seen, nor ever will, evolution in action, because it doesn't happen and never did.

then that is correct, but I think you and I both know there is no good reason to rule out that information. In regards to information-increasing mutations, I found a study of some bacteria in which a mutation occurred and an enzyme named nylonase was formed that can digest nylon. Nylon is a man-made substance, so new information was required to form an enzyme that digested it.

J: Aren't you the one who just called for people to not look for obscure articles in support of their belief because you'll always find somebody who supports you no matter what wacko idea you have? The nylonase example has also been challenged, but apparently you either ignored or chose not to read the articles debunking it. Here's a great example of evolutionists jumping to their philosophical conclusion before all the facts are in. An enzyme is discovered that can digest nylon, a man-made substance. And suddenly the evolutionist jumps to the conclusion that this PROVES that particles turned themselves into people. The fact that you have to latch onto something that trite and pathetic to prove your bigger picture shows just how desperate you are, not how much proof you have! If you wait till all the facts are in, the opposition's contention that the enzyme that digests nylon is not an example of new information at all, but rather a recombination or change in information that is already present, will prevail. And in fact, subsequent experimentation seems to be bearing that out. Here's an article for your consideration:

Finally, you implied at one point that I believe in evolution because I dont know what to believe in. You have no idea what I believe in. I realize that you use the word believe because you want to show that evolution is a religion and not a science, but I ACCEPT the scientific theory of evolution

J: Believe by any other name is still believe.

because it is consistent with scientific experiments and observations.

J: Of which you have not given a single example, let alone demonstrated that your leap from molecules to man has any substance in reality.


Hi John,if by "evolution is stupid," or "false" you mean it's stupid or false like Newton's theory of physics, I have to agree with you. However, there's currently no better theory that explains the process of how current living things came to be the way they are. Given that evolution has become such a great explanatory theory, and tool for research, why should we trash it without a substitute? The same thing happens with physics. We know that Newton's laws don't always apply. We know the same is true for Einstenian physics. Same for quantum theory, etc. But each of these still have applications, and we are not going to dump them yet. In the case of Evolution, no competing theory even exists! Or do you have one?

-- J

Hi J:

Your argument amounts to the following: Evolution is demonstrably false, but since we don't have a substitute (or I should say we do, but don't want to accept it as such), we can't trash it.

Let's put it another way: We're going to choose to believe a lie because we haven't come up with a better explanation.

Or another way: This tool is totally useless for the job I'm trying to do, but I'm not gonna trash it till another tool comes along.

Or another way: I believe in flying saucers even though there's absolutely no proof they exist, because I haven't seen a better explanation for those strange lights I saw the other night, and that other people say they see now and then.

Or one more: I believe astrology is the best explanation for what guides our daily activities, because that's the best explanation we have for what's guiding us, and until someone comes up with a better one, I'm going to believe it, despite the fact there's not a shred of evidence that it's true.

Your just-so statement that evolution is a 'great explanatory theory' amounts to admitting that it's a great basis on which to build fairy tale stories that supposedly explain where everything came from. And we're gonna believe those fairy tales come hell or high water. Evolution is an 'explanatory' theory only in that its adherents are very adept at inventing explanations to keep the theory alive. You have the same facts that I have, and that thousands of other scientists who do NOT believe in evolution have, and we use different 'explanatory' theories to explain the facts. Once again, you're confusing the facts with the theory. Evolution explains nothing. People explain things. It's called interpretation. And it's a faith belief, and you are one of its fanatical defenders.

Thanks for writing,

IntroductionThe National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) strongly supports the position that evolution is a major unifying concept in science and should be included in the K-12 science education frameworks and curricula. Furthermore, if evolution is not taught, students will not achieve the level of scientific literacy they need. This position is consistent with that of the National Academies……………………………………………………..

-- A. W.

Hi A,

Your post is insanely long and tedious. Sorry, but I can't wade through it. However, I will take the first sentence:

”The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) strongly supports the position that evolution is a major unifying concept in science and should be included in the K-12 science education frameworks and curricula.”

Certainly it's a unifying concept! It unites those who would rather let other people do their thinking for them into a solid group of religious fanatics who will defend their faith despite all the evidence to the contrary.

If evolution is such a unifying concept, why do so many evolutionists disagree with each other about everything but the theory itself (which has to be preserved at all costs!), and why are we having this debate? Apparently you're unaware that thousands of scientists, and millions of laypersons worldwide don't even accept evolution as a valid explanation of origins.


Don't worry, and take your time. As you can see, I'm arguing from the practical point of view that the theory of evolution, as incomplete as it may be, has become the main framework for biology, and it yields results that we can hardly miss out. And no other theory can yet replace it. So, unless you can advance a better one, we should keep evolution for the time being.

Anyway, and sorry to put it bluntly, but you give me the impression that, however much you want to keep religion out of your website, your motivations are entirely religious, and you are just trying to act like a trojan horse. If I were right, yours would strike me as a rather shady move, for someone who ought to follow some higher order moral values, but let's put this comment of mine to the side, and play your game: no religion!

-- J

Hello again, J,

Biology as a science has absolutely no need for an evolutionary framework in order to survive, and neither does any other branch of science. That's just the usual mantra evolutionists use to dupe the uninformed into believing evolution is indispensable. Biology was around way before evolution, and will continue just fine once the theory is abandoned. There is nothing in biology nor medicine that benefits from a faith belief in evolution. All processes are explainable without any recourse whatsoever to the religious theory.

I have not kept religion out of my website at all. I have repeatedly and unequivocally affirmed that evolution is a religious faith belief about origins with no substance in reality and should be treated as such.


Just noting that my suspicions were confirmed by some research on google. Now I have grounds on which to accuse you of dishonesty! -- J

Huh? And which molecules evolved into dishonesty, by the way?

January 25, 2007

(I should have started dating these long ago and don't know why I didn't!)

Hi L,

Instead of printing your letter and then a response, my responses follow the J:

Assumptions are made all of the time in science in order to generate a mathematical equation, simulate nature with an experiment, or explain an experiment.

J: There is a big difference between testable assumptions and non-testable ones, or assumptions that are deliberately designed to support one's viewpoint or thesis. For example, ALL radiometric dating is based on assumptions that are designed to give old ages, or pre-determined ages (carbon 14 is about the only somewhat valid method, but can only be used best on items that fall within the timeframe of human history). If you remove the assumptions and just work with the bare facts, you quickly realize that the 'millions of years' assigned to rocks and fossils can't possibly be proven. There is no way to know that no daughter product (e.g., lead) was present when the rock was formed. There is no way to know that decay rates have always been constant over millions and even billions of years. There is no way to know how much original mother substance (e.g., uranium) was in the rock when it formed. There is no way to prove that mother or daughter products were not affected by environment, or leaching, or chemical processes, or heat, etc. It simply is impossible to demonstrate unequivocally that a rock is so many millions of years old. That's just one example. Another that immediately comes to mind is the assumptions made regarding fossils. You get a couple of different bones and build an entire belief system on them, drawing imaginary 'transitional' lines between them. Even Stephen Gould recognized that the average 'evolutionary tree' only shows fully formed creatures at the tips and nodes, but nothing in between. You can only deduce a few things about the actual creature just by it's bones. That's why artists' renditions (speaking of assumptions) of so-called pre-humans often show completely different looking creatures, based on the same set of bones (check out how Neanderthal Man has changed over the past few decades!).

One hopes to be able to check those assumptions, sometimes at a much later date.

J: As I just noted, assumptions about origins cannot be checked, without a written, eyewitness record of what took place. And even where that is available (in written history), often we can't be sure how accurate the record is.

For instance Max Planck had to make the assumption that the energy levels of metals are quantized in order to explain blackbody radiation. Then Albert Einstein made the same assumption when describing the photoelectric effect. Niels Bohr later made th assumption that electrons orbit the nucleus in quantized circular paths, which turned out to be incorrect, but later helped lead to modern quantum mechanics. Assumptions had to be made in order to a) generate mathematical equations and b) explain experiments. In your reply to one of my letters you state things such as 'There's that A-word again!' and 'And you know what happens when we ASSUME, don't you?'. I just want to clarify that in science if we can not completely describe a system, we often have to make assumptions and see where those assumptions lead. Then later on we can hopefully check the validity of those assumptions. We should not generally view any assumption as inherently negative.

J: You are absolutely right. Another word, perhaps, is hypothesis. And an hypothesis needs to be testable. The assumptions made by Planck et al were, and are, testable ones. That's what REAL science is about. You cannot test whether a shrew turned into a human (which, in case you didn't know it, is one of the assumptions evolutionists make). You cannot test whether a rock really is 5 million years old. You cannot test whether an imaginary 'primordial soup' generated cells. Even if you could do that in a laboratory experiment, that would not prove it actually happened in nature. Just that 'maybe' it 'could' happen. It never will, of course, but I'm using an extreme example. You cannot test whether clouds of interstellar gas really do collapse and form stars - intuition and direct observation seem to contradict that outright, in fact. You can only observe what you're able to, and then INTERPRET those observations accorting to your pre-determined paradigm. It's that pre-determined paradigm that needs to be tested, and the evolutionary one fails every time.


January 29, 2007

"First of all, you are basically saying that anything performed in a lab will not emulate nature without a designer because a designer performed the experiment." John, these are the types of comments that really get me fired up. I guess our friend doesn't see the direct contradiction being made in his own comment. John the question I have for you is in all your years dealing with evolution, what definitions do you get from the evolutionist for the word "NATURE"? And Why did things of such complexity (such as Dna) naturally construct themselves billions of years ago but don't continue to do so now? And why is it always so important to the evolutionist to excessively use qoutes? don't they realize that all the quotes tend to offset each other. If your looking for quotes for or against your case i'm sure you could find them. John its really sad to say but i'm really starting to believe that it's not What's said, but who says it that matters most to these individuals.


Hi T,

Glad I got you fired up! That's just what I want, because there's too much complacency about this topic.

Yes, experiments performed in a lab that SUPPOSEDLY DEMONSTRATE OR PROVE EVOLUTION do not emulate nature, because they have a designer, a creator, and a superintendent who runs the experiment to make sure everything works properly and gets results, and then an intelligent being interprets and applies the results. That's completely contrary to the notion that nature created itself and runs itself, with no outside information, no outside intelligence, and no outside guidance, and no purpose other than that which we assign to it. I'm glad you see through the folly of such a belief, T.

There is no harm in using quotes. Some of the most damning quotes against evolution have been made by evolutionists themselves, and there are plenty of them (quotes, that is) on the Web. I particularly like the one by Richard Dawkins where he admits that living things have the "APPEARANCE" of being designed, but he's certain they're not. LOL!


February 13, 2007

Hahaa, found your site just tonight! Have been listening to stuff like Hovind, Ham, Answers in G, Steeling the Mind Conferences (omg GREAT STUFF!! includes Ham and Hovind). Can NOT believe all the people that try to push God under the rug EVEN when you try to push evidence in their face. Planets spinning in different directions by ITSELF blows the BIG BANG out COMPLETELY! HOOOOOW DUUUUMB CAN YOU BEEEEE?!?!?!?!?!?Keep fighting the good fight, brother. Ignorant people need the TRUTH about this planet and God. Let's go, let's DO IT! If they try to cut off my head, I will tell them about Jesus while I beat the hell out of them.If you need any help at all, I am DEFINATELY WILLING to help you out. I can do movie-style sound, animation, voice-overs. Anything you need. I feel that I found this site by God's grace, so HELP ME HELP YOU!

-- M. K.

Hi M,

Appreciate the input. The only help I need right now is more time! (Ok, more money would help, too, but that ain't what this is about.)

Keep an eye on the site. I'll be posting something later that was sent to me, about a scientist at the Smithsonian who was blackballed because of reviewing an article on Intelligent Design.

I love the fact that these geniuses can look at a statue of a man and see design and a designer, but can't see it in the man himself. Not that humans are all that complex, you understand. Not that every single atom in a human being shows purpose. Not that evolutionary scientists aren't LOOKING for that purpose. Ya gotta love it. They'll tell you all about what such and such is used for, or what its function is, but there ain't no design and purpose there. So WHY ARE THEY LOOKING FOR IT THEN? A big DUH!

I would like to proposee that DUH is short for Darwin's Unbelievable Hoax! Howzaboutit?

Heard a great one recently that I've been using a lot:

Punctuated Equilibrium [fast] is evolution by jerks. Darwinism [slow] is evolution by creeps.


February 15, 2007

Check this out, John.

--S. P. (Wyoming, USA)

EVERYBODY needs to check that one out. It’s just ONE of who knows how many instances of evolutionist intolerance, thought control, and persecution for their faith. They try to strike fear in the cowardly by likening anyone who doesn’t accept their myth to Nazis, Taliban, and other terrorists, while they themselves are guilty of the worst sort of fanatical behavior. We need to let them know we’re not sitting back and taking it on the cheek. Evolution is a HOAX, nothing less.

THANK YOU for sending, that, S!


February 26, 2007

What do you really believe in? If you believe all this crap you write and you don't believe in evolution why do you believe in God which is one of the many unproven creators of the world. If you think about it we don't have REAL tested proof he exists, we only have the force of people telling us he exists. especially your nonsense with the statue of david having no brain or blood, if you noticed it's just a statue.It's OBVIOUSLY not a real human! It is not a poor copy I can say, i you realized it takes a long time to create the detail that this statue shows. I'd like to see YOU make a better statue of a human being with all the magnificant features it contains, for this time period it is a true masterpiece. I believe there is no one creator, for the world is too complex to be made and completed to a point where it evolves on its own.I would be impossible for one man god or not to make this earth. This would mean we live in a very small universe created by someone else such as a child in its world and have ants making their own societies and lives. By the way I'm pretty sure you were truely created by your mother and father duh! The Bible is illogical if you think about it, it's just like a long story!I myself believe in life itself and not how exactly it was origionally created. We really don't know exactly how the earth was created, because we have no clue who the first person/s was or how we came to be. Of course we all ponder this because it's an iteresting subject but it will always be confusing to people no matter who you are. BTW it is impossible to know exactly how the earth got here! Like you believe you may.Now the true complete subject of evolution. Evolution IS a smart way of thinking things evolved, no it's not nessasarily correct but it is one of the many main theories! For example the evolution of birds and flight! Birds are many of all creatures on earth today, they have a special bone structure that allowes there body to gain callcium and grow wings over and over and over again! I know because I have 29 birds which all have the ability to fly and or glide for a short distance! Cool right? Yes, it is! My parrot has the ability to fly wether he's flying or gliding he can fly. Why? Because that is how his structure is, allowing him to use these small wings of feathers to power himselve from one destination to another. Unless our bodies felt the need to be able to have the ability of flight we won't fly by ourselves, ever. Evolution is a confusing questionable subject. Yes we may be able to say what we believe but for all we know we could be wrong. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but just to tell you if you put your email your gonna get a lot of crap and people complaining! You do have some reasonable points but some things you've written in this either have no meaning or no concluding point-That's my advice for you if you decide to make you opinion into a book.Nice to hear someone's opinion on life even if it's extremely strait forward, remember evolution may be true! Become a scientist and look at skulls of different animals so on and so forth. Evolution just might be true for some species of life!

--K, USA

Hello, K

I know what I believe in, but have said repeatedly that the purpose of this website is to contribute to the voluminous literature, growing daily, that disproves evolution as a viable theory of origins. Therefore, using your same arguments, evolution is also an "unproven creator" of the world, so you can add it to your trash heap. If you think about it, as you say, we don't have REAL tested proof that everything sprang from nothing and made everything all by itself. None. Not a shred. Nada. Got that? However, yes, we do have the force of people telling us it's true, even though they themselves know it's not, and couldn't be.

I see you seem to have missed my point about the statue of David. No one would contest the premise that the David had a creator. Would you? But obviously you would contest that the incredibly complex body of which the David is a mere external, unmoving, unliving, unloving, copy, could not have possibly had a creator, but rather made itself by random chance processes. Very logical indeed, and lots of proof and evidence to back it up, too!

As for your being pretty sure I was "created" by my father and mother (and the "duh" afterward), I can see you're a student of biology. Of course! My mom and dad got together, and said, "Hey, let's go out and get some chemicals, mix 'em together, and see if we can get a baby to come out of it." And there you have it! There was nothing to it. They created me!

Whether the Bible is illogical "if you think about it" doesn't concern me here. EVOLUTION is illogical IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT. The problem is, you and those like you would rather not think about it. Because then you'll realize it's illogical. Then what? UH OH! Speaking of which, your statement, "I myself believe in life itself and not exactly how it was origionally [sic] created" is illogical. Explain exactly what it means to "believe in life itself." Sounds impressive, but is pretty meaningless. So, if someone asks you where life came from, you simply respond, "I don't know. I just believe in life itself." End of story.

We have no clue to the first persons or how we came to be? Maybe we do, but your evolutionary blinders are not allowing you to pay attention and see the true story.

Thank you for pronouncing evolution to be a smart way of thinking things evolved. Now go think about why you think that and if you're really thinking you'll realize your thinking isn't thinking very well. You follow your assertion with an expression of doubt that evolution might not be correct, but it's still a SMART WAY OF THINKING??????

Flight? My body feels the need to fly all the time! So why didn't I "evolve" the structures to do so? What a bummer. Here I am, all evolved with a big brain, when I'd rather have wings and be able to take off for free (ok, well, maybe for the price of a meal) now and then. If humans didn't feel the need to fly, why'd we invent flying machines? If we had just told our bodies to evolve flight, we could have saved ourselves all that effort!

In case you didn't notice, having all those birds and all, there's a little more than just hollow bone structure that is necessary to allow flight. Like special musculature, the ability to digest food without having to take on a lot of weight in water, a respiratory system that allows air pass-through (see for more), wings and feathers, and their arrangement, a tail, AIR to allow the bird to fly in the first place, and everything being wired to the brain just right to allow it all to function together, including the use of eyes to see where the bird is going. Take away any of those things, and the bird's grounded for good.

Yes, everyone's entitled to their own opinion. Which means I'm entitled to tell you your opinion is wrong. And then demonstrate why. Then it's up to you to either change your opinion, or stubbornly adhere to it because you can't admit you're wrong. In the end, you will look the fool, not me.

Evolution is not true for any species of life. Species change and adapt, but that has nothing to do with evolution from particles to pandas to palms to Peter. The adaptation ability is inherent, already built into the genetic structure of the species. For evolution to occur, new information would have to arise, that had not been there before. Doesn't happen.

Thanks for writing,

March 7, 2007

John Assumption is not another word for hypothesis.

J: Yes it is. Go to and look up assumption.

A hypothesis is something that is testable immediately in the experiment being performed.

J: The evolution of the universe, on its own, from nothing to everything, with no outside input, is not a testable hypothesis.

In the Miller/Urey experiment their hypothesis dealt with whether or not biomolecules could be formed from the molecules assumed to be present in the atmosphere of earth.

J: "Assumed." Can I "assume" Miller was wrong? If not, why not?

The assumption was that the earth was a reducing atmosphere.

J: Assumption, yes. And then the creator of the experiment designed the experiment to his specs, ran the experiment to his specs, then turned off the experiment when he felt it had accomplished what he wanted. No correlation whatsoever to the blind chance theory of evolution.

I think its odd that now that I have presented you with some data that the earths atmosphere may have been a reducing or slightly reducing atmosphere

J: "May have been?" Then, conversely, it "may NOT have been."

you now say that in order to know what happened we would have to have a written account.

J: Exactly. Eyewitnesses. Let's say you have a cadaver. There are certain forensic experiments that can be peformed to determine the cause of death, or there might be some obvious wounds like from a bullet or knife. But in order to know exactly how the individual died - the circumstances surrounding the death - you need witnesses who saw and/or heard what happened. Otherwise you get into pure speculation, and your speculation is very likely incorrect.

Before when I presented the Urey Miller experiment you quickly threw this website in my face about the earths early atmosphere being an oxidizing atmosphere: it seems that information that we find about the early atmosphere is only valid if it does not support the theory of evolution in your view?

J: You missed the point. Do we ignore the opposing HYPOTHESIS that the earth had an oxidizing atmosphere because that upsets one of our, as Jonathan Wells would call it, ICONS of evolution? I do not believe in an "early atmosphere" anyhow. If anyone actually THINKS about the whole scenario, you'll realize how it won't work no matter how you look at it. The whole notion of life arising from non-life is as unscientific as you can get, yet evolutionary theory THRIVES on it and the evolutionists call it "abiogenesis" because they know that spontaneous generation (abiogenesis in disguise) was disproven centuries ago.

I thought it was supposed to be evolutionists who were ignoring data?

J: Now there's one assumption you got right! No, actually they're not ignoring it. They're just re-working and re-wording it to fit their mythology.

Lets get back to assumptions.

J: Seems to me we never left them!

You say that assumptions made in Quantum Mechanics are all testable.

J: Never said any such thing. In fact, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle contradicts that very notion.

No they are not. We postulate that there are wavefunctions that completely represent the system. We postulate that multiplying a wavefunction by its complex conjugate and integrating gives us probability. Those postulates (there are more) are not testable. They are consistent with experimental data. Just like the theory of evolution is consistent with the facts that I have mentioned.

J: Sorry, which facts were those? Not everything in science is testable, of course. For instance, we can't test whether stars are really being born (they're not, but we don't have to argue about that here) because, as any honest astronomer will admit, "it takes too much time." So we (wrongly) assume they're being born, if we believe in evolution. If we don't believe in evoloution, we assume that stars everywhere are gaining entropy, and dying. Plenty of evidence for that in the universe.

I have actually mentioned several experiments in our conversations. The Urey/Miller experiment, early atmosphere data, conservation of DNA, information increasing mutations in bacteria, spontaneous formation of bonds, phospholipids forming spontaneously, local higher concentrations (this was not an assumption, it happens), abundances of light elements, red shift, and cosmic back ground radiation. Here are the problems you had with the information I gave you:1) Someone designing the experiments2) Interpretation vs. Evidence3) Correlation to machinery4) Not showing every step along the way5) Not showing the absolute origins of matter/energyIll go through the arguments piecewise. We had a little discussion about molecules forming bonds in reference to your building blocks example. Your first hang-up was something along the lines of kinetic energy has to come from somewhere. I think you are hinting at the fact that I cant tell you why matter and energy exist in this universe.

J: Oh, it's quite a bit more than that! Not only can you not tell me how matter and energy arose from nothing (which violates another scientific principle, the First Law of Thermodynamics), but you can't tell me how it was able to then organize itself into complex systems, AFTER HAVING BLOWN ITSELF UP into packets of energy that were moving apart from one another! Come on, now! Admit that the whole scenario is just plain stupid and couldn't have happened no way no how, and stop trying to invent mythological stories for how it did. You see you use big words and fancy terminology like so many evolutionists are fond of doing, to bluff the uninitiated into thinking you have a case, when you don't.

Well, I cant. I believe that is a question for a different field. The FACT is that molecules do have kinetic energy that allows them to form bonds to eachother.

J: Where did they get it? Kinetic energy doesn't come from nowhere. Nor does it "create" things. It's more likely to destroy them.

Molecules can form bonds spontaneously when they collide by chance.

J: Molecules don't really collide "by chance." If you analyze the world around you, you'll see that actually nothing happens "by chance." It is all governed by specific laws. In fact, if it were not for those laws, there would be no such thing as science. Read R. C. Sproul's book "Not By Chance" when you have some time.

It happens all of the time in nature, in nonliving environments, and seemingly wherever there are molecules. Building blocks do not spontaneously form bonds, nor are they constantly in motion (on the macroscopic scale).

J: Again, you are BEGINNING with building blocks. Where did the BBs come from in the first place? From nothing? And building blocks don't make themselves into complex things. So you can make all the "building blocks" you want in a test tube, but they're not going to assemble themselves into the Empire State Building. Nor will they turn into the builders of the Empire State Building. They'll just waste away, fulfilling the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Your example of building blocks is not comparable at all to a solution of molecules so it is STUPID.

J: Thank you! I've been trying to tell you that the whole notion of building blocks assembling themselves into living things is stupid, and it seems I'm finally getting through. Oh, maybe I misread you there. Ok, you'll have to tell me how a solution of amino acids created by a creator in a created laboratory proves that bacteria turned into Bob all by themselves.

Your example that DNA being conserved from species to species being similar to all cars having tires is also STUPID.

J: Well, if you think THAT's stupid, you should check out the popular anti-creationist book "Evolution and the Myth of Creationism," by Tim Berra. This genius compares the evolution of increased complexity with the "evolution" of the Corvette! Yep! Lots of correlation there! Corvettes just put themselves together from nothing, right?

The cars are macroscopic machines that cannot adapt.

J: My car adapts just fine! Rain, sun, snow, dirt, you name it! Evolution at work!!!

They do not form from some genetic material that can have random mutations.

J: Yeah. Now tell me where the genetic material came from, where the information it contains came from, how it arose that that information could be utilized to make a living thing, propagate itself, etc. All by random, blind chance, right? Nuttin' STUPID about THAT, is there?

Your message in bottle compared to my example about RNA is STUPID.

J: You're digging your hole deeper, and don't even see the dirt caving in around you.

The message cannot replicate itself and catalyze the production of proteins.

J: But you believe a genetic message that can replicate itself and catalyze the production of proteins happened all on its own, eh? Do you have even the faintest idea of how complex protein synthesis is? And how proteins have to have just the right shape to perform their operations? Any fool can see that that did not arise on its own. Nor are there billions and billions of FAILED experiments in the fossil record showing a transition from "simple" to "complex" proteins. Either the proteins are fully funcional, or they're USELESS. There is no such thing as a "part protein" that can turn into a "full protein" capable of building various living components. And you'd have to have trillions of failed experiments because there are so many different proteins necessary to make living things. Then you have to be able to put the proteins to use, and have some kind of machinery and "brain" to direct the proteins so they're not just randomly moving around doing nothing. The idea that something like a protein "evolved" borders on absolute insanity.

I think I addressed 3) and 5) in that paragraph.All I will say about argument number four above is that the theory of evolution encapsulates a lot of processes that I admit I know nothing about.

J: The theory of evolution encapsulates everything from the creation of energy to the appearance of mankind. Therefore, you are far from alone in not knowing anything about it. Nobody knows anything about it because nobody saw it all happen, nor is it happening, nor could it have happened. It's a myth, and the only way it "happened" is in the fairy stories that have been invented to "prove" it.

But what I do know, and what I have talked to you about is consistent with evolution. I also think that I, or any scientist for that matter, can reserve the right to test / think about only parts of the theory.

J: I do not seem to have gotten through. You can't TEST the universe appearing from nothing and making itself into everything we know. It's a creation myth, do you understand that? The desperate attempts to "prove" the myth, like appealing to antibiotic resistance in bacteria (another falsified tenet of evolution) are pathetic at best. Here's the typical philosophical leap the evolutionist takes: "Bacteria develop antibiotic resistance. That PROVES that bacteria turned into Bob and Barbara over millions of years!" Oh boy!

It makes sense considering that scientists are trained and have expertise in particular fields.

J: Scientists are not gods. They make mistakes just like you and me. And evolution is one of them. Because scientists are also biased, just like the rest of us. And they also succumb to peer pressure, especially when their jobs or status are threatened.

Your argument about abundances of light elements, red shift, and cosmic back ground radiation was that it was only an interpretation of that data that is consistent with evolution. I agree.

J: Thank you. At least it's not stupid, I guess.

You didnt argue that the information presented is not consistent with evolution, you just argued that you could interpret it another way.

J: You can make anything "consistent" with evolution. Like I've always said, the theory is so malleable that the only real thing evolving is the theory itself. The fact that there are contradictory interpretations of the evidence is what the evolutionist avoids facing.

Thats true you can interpret it another way.Argument number one is particularly repulsive to me. My statement of First of all, you are basically saying that anything performed in a lab will not emulate nature without a designer because a designer performed the experiment,

J: Exactly.

seemed to also strike a chord with T (one of the other people leaving feedback). Lets just go ahead and use your reasons for rejection of experiments about evolution on other science. Scientists have measured a vibrational excitation overtone of water experimentally in the laboratory, which absorbs in the red. You could say that the overtone is the reason glaciers and larger bodies of water are blue, but since a designer was running the experiment you cant correlate it with nature.

J: We are not talking about evolution here, but testable, repeatable, falsifiable, observable facts. The appearance of the universe from nowhere and nothing, and its subsequent assembling of itself into everything we know, is not testable, repeatable, falsifiable, or observable in the present. Therefore, any attempts to "prove" it happened that way by performing laboratory experiments designed, executed and interpreted by an intelligent being (often thousands of them) fall flat.

That is exactly the same logic, and it is outright ridiculous. As to your converse statement, think about that statement in terms of my example above. I just wanted to get a little blurb in about sources. When I asked for a good source I wanted a source that went through some of the math behind your ideas about information theory. Information theory is inherently a statistical theory, and you made the very strong statement of information not increasing being a SCIENTIFIC FACT. I havent been able to find any of the math behind that, and I think it was an empty statement. No, original ideas of yours would not necessarily be wrong, but I dont think you just thought up information theory on your own. Was there a particular book you read?Finally one feedback read like this,John,It seems that many of those people, with whom you are in dialog, just cant let go of the evolutionary model. To do so would mean to relinquish the meaning of life to vanity or worse yet Faith.

J: Sorry, we've already hit on the faith argument. Evolutionists have more faith than anyone. They believe in what they never saw, never see, and never will see. They believe in a mythology that could not possibly be true. They believe everything made itself from nothing, even though nobody ever saw it happen. Many believe we return to the dust and that's the end of it all for them, even though they have no proof that there's not an afterlife. Belief in evolution requires TREMENDOUS faith. And as to my information argument, the facts of science are that information always has a source, a code, a mode of transmission, a mode of reception, and a mode of execution, otherwise it is useless. Those are the facts. To say that all that arose on its own is ludicrous, and you know it.

I just cant let go of the evolutionary model because it is consistent with experiment, it has nothing to do with faith.

J: Take off the blinders.

I havent seen any of the countless experiments you keep referring to that disprove the theory of evolution.

J: You're not looking for them.

-- L. K. USA

May 4, 2007

The big bang exists only on the blackboard, and in the imagination. "Nothing to do with evolution." The formation of the universe exists only in drawings and the imagination. “Nothing to dowith evolution." The formation of the solar system exists only in drawings and the imagination. "Nothing to do with evolution." The beginnings of life on earth are products of the imagination and nothing more. "Nothing to do with evolution." The so-called soup from which life had its beginnings never existed. "Nothing to do with evolution." The rise of life from non-life is not possible, and is a fairy tale. "Nothing to do with evolution." The rise of complexity in life is also a fairy tale, and product of the imagination. The transformation from simple to more complex life forms could not have occurred. "Why could this not have occurred? " Mutations, which supposedly drive evolution, do no such thing, and you know it. "The only thing I know is that you provide no backup of your claims." There is no way that the diversity of life could be a product of chance, and you know it. “Why is there no way?" There is no way that human beings could have come from single-celled organisms. "Can two celled organismscome from single celled organisms?" And you know it" Please publish your book.

-- J. J. (USA)

Sorry Joe, but I fail to see whatever point it is you're trying to make. If you're trying to say that all I've said has nothing to do with evolution, that's so far off base that I couldn't even begin to respond to it. [added later: I also spent about 10 minutes correcting many (but probably not all) of your grammatical errors before posting this. Please learn to use caps, separate sentences, etc. And technically your “quotes” should be around my words, not yours.]


May 9, 2007

that is probably the stupidest thing I have "herd".
-- J. M. (actually a childish pseudonym - USA)

If you say so.

May 31, 2007

Great website John, you are exactly right in your thinking!
-- M. L. (USA)

Hi M,

Thanks very much!


June 11, 2007

You're an uneducated fool, who bases his contradiction of evolution and science on mere speculations that is written in a book by men that knew little about how our natural world works. Now, explain to me, why is it that the only evidence that you have to base your conclusions that, " evolution is stupid",is one book. Why is the book not filled with scientific data, equations, numbers? If God created this world, then he must know all of them. And if he entrusted his "prophets" to write his word, then why not give him all that information? Your facts were written by men who wanted to create their own religion because those that existed before Christianity did not fit them. If you are an educated man, than you wasted thousands of dollars for nothing. --J. H. (another childish pseudonym – USA)

Why is your letter not filled with scientific data, equations, and numbers? Because there is none. And you know it. You're just another "educated" person who's defending "the faith."

P.S. Very inventive name [pseudonym] there. You must be VERY educated to come up with something so clever.


June 6, 2007

Hello there John,

As everyone else I had evolution shoved down my throat at school. Sadly for it though even at an early age it was evident that it was no more than a religion by "scientists" to rid accountability to any God. For many years I just simply decided that "I didn't know" the answer to where we come from and what is the meaning of life. I refused to blindly belive any "faith" if you will that didn't seem logical. You really do NOT need all the ebook to destroy Darwin's theory. A child can do it on his own logic if his mind is not fogged by prejudice, as the evidence against the theory is all around us. The whole theory is as stupid and laughable as if the world was in fact created in 6 literal earthly day. Mind you with the 7th for an apparent "smoko" (thanks for that one P.).I must say, I really injoy your comments with P. from Australia. He reminds me of the glassy eyed evangelists speaking in tongues and getting taken for the biggest ride by their seld indulging priests. "Do not hassel me with logic, my mind's made up". In effect this character is so scared that his religious beliefs in chance, would come crashing down, and the prospect of having to walk this planet admitting not knowing is scarier than beliving ina God. This latter however would involve accountability. Hahaha, no reason in the world will open his eyes to his foolishness and fear. Anyway, great book, and I like how you always stay true to your point and avoid your own opinions. I know the answers now, I am content, they are in the Bible, and they are [accessible] to all who want them, and most of all, they are completely LOGICAL.

-- O. C. (Australia)

Hi O,

Thank you very much for writing. Sorry I'm a bit behind on catching up on these emails. It's so good to hear from people who have not been duped by evolution!


July 27, 2007

Evolution IS stupid! And I commend you on a job well done.The manner you present the evidence and information is humorous but forthright. I've recently been involved in a debate (yet another one) at the Guitar World message board, in the "Mosh Pit". Your work has given me a much needed boost! And if you don't mind, I would like to borrow heavily from your work.Once again, I commend for an excellent job! I look forward to reading it in it's entirety. May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you and yours.

Sincerely, P. K. (USA)

Hi P,

Thanks for writing, and go man go! You can use whatever you want from this website, however you want. I have nothing to be afraid of because I know the truth!

Ciao for now,


September 28, 2007

Evolution is not a fact! God created all things! jesus died for everyone He will save you if you let Him.

-- J. T. (USA)

Thanks, J. I agree that evolution is not a fact and God created all things. And I have been saved by Jesus. But I want to keep the focus of the website on evolution and why it's dumb and off of religious topics [apart from the fact that evolution is a religion]. I just want to point out logical and scientific reasons why evolution doesn't work, whether or not you believe God created.

Thanks for writing.


November 5, 2007

To All: Please note that John refuses to give any alternative scientific explanation to the Theory of Evolution (Because there is none), and states that there is no need to give an alternative (!!). Of course, John DOES have an alternative explanation, which is, you guessed it, that GOD SPOKE EVERYTHING INTO EXISTENCE, AS REVEALED IN THE BOOK OF GENESIS. He has emphatically stated this elsewhere. John is a typical crackpot right-wing Christian fundamentalist, just in case you were wondering.

--R.N. (USA)

Hey there, R,

No, God didn't speak it into existence! What REALLY happened was that, you see, there was this little tiny dot of plasma. We don't know where it came from, but we just know it was there, even though nobody actually saw it. We know it was there, because we can draw dots on a blackboard, so that proves it. And it exploded, but not like your normal, everyday explosion. This explosion actually MADE PEOPLE who could contemplate it! Ain't that somethin'? That's what R. N. believes, and he'll tell you that proudly, because he just knows it happened that way because the experts told him, an' them experts know what they're talkin' about because that's what makes them experts, and that's why R believes 'em. Gould said it. R believes it. That does it!

Have a good day there, R!


August 15, 2007

i just read your pagei want a scientist to get on tv and explain to the world which race is closest to being an ape. If that is where we came from, then someone has to be closer to the base of the tree than the others. asians, whites, hispanics, blacks who is it? you will never hear that answer.also how is it that all the animals that use camoflouge to hide figure that out without a mirror, and can you just will your skin into changing color? what about the fish that uses it's tongue as a worm to bait small fish in to eat them. where did he see a worm, and decide to make his tounge look like it, and where did he get his mirror? if the world was destroyed by a meteor and it whiped out so many species, wouldn't evolution make dinasours again?

--T. M. (USA)

Dear T,

Scientists have already answered your first question, and they recognize full well the racist implications of evolution. Darwin's own "Origin of Species" has a subtitle (you rarely hear the subtitle quoted) that includes "the preservation of favoured races." Of course, his white genteel race was one of the "favoured" ones that needed to be preserved. His attitude toward the Patagonians was that they were sub-human savages.

The camouflage issue is yet another demonstration of the stupidity of the concept of "survival of the fittest." How could evolution "know" it had to produce phenotypes that would be able to camouflage themselves in their environment. There must have been literally millions of phenotypes produced till evolution "hit" on the right ones each time. And in the meantime the living things that did not have camouflage were not surviving, because they didn't have camouflage, right? Can anyone explain how things that were dying without camouflage led to living things that do have camouflage? And it's not like the camouflaged things can't die of other causes. A man can go hunting in full regalia so that he can't be seen, and he can die of a heart attack or be buried in an avalanche. A lot of good the camouflage would do him. Same with an animal. It could be sitting there just gloating in how great its camouflage is and suddenly a rock falls on it and kills it. Extreme examples, but the point is camouflage is not 100 percent protection from anything.

You have a lot of insight, and your question about evolution making dinosaurs again is a good one too. After all, we have "convergent evolution" which is the term used in fairy tale fashion to explain why different living things would have similar structures, like insects and birds both developing wings. Ok, let's see now.... Evolution somehow knew that living things would be able to fly. It knew that there would be air. It knew all about aerodynamics. So VOILA'! Evolution made wings! HOW CONVENIENT of EVOLUTION!! Evolution just works all sorts of miracles, doesn't it?

Good letter, and keep using that brain that evolution gave ya!


August 23, 2007

You have no proof that an afterlife exists.Current scientific evidence is consistent with scientific theories.You do not have to have faith in order to agree with scientific theories. You just have to be fine with saying I don't know sometimes. Where did that energy-matter that exploded come from start from? Who put it there?I don't know. But, why did someone have to put it there? Why did the universe have to have a start? Answer me that. --L. K. (USA)

Hi again L,

You have no proof that an afterlife doesn't exist. Given that someone did return from the dead (which I assume you would not wish to believe despite plenty of eyewitness testimony), that's enough proof for me. However, let's talk about proof for a minute. You have no proof that there is extraterrestrial life, but I'll bet you and a million scientists believe there is. You have no proof that evolution actually happened the way they say it did, but I'll bet you believe it. You have no proof that intelligence can evolve from inert matter, but I'll bet you believe it did. You have no proof that there are other universes, or that the Egyptians actually built the pyramids, but you choose to believe it (someone once proposed to me in all seriousness that apes actually built them - can you PROVE they did not??). There are lots of things for which there is little or no proof (evolution being one), but people still believe in them. UFOs is another. People believe what they want to believe, and don't bore them with the facts.

Why did the universe have to have a start? That's an easy one to answer. First, you would have to have GREAT faith to believe it did not. Secondly, the SCIENTIFIC evidence indicates that the universe had a beginning. If it did not, there would not be two laws of thermodynamics which state that the total energy in the universe is a constant, but the energy available to perform work is running out (entropy). Therefore the universe had a beginning and that can be demonstrated scientifically. We don't need to believe it by faith. What we need to believe by faith is HOW that beginning came about. And it is not logical, given the scientific evidence, to believe that the complexity and structure in the universe, be it galaxies or atoms, came about by random chance processes. There is clear and obvious design present in all things from the largest to the smallest. Scientists recognize that, or there would not be scientific laws. Some of them just don't want to acknowledge that it could not have come about from nothing with no intelligent input. Which is a demonstration of their own lack of intelligent discernment of the facts.


October 2, 2007

Re: pertaining to laws, ethics, homosexuality, etc-Common human/social traits and customs like adoption, birth control, choosing to be childless, as well as homosexuality, etc, also can't be explained in any plausible way to fit evolution's purpose either. An individual's genes aren't passed on by any of those behaviors. If the cardinal rule of evolution is to propagate one's genes as much as possible then there are many modern day social trends that go against evolutionary behavior.Evolution breaks down the most when the attempt is made to use it to explain every single human behavior, especially on a complex social scale, via evolution. But, I also don't think that all human behaviors and emotions, etc, can be attributed to a creator/design since some things that people do simply don't seem to have a rhyme or reason to them at all. Does everything humans do have to be full of meaning?

--S. D. (USA)

Hi S,

You're getting into some pretty "heavy" philosophical issues now. I fully agree that evolution totally breaks down when trying to fashion itself as an all-encompassing explanatory theory, but of course the evolutionist by definition HAS TO explain things away somehow. The problem is you can invent whatever story you want to, and who's going to argue. Why do we yawn? Evolution can explain it (yes, evolutionists have an explanation for yawning). Why are we social? Evolution explains it. Why are we anti-social? Evolution explains it. Now we even have evolutionary psychology so we can invent ever more bizarre "explanations" (read: inventions of the imagination) for our behavior. The truth is that evolution explains NOTHING. WE invent the explanations and then fit them into the theory and say, "See! Evolution explains it!"

In a way, though, yes, everything that humans do is full of meaning. It is either actual, or attributed, meaning, but meaning nonetheless. Without it nothing would make sense. The question is to what or whom do we attribute the origin of meaning? The evolutionist tries to give meaning to everything in the light of his worldview, but that too breaks down because if evolution is true then there is no actual basis for meaning, and meaning then becomes whatever our imaginations want it to be, and we can never be sure if what we say something means is the same as what someone else will say it means, and the whole concept just breaks down.

Even things that are non-human living entities do have meaning. Otherwise science and scientific pursuit would have no meaning. Nor would politics, philosophy, law, medicine, or anything else. What really gets me is that scientists continually look for structure, design and purpose (meaning) in the cosmos, but then turn around and say the universe was not designed. Is that blindness or what? They are forever trumpeting the "exquisite design" of nature, and then attributing it to random processes, which are not random at all, but show just as much purpose as the end products the processes produce. A no-brainer, but apparently not obvious to all. Or is it, and they just choose to deny it, like Richard Dawkins, who admits that the universe shows "apparent" design properties, but then affirms that it really just "looks" like it was designed. Hmmm... Like I say in the text of my e-book, you have to be REALLY intelligent to believe this stuff.


October 16, 2007

Sure like the idea. The reason I looked it up is because I thought of making a website called, you guessed it, "Evolution is Stupid."I see you've already done it. I would have liked to see some more COLOR on the site. More pictures. Etc... I realize you are shooting for professionalism here but it's not going to get as many hits looking so , well, dull. I suggest you ask your readers to submit art, drawings and videos.I'd like to see some funny stuff here. The title implies some spoofery. Some interviews with "Scientist's" would be fun. I agree, Evolution is really stupid, and insulting to a higher intellect. ANY intellect really. One of my arguments is what I call the "Trigger" problem.Let's say you build a machine that makes widgets. It has power, parts, oil, gas and is all ready to go. There is just one thing missing. SOMEONE TO FLICK THE SWITCH TO ON!" This is true for all matter. Why does a proton have energy? Who flicked the switch? Even if the big bang theory was true, why would a little piece of matter pop out of nowhere and suddenly explode?

--D. W. (USA)

Hi D,

I appreciate all your input there, but as you can see by the tardiness of my response, I just don't have the time to put into this that I'd like to have. Too, it's not just the time, but the "right" time, when the juices are flowing, etc. I do know people who could embellish the site, but they're all pretty busy too. Hopefully in the future we'll be able to expand into other areas like you suggest, though there are other websites that do an adequate job of that. I'm currently working on another book, too, this time one that I hope to actually publish.

Scientists have no answer to your final questions. That's something I try to point out. Alan Guth, the inventor of "inflation" theory, realizing that his original "particle" must have come from somewhere, actually suggested that everything started out from... are you ready?... NOTHING. Ok, time for science to admit that every scientific law in the universe would be violated if that were true. Who flicked the switch? NOTHING did. There you have it. The experts even said it's so.


December 14, 2007

John I really enjoy your site, I was reading some of the posts here, very interesting. I wish they were dated, as I would like to respond to one. In a discussion you were having with a young man from Austrailia, he said that he could ask, "prove there is a God". Now I know that you focus on evolution only and avoid religion, but to me there is absolute scientific proof that God exists. And that is life. Throughout the history of mankind, no one has observed life arise from non-living matter. That would be a big 0% (Zero percent). Now, that is scientific observation. On the other hand, throughout the entire history of man we have all observed (even the fellow who asked that question)life arise from life. We see children born (and know the method), we see animals born, we see seeds fall from trees and take root. We see bacteria divide. So life has been observed to come from life 100% of the time. This is absolutely scientific observation and can be tested. And Pastuer of course wrote this law. Now, therefore if life exists (and it does), then life must have always existed. This is God. He is eternal life. For if life did not exist throughout eternity, there would be no source for our life today. So our very life and existence proves there is an everlasting life, which is God. It is really very simple logic a child could understand if they would just think for one minute. I too get annoyed by people who so easily accept evolution, because if you give it any thought at all it is extremely easy to see how false it is. Even as a child I could see how foolish it was. I remember in the 5th grade (I am about your age) reading a textbook that actually said that the sun formed dark spots on the skin which evolved into eyes. Now excuse me, I knew even then that if you stare at the sun it will blind you, not cause sight. It is hard to believe someone could even suggest such a STUPID idea. I was not raised in a particularly religious household, but it was simply thinking on my own and seeing how foolish evolution was that led me to truly believe in God. I know you don't go there, and that is good for this site. But I can. :>)Thanks and keep up the great site.

-- W. I. (USA)

Hi W,

I started dating the posts in January of 2007. A big DUH there, as I should have been doing that from the start, but just didn't think of it. Of course, it may just be that the idea had not yet evolved in my brain.

As for the rest of your post, it pretty much speaks for itself. The dark spots turning into eyes is a new one on me, though, but here we have a prime example of the "explanatory power" of evolution, which is that we invent whatever story we want and VOILA'! we've explained everything! Another example which is something of the antithesis of your story is blind fish in caves, and the fact that they survive better without sight. Now the evolutionist will jump on that and say, "See!? EVOLUTION IN ACTION! WHOOPEE!" However, if you THINK about it, fish becoming blind is a LOSS of eyesight, and a LOSS of the information to make eyes, and does nothing to explain where that information to make eyes and eyesight came from in the first place. Nor does it explain how evolution "knew" we even NEEDED eyes! As if evolution looked around, saw that there was light, and then decided to invent an organ that could utilize light, but not just the organ, all the muscles, nerves, etc. that go with it, and then evolution knew just how to wire it up to the brain that evolution evolved so that the brain could see it and not only that but INTERPRET it all so that the whole organism could benefit by the ability to see light. Isn't evolution marvelous??

Thanks for writing and for your insights.


December 23, 2007

Here are a few questions:1. If most Evolutionists don't believe Jesus exists, then why do they use BC and AD?2. If Evolutionists claim man came from ape, where did ape come from?3. Where did evolution come from? Who made it up?Please Respond

--T. P. (USA)

Hi T,

Actually evolutionists and others have tried eliminating BC and AD and replaced it with BCE (Before the Common Era) and BP (Before the Present), neither of which, interestingly, is based on a fixed reference point. That goes well with evolution, where you can add or subtract millions of years at whim and nobody bats an evolved eyelash (you know, of course, that evolution "knew" we needed eyelashes to keep dust and dirt out of the eyes that evolution knew we needed to evolve - see previous post). If they do still use BC and AD, it's just because it's still commonly used as a reference point, not because they necessarily accept the existence of God or Christ.

As far as where evolution came from, we can trace it as far back at least as the Greek civilization, who proposed a "ladder of life" or better, a "chain of being" that led from less to more complex beings, with man at the apex. Darwin was by no means the inventor of the idea that living things evolved; he just systematized the concept and gave some pitiful examples (which have been falsified at this point, though the textbooks haven't caught up with that truth) to supposedly "demonstrate" it. For example, finch beaks allegedly demonstrate evolution, but in reality do no such thing, as they're nothing more than examples of adaptation which arise from information that is already present, and do nothing to explain where the information to make a beak (and put it in the right position on the finch, where it will be most useful - a finch with a beak on its butt or wing wouldn't be able to use it very well, now would it?) came from in the first place. The finch beak example is just one more of evolutionists using change and adaptation to "prove" evolution, which they do not at all. As I said, adaptations arise from information that is ALREADY present in the genome as it was created, and do nothing to explain where that information had its source to begin with. Information does not arise on its own from inert matter.


December 24, 2007

No doubt you'll shout me down through tired arguments and copious use of the caps lock, but here goes.Here's information that completely proves adaptation and evolution., that due to not enough space on the grazing fields (cows were worth more at the time) were moved to the beach. There's no grass on the beach, but there is seaweed. Over two generations, the sheep's digestive tracks changed to allow them to easily digset seaweed. Seaweed is notoriously hard to digest.This is in almost living memory, at least well recorded history. Also, you can prove that these sheep adapted from normal sheep to those particular sheep by checking regular sheep. These sheep adapted because of variety, one sheep had a trait that allowed it to digest seaweed easier, and therefore it survived better, got the better mate and had more ewes with this seaweed-eating trait. And therefore they survived. The ones that couldn't eat it are dead.If God had created these creatures, then the pairs would be genetically identical, leading to none of these adaptations, as there would be no variety.Why do you think woolly mammoths were so apparent in the ice age? It was because they were covered in fur and could handle the cold conditions. When Earth's climate changed at the end of this, they died out because the temperature change was too dramatic.But look what survived - the elephant. The elephant is perfectly adapted to it's environment, a hot environment. Notice the elephant has large ears, in contrast to the woolly mammoth's smaller ones. These large ears help to reduce heat and maintain the correct core body temperature without losing too much water. Meaning it has a better chance of surving. Vice versa, the woolly mammoth has small ears, hugely thick fur, and even a specialized skin flap covering the anus.Please feel free to contradict all my arguments.

-- K. B.

Dear K,

Well, I'm not sure the best way to start out is to tell me what I'm going to do or how I'm going to respond, BUT WE'LL SEE IF WE CAN ACCOMMODATE YOU! OK?

Let's start with "tired arguments." How about finch beak "evolution" for one (see previous post)? Or maybe peppered moth "evolution" which is nothing of the sort. Or how about the latest "human" fossil that's going to "overturn" all our theories about human evolution? Are you asleep yet? Then how about embryological recapitulation? There are a few big words to perk you back up, but not for long. Been defused 100 years ago, but still there in the textbooks because evolutionists don't have anything else to hang onto.

Oh, anyhow, let's get to the rest of your letter. I don't need to have adaptation proved to me. It's a known scientific fact. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with classical evolution from "simple" to more complex. Adaptation results from information that is already contained in the genomes of living things. It is merely the phenotypic expression of genetic information. Evolutionists attempt to use adaptation as "proof" of evolution. "LOOK!" they yell (yep, evolutionists yell and use caps too!), "can't you see that change is all around us?! That's EVOLUTION!"

Well, I have news for you: No it's not. Evolution requires a source of information, and then a mode of increasing that information, and neither is present in the theory. Information, the transmission of information, and the increase and increasing complexity of information, in evolutionary theory, have no rhyme nor reason. "Oh," but the evolutionist will counter, "mutations are the answer!" No they're not. Mutations act on genetic information that is ALREADY present in the genome, and do nothing to explain the original source of that information, nor the transmission of it. Mutations are nearly always harmful, and NEVER increase information. They use what's there. They duplicate it. They corrupt it. They don't add anything useful and new to it. Known scientific fact. Yes, fact. Mutations can't explain evolution.

The rest of your letter is a perfect example of what I spoke about in former posts. Even though evolution really has no reason to attribute "purpose" to anything, you'll take an elephant's ear, see that it is designed in a particular way to perform a particular function, and then you'll affirm that evolution did it, as if evolution knew an elephant needed ears that could dissipate heat. (Not all species of elephant have large ears, by the way.) Now show me in the fossil record where all the stages are in the evolution of the heat-dissipating elephant ear. And while you're at it, show me how evolution knew what size to make the ear, where to put the ear, how to make sure that blood would circulate in the ear to dissipate heat, how evolution "knew" that blood could even do that, how evolution managed to pass on the ability to make ears to progeny, how evolution knew what muscles the ear would need to allow it to flap, how evolution knew to put skin on the ear and cartilage in it to give it form and structure and how evolution knew that the skin had to allow heat transfer, and how evolution knew just how to hook it all up to the elephant's brain (which evolution knew just how to evolve) to make it all work. Oh, and by the way, evolution also knew that the elephant would know it was too hot, of course. Otherwise the elephant might fry up and not be able to evolve, no?

As for the sheep eating seaweed, I can eat seaweed too. I can eat lots of things. What you're insinuating is that sheep suddenly "evolved" the ability to eat seaweed, as if evolution somehow "knew" they'd need to be able to eat seaweed to survive. Let's just take a look at your argument. "Over 2 generations..." implies that the sheep somehow were surviving. Otherwise there could not be 2 generations. If seaweed were "notoriously hard to digest" then why are so many creatures (humans included) able to digest it? One sheep group "had a trait that allowed it to digest seaweed easier." Therefore, the ability for sheep to digest seaweed ALREADY existed. Capish?

Now let's carry it a few steps further. Do you have any idea how complex the process of digestion and ASSIMILATION are? You see, just the fact that sheep adapted to eat seaweed means nothing if the machinery to then put that digestion to use is not there. In other words, did the ability to assimilate nutrients from seaweed also suddenly "evolve" out of nowhere? You see, if you THINK about your argument, it has everything to do with adaptation using machinery and information that was ALREADY in place, and has NOTHING do to with the question, "WHERE DID SHEEP COME FROM IN THE FIRST PLACE?" Where did the sheep's digestive system and all that entails come from in the first place?

I think someone's pulled the wool over your eyes. Time to take it off.


December 26, 2007

John,I have to say that I don't agree (and I sure do hope you know that it's Charles Darwin, right?). Well, first of all, please don't tell everyone that we just aren't admitting what we know isn't true. I have studied the theory of evolution and it makes sense to me, albeit incomplete, because science is a work in progress.Flight evolved in birds through evolution. It's not that they WANTED to fly (so they suddenly grew a pair of wings). It's by chance; they were lucky. The mutations in their DNA by sexual reproduction produced different combinations of DNA in their offspring. That was chance. The ones with more favorable combinations that were more suited for the environment had a better chance of surviving; so of course more of them did survive. Now this applies to birds: before the birds were animals with no wings. Because they kept being eaten by predators, they needed something to help them escape. Now, the DNA combinations that helped them escape helped those with the said DNA combinations to survive. Now it was by chance that the DNA combinations led to these animals getting wings, thus making them birds. Does it make sense now?Now, I'm sorry, and I'll probably comment more once I've read the whole thing, but I'm sleepy now. It's been a long day of work and I'm quite tired. But I'd just like to say that from what I've read, you haven't actually known the entire theory in its totality. You are merely refusing to accept the theory based on your own interpretations of its superficialities. Meaning, you didn't understand what the theory was trying to say. No offense, but I don't think you understood it at all.You are also explaining things all wrong."CDC SECRET #1: WE DON?T ASK WHERE THE PERIOD CAME FROM."The point is that the Big Bang theory doesn't cover that. It doesn't explain it (which means that they don't know). But that doesn't mean they invented all of it. They are providing a theory which simply shows a logistical derivation from collected evidence. Sure you can ask where the period came from, but they didn't tell you that because they don't know either. That's why it's not there with the theory. Theories only give possible hypotheses as to why certain things happen, but when they can't find an answer for something, they don't invent stuff.It's not that they're giving stupid stories, it's only that from the gathered proof, they conclude theories which explain things only to an extent, because the theories can never be tested and so, more proof for further explanations cannot be gathered.Scientists themselves have said that human minds cannot understand the whole of the universe. It is far too complex for our puny minds to understand. Just because we don't understand something doesn't mean it's false. Maybe we're just trying to interpret what we can't understand; and our interpretations turn out to be something we ourselves don't accept.Something else: "On the other hand, there were the tree lizards. Now, these guys learned to fly by jumping off branches! When they realized they were falling, they started flapping their arms, and sure enough the video actually SHOWED their arms turning into wings, before they hit the ground, in which case they would not have been much use to evolution, but the video makers somehow missed that point. This was a ?science? video, after all, and somebody must have known what they were talking about, or they wouldn?t have made it, and it certainly would not have been up to snuff for a prestigious institution such as the London Museum of Natural History, right?"I'm not sure you understood the video at all. It was just a representation, but it was not how it all worked. See my explanation (the one above).Lastly (since I DID say I was tired), we make mistakes in what we think something says. Then we conclude that they mean this, which we say makes the entire thing false, when the truth is that that wasn't what they said in the first place. I think that's what you did.

-- D. C.

Hi D,

Not sure what you meant about knowing it's Charles Darwin. But anyhow.... If evolution makes sense to you I can only say I feel sorry for you and hope you will think about it more. I have studied the theory too (for about 35 years) and it looks more ridiculous by the hour. The old argument about science being "a work in progress" is just a cover for saying outright that what you believe you believe by faith, and you have faith that "science" will one day have all the answers even if it doesn't now. Of course, you have to deny the fact that the more "answers" science finds, the more questions it evokes, but that's beside the point...

I gotta say that your faith in "lucky chance" says more in a few words than I could say in a thousand. No further comment should be needed.

I have already discussed mutations, etc. What you need to do is demonstrate where DNA came from in the first place, and how it is the most complex information-containing molecule in the universe. I don't want to hear what mutations did with DNA. I want you to tell me where DNA came from, how it got the information it contains, and how "evolution" worked everything out just right (albeit by "chance" now!) to utilize that information in such a way as to be beneficial to living things. What you're doing is what I have railed against again and again, viz, taking the facts and attributing purpose to them, while denying that evolution works by purposeful mechanisms. In other words, you're inventing fairy tales to support your religious faith in evolution. Oh, and I discussed "sexual reproduction" plenty in my book. I guess that was a happy accident too. Sperm and egg... and to think it all came about by blind chance...

Darryl, your story about the birds is just that: Your STORY. Were you or anyone else actually there to see all this? And tell me now, if birds were not surviving before they had wings, then WHY ARE THERE STILL BIRDS? And, um, why did so many other living things survive WITHOUT wings? Hadn't thought of that one, eh? I mean, the best survivors in evolutionary history have been bacteria, no? The have no wings. They're not big. They don't have sharp teeth. Imagine that, and they still survive to this day! Of course, the evolutionists have a contrived story to explain that one too. Funny how some bacteria just marched to a different drummer and decided that it was time to move "onward and upward" while some were content to just remain plain old bacteria. Just look at all they've missed!

I'm refusing to accept the theory based on my "interpretations"? And what, pray tell, are you doing? You're not interpreting the facts according to your own pre-determined system of hermeneutics (I use the word deliberately as evolution is its own religious system). If you have decided evolution is true, then no matter how much you go contrary to fact and logic, you're going to "fit" the evidence into your system. So you'll look at a bird's wing and see it as something that evolution arrived at by blind experimentation, even though it demonstrates, from feather to bone to muscle to nerve, that it was designed for the specific purpose it accomplishes - flight - and there is no possible way that a bunch of blind chance occurrences could have put all the things necessary to flight together to work just right.

As for where the period came from, that is the logical question to ask the scientist. The fact that he has no answer (some have tried to say it came from nowhere, though!, and another dismissed the question of where original matter came from as "irrelevant") only serves to demonstrate that there are limits to science and that science itself cannot and will never answer every question. Mostly it just serves to raise more questions.

Hope you got a good night's sleep. Now wake up, smell the coffee, and realize that your sense of smell and taste are not the products of blind chance. Evolution didn't accidentally find out you needed to drink liquids and smell whether they were dangerous or not. While it was finding it out, you'd have been dead. And dead things don't evolve.


January 11, 2008

John, In my previous - I should have said, "won't let go of E" instead of "can't let go of E. CAN'T, only in the sense of one painting oneself into a corner that is very difficult to come out of. Still waiting to hear comment from some of those agnostics who acknowledge the fallacy of E. Chances are they would not care to lend credence to purposeful design.

--S. P (Wyoming, USA)

Hi S,

Well, yours is the last letter I have to respond to here.

I will post it without comment, as you're pretty much just presenting a challenge to the readers.


July 2009 has been around for awhile now. I just ran across it today and thought you did a nice job on it. I hope lots of people continue to read it. I like all the big terms atheists use to explain the silliest things. Punctuated Equilibrium sounds so complicated and cool. I'm currently debating a really smart atheist/agnostic over email. It was nice to hear some logic after having to refute so much "science." Thanks for all the work you put into this.
– D. S.

Thanks much for your input. Have you heard about the movie "Expelled!"? It's playing now, and looks worth seeing.

You just love to rant about how evolution is stupid don't you? Not that I'm saying it's bad, but it's kind of funny to read it.
– T. P.

Glad you enjoy it! But I hope you've also thought about it.

Hey man,

Just wanted to quickly let you know how much I enjoyed reading your book/article on Evolution and why it's stupid. I've been looking all over for a good piece of video or literature to recommend to evolutionist friends of mine, and I usually only find Bible-thumpers in evolutionary debates, which can be quite a turn-off for someone who's not a believer.

The way you tackled the issue, though, made me prefer it over articles and videos from christians who are well-rounded scientists and who have been teaching science for years. Your sarcasm, while slightly overbearing at times, was overall appealing, and helps the reader realise how stupid evolution really is. short...good job, and thanks.
I'll be recommending you to my friends, for sure.
--L. H.


I apologize for not getting back to you sooner. Thanks lots! I've really got to get back to responding to letters here. So busy with other things these days, including a group that meets monthly where we discuss creation and evolution issues. I know about thumping people with the Bible. Sure, I'm a believer, but until THEY are believers, they're not going to accept what we say. So I figured the best angle to take was just try to show, in my own little way, how dumb the theory really is, and that it's just a religious myth for those who want to believe it.

If you've not seen "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" by Ben Stein, I'd highly recommend it.

Thanks again,

The last time I tried to get someone to explain how evolution produce two different sexes, (men and women) they were speechless. When you ask someone that claims to believe in evolution a tough question, they have to make up some answer up, or hope some other believer in evolution has already done so.The key word here is BELIEVE, because it is a belief, or something someone believes in, or something someone does not believe in. First a person has to believe that these so-called-scientists are telling the truth. Please do notgive us baloney about "evidence", because one would have to BELIEVE that it is evidence, for it to be of any value.
– C. N.

Hello and thanks for your input!


I have no idea if this will be published, but I feel a need to it get off of my chest. First, I have to say I am bias (very) against public schools period, almost to the point that I am glad they teach evolution, because I KNOW this evil system will have to give an account to the MOST HIGH GOD.The schools I attended were in a word lousy. So lousy that I had to wait to I got OUT of school, to really learn anything! It may be sad to say this, I do not believe you will convince some people the lie of evolution, until the judgment of GOD falls on them. Of course the teaching of evolution is not theonly place the public schools fall short. It falls short in accountability. If I was a painter, that could not paint, I would soon be out of a job. (if I ever had one to start with). Yet, these so-called-teachers just show up for "work", they will get paid. Yes, it is a shame.
– C. N.

Thanks again,
C. N.

Yes, I will be putting your email up on the feedback section of the website, but without your personal information. I agree with you on the schools, but thankfully not all teachers subscribe to evolution. In fact, I know a few here where I live that do not, and who try to downplay it a bit in their classes. If you have not seen the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" I would recommend you find it and watch it!


You have mentioned evolutionary cosmology and the big band theory. I am curious if you are aware that biologist do not deal with the origin of the earth. Biologist study life and biological evolution doesn't directly involve the origin of the earth. You also mentioned adaptations, which I find strange because evolution is just long term adaptation. So if you agree with adaptation then what is the problem with evolution? You also speak of evolution like it is living and it plans out all the future adaptations of a creature, evolution works from adaptation to adaptation. I'm sorry but it just seems like you are knowingly oversimplifying most of the topics you are speaking on.
–N. H.

Hi N---,

I have a background in biology, so I'm quite aware of what biologists deal with. What you're saying, in effect, is that no biologists wonder about the origin of the earth. They just assume everything was here and take it from there. I don't think so. Like it or not, they have to explain where everything came from to begin with. That's where evolutionary cosmology comes from. I don't know of too many evolutionists who don't start with the Big Bang. They have to have some souped up (pun intended - get it? "primordial soup” and all that goop?) story about where the materials that make up living things came from in the first place.

Evolution is not long-term adaptation. Adaptations are observable scientific facts, in the present. Evolution is not observable in the present, never has been observed, and did not happen in the past. Adaptations also concern things that EXIST NOW, and do not CREATE anything new. If you can understand that, then you will be on your way to understanding why evolution is bankrupt and stupid.

Thanks for writing,

I believed in evolution for all its "logic" and "Facts" from the authorities starting when it was introduced to me in my 2nd year of high school until my 2nd year of college. In 200(5?) roughly speaking, I read 1 convo in a book between a darwinist and a guru. half way in, he changed my mind. your page furthers what i have been learning.

BUT, what really bothers me is what bothers me when i was a pro darwinist, before i ADMITTED i was wrong. the earth CAN BE proven to be over 4 billion years old. this was confirmed in the Vedas long ago, which are proven. these kinds of things is what makes people think they are right, the Genesis version (cause it's not detailed or science driven) isn't more scientific than darwinism, not that it is wrong. so when you pass off this young earth theory, illogical and anti-science cause the Bible says so, it fuels their we are right attitude. the Bible is 1 book of many, though not all, BONA FIDE religion, that is why it has roughly 4000-6000 years of history. you KNOW if you do some thinkng and research, you can realize it CANT be the ONE true faith. Hinduism/Buddhism knew of things long ago no man but rather only a supreme being could know, and it is far more logical which confirms what IS IN the Bible and otherwise, the core concepts are ABSOLUTE, the differences are RELATIVE truths that can vary for various people that need it to. CHRIST was predicted in Hinduism and didnt actually say he was the only way for ALL people, i did some research on this for my book.
– A. S.

Hello A--,

Thanks for your input, but I'm afraid I don't understand some of it. In any event, I have said from the outset that my main focus here is on evolution, not different religious beliefs. I have my own, of course. Also, you give no support whatsoever for what you say. For instance, about being able to "prove" the earth is billions of years old. You're absolutely wrong on that count alone. Nobody can "prove" any such thing. Radiometric dating is just ONE method of dating things, and it is based completely on ASSUMPTIONS. There are other ways of estimating the age of the earth that do not agree at all with radiometric dating results, and even those results are questionable. Often if a "date" doesn't fit the presupposed age of a rock or other object, it is thrown out, and the object is re-dated till a result comes up that's closer to the expectations of the scientists dating the item.

In any event, if you want to believe something, you're going to do so no matter what the "facts" or "evidence" are. I would suggest you keep an open mind and do more studying of the issues involved, which go much deeper than just how old the earth is. There are philosophical issues that govern one's acceptance or rejection of evolution. One of them is how to determine what is "true." Evolutionists have no basis for truth.


The body and soul of Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution was his idea that evolution was made possible through natural selection. This concept is based on the suggestion that those members of a species that are a little stronger, a little larger, or run a little faster will live longer to procreate offspring with these superior adaptations. Darwin's theory suggests that millions of generations later the changes will result in new species. These adaptations are called links or intermediates between the old species and the new.

The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the "evolutionary tree" have many laughable flaws. One of the best example of evolution nonsense is the thought that a wingless bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The first wing stubs would be much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve wing stubs that are useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary theory of natural selection, which states that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations to improve a wing stub that is useless? The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species, not the weakest. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage. This is the opposite from natural selection. According to natural selection, the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny.

We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing, so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.

The theory of "natural selection" is the basis and foundation for the Theory of Evolution. The existence of birds literally destroys the theory of natural selection sending the Theory of Evolution crashing like Tweety bird.

The bird is said by evolutionists to grow hollow bones for less weight in order to fly. How would a bird pass this long-term plan to the millions of generations in order to keep the lighter bone plan progressing? The idea that birds or anything else has million-generation evolutionary plans is childish. The evolutionary concept of growing a wing over millions of generations violates the very foundation of evolution, natural selection.

Birds aren't the only species that proves the theory of natural selection to be wrong. The problem can be found in all species in one way or another. Take the fish for example. We are told by evolutionists that a fish wiggled out of the sea onto dry land and became a land creature. So let's examine this idea. OK, a fish wiggles out of the sea and onto the land, but he can't breathe in air. This could happen. Fish do stupid things at times. Whales keep swimming up onto the beaches where they die. Do you think the whales are trying to expedite an multi-million generation plan to grow legs? That concept is stupid, but let's get back to the fish story. The gills of the fish are made for extracting oxygen from water, not from air. He chokes and gasps before flipping back into the safety of the water. Why would he do such a stupid thing? This wiggling and choking continues for millions of generation until the fish chokes less and less. His gills evolve into lungs so he can breathe on dry land, but now he is at risk of drowning in the water. One day he simply stays out on the land and never goes back into the water. Now he is a lizard. If you believe this evolutionary nonsense, you need psychiatric help.

Giant dinosaurs literally exploded onto the scene during the Triassic period. The fossil record (petrified bones found in the ground as at the Dinosaur National Park in Jensen, Utah, USA) shows no intermediate or transitional species. Where are the millions of years of fossils showing the transitional forms for dinosaurs. They do not not exist because the dinosaurs did not evolve.

Books published by evolutionists have shown the giant Cetiosaurus dinosaur with the long neck extending upright eating from the treetops. They claimed natural selection was the reason Cetiosaurus had a long neck. This gave them an advantage in reaching fodder that other species could not reach. One day during the assembly of a skeleton for a museum display someone noticed the neck vertebrae were such that the neck could not be lifted higher than stretched horizontally in front of them. The natural selection theory was proven to be a big lie. The Cetiosaurus dinosaur was an undergrowth eater. The long neck actually placed the Cetiosaurus at a disadvantage in his environment, just the opposite from the natural selection theory. Evolutionists will now claim the animal evolved a long neck because he had the advantage of eating from bushes on the other side of the river. This is typical of the stupid logic of an evolutionist.
– A. S.

I agree with you fully. Natural selection can only work with what already exists. There is no instance EVER of natural selection creating something completely new. In order for evolution to progress from nothing to everything, something other than natural selection had to be at work, and there is no mechanism that could have produced everything from nothing. I really don't get why evolutionists are not able to grasp that truth. That's why evolutionists break every established scientific law, from the laws of thermodynamics, to gravitation, to spontaneous generation of life, and so on.

The idea that "stronger, faster, blah blah blah" is a result of evolution is easily refuted by a snail. For one. And how is it that some bacteria turned into Bob and Barbara, while others remained bacteria all these millions of years? Why couldn't they all have stayed as bacteria? They were surviving just fine!

There are no intermediate species. It's all in the evolutionists' imaginations. Stephen Gould called it the "trade secret of paleontology."

I do not deny the ability of living organisms to adapt. But that has nothing to do with evolution from particles to people. It's a completely different topic, and the evolutionists know it. But they still tout adaptation as some kind of "proof" of their theory. Antibiotic resistance is one of their favorites. Has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.

That deer argument fails from the first sentence, because before deer could "run fast" how did they survive? And if they were surviving without running fast, then they didn't need to run fast to survive. That's just a perfect example of the stories evolutionists conjure up to try to explain things from their religious point of view.

Thanks for your input,


Hello John,It seems like every time we talk, the conversation spreads to lots of topics, so I was hoping to discuss one topic at a time to make things simple.I said 'Molecules can form bonds spontaneously when they collide by chance.' in one of my earlier posts. Then you said 'Molecules don't really collide "by chance."'Molecules diffuse randomly in the air, in water, and even in solids. When you open a bottle of perfume in the corner of the room, it can take several minutes for someone on the other side of the room to smell the perfume, yet we know that gas molecules move at speeds as fast as 400mph, so why does it take so long for a molecule to get to a person's nose? Because the perfume molecules are randomly colliding with air molecules along the way to the person's nose.Can we agree that molecules randomly collide in several orientations?LupinI know this is your website, so of course you can respond however you want, but in the interest of clarity, can we just stick to whether or not molecules randomly collide until we've come to an agreement?
-- L. K.

Yes, molecules can collide randomly, but your example fails because you already have a relatively stable room full of gas molecules when you open the perfume jar. Extrapolating from your example, the universe would already have had to be filled with gas molecules, and somthing then happened to "release" some other molecules into the mix, which then randomly collided with the molecules already filling the "universe room" and VOILA! life appears. I'm afraid not, my friend. It's more likely that if the randomly colliding molecules DID unite, their bonds would soon have been destroyed by radiation.


You might want to note, John, that evolution doesn't create anything--It is a description of a phenomenon--*life*--and by what process that life takes myriad forms over time. It is Christianity which maintains life is *created*--each species discretely--by God--uttering words, actually, as you have stated elsewhere. Therefore it is you who need to provide evidence how life is created, not someone who has not expressed the thought that life is *created*. The *evidence*, of course, that God created life, is found in the Old Testament, because you are a fundamentalist Christian who believes in Faith, not Science. You've tried hard to conceal that fact, like the so-called *Creation Scientists*.
– R. N.

Hello R--,

I've tried very hard to note [emphasize] that evolution doesn't create anything. If only more evolutionists like yourself would realize that, we'd all be happier. It is NOT a "description of life" but rather a religious system designed to attempt to explain the origin, existence, and destination of life. And it fails.

No, "Christianity" does not claim that each individual species was created discreetly. You are grossly misinformed on that.

Now, I'm sure you've answered yourself to your own satisfaction, but I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate how nothing became everything on its own.


Hi, thanks for finally replying. Yes it appears you are not understanding. Religion has nothing to do with this matter, I agree the focus here is confronting Darwinists scientifically and logically (dont say evolutionists because there are degrees of evolution that are true and that are not. Example; Conscioussness evolves, species may not). I brought up Hinduism/Buddhism because they knew of things long ago, from atoms to life to the universe, with detailed accuracy, LONG BEFORE modern science did, hence they are the most reliable/valid source. They talk about evolution in a logical/scientific way. They reject the many apspects of Darwinian evolution both of us reject. I'm NOT saying that I NOW believe in Darwin's theory. I went down the same road you did after college.

I'm saying only Half-Life dating (this is a SCIENTIFIC method, not ONLY radiometric dating) can prove the Earth to be billions of years old. You didn't show proof for your claim that they threw out some rocks, but IF they did, even if SOME rocks are billions of years old that proves the Earth is that old. Look at the Sun, it can't form in 10,000 or less years. We can see light from stars that takes light BILLIONS of years to travel here. I could go on and There's proof/detail on some of my statements provided on my link from my last email, but you didn't bother look I guess. Also sexual selection and genetic changes (yes damages) are a fact of life. Everything else of Darwin's theory is STUPID.

I agree no one beliefs can be changed and I didn't email to argue. The above paragraph is to explain that; when you argue with darwinists don't argue against those points because they will see you as a close minded religious obsessed person. This time see the video I made on and the LINKS IN it. The first one is the one that CHANGED my beliefs in Darwinian Evolution to ANTI Darwin and Pro Intelligant Design and Evolution of the Conscioussness (Yes that's another issue). I saw your whole book, hopefully you will at least see a short vid and 1-2 links. By the way I tried editing wikipedia (last night ironically) but they won't allow ANYTHING Anti Darwin. We need to do something. I'm trying to get a book published with a chapter on this issue. Schools must stop teaching Darwin's theory but we may need to argue using SCIENCE so that there is no violation of laws seperating church and state. take care
-- A. S.

Au contraire, YOU have not understood. Evolution IS a religion. It's pope is Darwin. It's priests are evolutionary scientists. Its "good book" is The Origin of Species. Its cathedrals are Natural History museums. Its miracle worker is Time. It is nothing more than a pagan attempt to explain where everything came from, why it's here, and where it's headed, under the guise of "science," which it is NOT. No scientists ever observed the universe appear from nowhere and make everything by itself. It's all story telling and magic wand waving.

"Consciousness evolves" is a good example of the abuse of the term "evolution." If you mean "changes" then we're in agreement. If you mean that consciousness created itself and became self aware on its own, and is developing something new all the time, then we part ways. Besides, "consciousness" is a very subjective thing, so you can easily say it "evolves" without being challenged. How can anyone prove otherwise? First you have to define "consciousness."

Half life dating can NOT prove ANYTHING. You need to understand that. There are basic ASSUMPTIONS involved that serve to DISprove any notion of certainty. You have to KNOW for a fact that no daughter product was present at the start. You have to KNOW for a fact the amount of initial product that was there. You have to KNOW for a fact that nothing could possibly have altered your sample in MILLIONS of years! What a joke! You have to KNOW for a fact that the decay rate of the product remained constant over MILLIONS of years. Not possible to know any of that. Recently formed rocks have been dated to be millions of years old. That right there disproves any notion of certainty in rock dating methods.

As for light taking "BILLIONS" of years to get here, that is another evolutionary fallacy. It is quite possible that we will discover some mechanism that refutes that notion. Riemannian space is one that has already been proposed. Another is called "cdk" where "c" is the speed of light, and the proposal is that it was much faster in the past than now, and hence the speed has decayed over time. This idea fits well with a "tired" red shifted light reaching us, as red spectrum light has less energy than violet end light. As an amateur astronomer, I find it laughable that a light ray could travel unobstructed for BILLIONS of years and arrive on my retina with the same energy it had when it left its source. Also, if you notice Hubble and other deep space photos that supposedly show the initial stages of the universe, you'll note that there are already fully formed galaxies there, not galaxies in the process of formation, as we'd expect to see if the evolutionists were right.

I could not care less if the evolutionists see me as closed minded. An open mind spills its contents. I'm open minded to truth. Closed to lies. I used to beleive in evolution. I don't any more. Because I was open to the truth, and not worried about what the liars or the deceived and brainwashed thought of me.

I don't believe schools should stop teaching Darwin's theory. I believe we should be exposed to all sides. Rather, I think students should be allowed to THINK for themselves, be allowed to hear other sides of the issue, and then come to their own conclusions and be able to defend them. Not be brainwashed and FORCED to accept Darwinism whether they like it or not.


I didn't read every word, but I did a lot of it and we are of the same mind for sure. Like you, I want details and logic. All the people I know who believe in evolution don't wish to discuss it with me anymore. I know why, because it is clear they have no regard for truth.

For those that think, it does not take much to show the others that they don't think. So, to counter that, the non-thinkers put their real thinking into how to intimidate and harass. To that, it brings comfort to the masses to just act smart in one big happy stupid family.

What they or we can't hide from, is that we all will have to answer someday to God. That gives me my comfort. Still, I get some comfort today showing how stupid evolution is. It's actually fun.

God bless you,

Hi J,

Thanks for writing! After a couple of replies from geniuses who's idea of a good scientific argument in favor of their religious belief is to call me expletives (and not dare put their name behind it, of course), yours was a breath of fresh air from someone with a brain.


Only been on the site 10 minutes..... Amazing...Very well done. Call it like it is. Say it Loud and Clear!!! No candy coating, politically correct, your gonna hurt someones self esteeme garbage. Though at times I do wonder if evolutionists did evolve from a much lower life form.
I'm tired of watching what we say.... Say it....It's the truth.
Thanks for standing up....
D. McC

Hey D---, you are the Man! I'm with you 100 percent on the self esteem, hurt my wittle feelings bit. We need more people who are more concerned about telling the truth, and more listeners who would rather worry about truth than that their feelings were hurt. There are times to watch what we say, but the evolutionists are not doing that, for sure. Some atheists like Richard Dawkins are becoming quite vocal with their spoutings and so-called wisdom. I tried reading his book "The God Delusion" and it's so poorly argued I couldn't take any more. I rarely put a book down once I start reading it, but I could see I wasn't going to get anything worthwhile from that one. Yet it's quite a popular book. Why? Because evolutionists need a hero.

Thanks for writing,


Thank you for making this site! I work at a public school with a lot of hard core Chuck Dee Club members. Seriously their views are giving me very bad death anxiety. If when I die, I just become slime, then why live a good and just life? Where does my conscience go? Nothing makes you more aware of your own mortality than having a child. Not only am i molding myself, but also molding my child to be a good person. Surely what the heck does evolution have to do with that? I was raised Catholic with all the proper sacraments, and but nothing makes you doubt your own faith like Chuck Dee with all their "evidence". They laugh at me like I'm living in a fairytale land and they scare me when they say when you die, that's it, the worms eat through your head and you become a tree. Your website has made me feel better because it has explained away all the stupidity I face in school every day.
– S. G.

Wow, S--! Thanks so much for writing! Yes, having a child should make any evolutionist pause, but that would require using their evolved BRAIN. Just stop and think how something like man, woman, gametes, wombs, and little children could have been "crafted" by stupid, mindless, directionless evolution, and it becomes evident that there is design and purpose involved. I like how evolutionists always have to come up with a reason or purpose for things and why they do what they do. If their religion is true, there really IS no purpose or design in anything. Richard Dawkins, the well-known atheist evolutionist wannabe philosopher, even admits things have an "appearance of design" but then dogmatically insists they were not designed. Brilliant, eh? How does something have the "appearance" of design with no design involved? Genius. See, I told you you have to be REALLY SMART to believe in evolution. Or at least you have to think you are.

Keep being strong. You're on the winning side! Evolution is destined for the scientific trash bins of history.

Thanks again,


Pure genius. I have never believed in evolution despite what everyone around me says. Evolution is not science. Mutations are almost never positive(name one). Where are all these fossils of negaitve mutations? (There should be so many to make your head spin)And why are all these transitional fossils fully formed? It couldn't be just another animal that went extinct? Or perhaps variation? NO! It's evolution because Mr. Biologist says so cause the alternative would be catastrophic to their worldview. Where did life come from Mr. Scientist? From rocks, or perhaps soup? And you know this how? You were there? You saw it happen? Why don't you repeat it with the major technological advances we have today? Can't do it, can you? But it just started randomly? For no reason, single cells decided to evolve? Where are these single cell organisms today? 5 cells organisms? I wanna know Mr. Scientist. Tell me Mr. Scientist, why was there a fossil discovered a few days ago which states that "Feathers" must have been developed a lot earlier than previously thought? Also Mr. Scientist, how do you observe that this animal lived somewhere between 90 and144 million years ago? Do you not realize how big of a gap that is Mr. Scientist? To go from one million to two million years is a LONG time, yet alone the time you have set. But there is no way this animal could have lived 89 million years ago? Or 150 million years ago? And Mr. Scientist, please explain to me how all the functions of a single cell(more complicated than a space shuttle) formed simoultaniously in order for that cell to function? Also Mr. Scientist, why did we lose the majority of our hair? Was it cause evolution knew that we would make clothes and therefore thought ahead for us? And Mr. Scientist, please tell me how you know that the big bang happened? A dot blew up? Really? There are no alternatives? Not if Mr. Scientist says it happened this way. And Mr. Scientist, if there is no God, explain to me all the millions of supernatural occurences that happen on a daily basis? Are all these people liars Mr. Scientist?
-- I. T.

I can't add anything to your letter. Fantastic!



Wow, you lost me when I noticed that you must be some young earth creationist. I don't know that for sure but, please, a global flood? A global flood of the proportions of dogmatic YECs is so impossible due to: not enough water, fossil beds are in several layers, where did all of the water go?, the pressure of water rising above Everest would probably turn the land masses inside out, the tidal waves would destroy Noah's Ark, where would all of the air go which would have been pushed higher and higher by the rising waters, how did Noah's family and the animals survive at such great altitudes, ect. ect. and so on.

The globe was never covered by Noah's flood. It was local and not every damn animal in the world was represented on it. You also mix the study of the cosmos with evolution. These are independent areas. The only thing that you could have against the Big Bang theory is that it proves old age. What the Big Bang proves is design. Your dogma is stupider than that of macro evolution. It's people like you that get non evolutionists made fun of.
– D. B.

And you lost me when I noticed you were a brainwashed evolutionist. I'll bet you believe there was a flood on Mars, eh? Why? Because your scientist priests told you so! Did you or they SEE a flood on Mars? Well, no. Is Mars covered with water? Well, no. Is Earth covered with water? Hmm. A mere 70 percent. But they insist there was a flood on Mars that couldn't possibly have happened on Earth. And just what evidence would we expect to find from a global flood? I've asked that to numerous evolutionists over the years. I NEVER get an answer. Just attempts to divert the topic, evasiveness, or even name calling (the evolutionists' favorite "explanation" for what they believe).

Your questions are adequately answered on numerous websites. You're not the first to ask them, so don't get too smug. As an evolutionist you have enough of your own questions to answer. Maybe you should focus on them first, then you'll realize how bankrupt what you believe really is. You're not looking for answers, just to prove yourself right, which you're not. If you're sincerely looking for answers to your questions, they're very easy to find online or in good books.

And here we go again with the "mixing" of the study of the Cosmos with evolution. You geniuses can't seem to get the idea that if the Cosmos didn't "evolve" nothing else would have either. In case you didn't notice, your own religious priests realized that long ago, and that's how cosmological evolutionary science was born.

It's people like you that get evolutionists "made fun of" because all you can do to bolster what you believe is ask questions that a million other people have asked and you think you're the first to come up with them. You yourself have no answers, nor are you looking for answers. You think you've proven your point by the questions you ask.


I see you do not understand science. I could spend the day refuting every point on your website, but it may be an overload for your tiny point of view.

Your little spiel about asteroids and dinosaurs is way wrong. When an asteroid collides with the earth, it sends ash and other particles into the atmosphere. If the asteroid is big enough, the particles can end up blocking the sun killing plant life. The particles in the atmosphere would also asphyxiate the animal life. The fossils in sedimentary rock would have died and formed fossils.

Things do not have to be buried QUICKLY in sediment in order to form fossils, the process can take many years as decomposing bacteria have a difficult time with bone matter.

Evolution is the basic principle of Biology. Before you resort to the over used "evolution is JUST a theory" remark that you people constantly resort to because you have refused to educate yourself. You must know what a THEORY is. A theory is a tested, and proven hypothesis. Tested many times, by many groups. In the scientific community, scientists are constantly testing other scientists experiments to see if they get consistent results. If it tests well, then it becomes a theory. Research before you try to discuss anything.

A Tool doesn't have to be "a hammer, or a screwdriver, or a cordless drill", it has to serve any kind a purpose, much like a computer can be a tool used in learning. A stick can be used in the gathering of food ie: getting grubs out of a log or prying open a fruit.

I don't know why I am wasting my time on a retarded, creationist, conspiracy theorist, I guess I am that bored.

If you do not reply back, I will take it as your surrender.
– S. E.

Wooohahaha! Here we go with Mr. Scientist who's going to explain science to me and everybody else because we all need an edjycashun. Ok, Mr. S, sock it to us! Starting out by insinuating that you'll overload us all with your brilliance is very humble of you.

So, when was the last time you and your fellow "scientists" saw an asteroid collide with the earth? NEXT.....

Fossils form in a matrix of water and particulates. There are billions upon billions of them. Asteroid crashes don't select what plants and animals to kill off. Nor do they form fossils. NEXT....

Things DO have to be covered quickly to form the kind of fossils we find in the fossil record. Like jellyfish. You know? If not, do some more reading. You apparently don't know much about the process of fossilization. If you're aware of any locale on the entire earth where billions of fossils are forming slowly right now, feel free to inform the rest of us. NEXT.....

Evolution is the basic principle of a false, paganistic religious system. Biological science was going along just fine without it, and will continue to do so once more and more people come out of their fear closets and admit evolution is bankrupt. Biology does not need the theory of evolution to progress. Nor does any other branch of science. NEXT....

Evolution is not a "tested and proved" hypothesis, except in the minds of the brainwashed who don't want to give it up. Evolution has been put to the test and has failed. Time to move on.... Try reading Richard Milton's "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism" just for starters. Finally an honest evolutionist who admits the whole thing is a sham. There are lots of others like him slowly coming out of the closet. First the brave lead the way. Then the fence sitters jump off. Then finally the cowards come up from behind and make it look like they were the avant garde to begin with. You'll see. NEXT.....

A high school teacher here has a big sign on her blackboard. It says, "If you're bored, it's because you're BORING." You have not brought up a single example in support of what you believe. Just the same tired old arguments. No doubt someone told you "evolution is a fact" and because you think they "did their research" you bought their line. Try thinking for yourself, and you'll be surprised what you'll find. Read that book I mentioned above. I mean that sincerely. I know I can be sarcastic (as you are) but in all sincerity I am more concerned about getting people to THINK for themselves, not just believe what you're told because some "expert" says it.


You have a profound misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. It has no domain before life existed. Anything on a site titled "Evolution is Stupid" pertaining to the formation of the universe, the solar system, the earth, or life itself is just an indication of ignorance. There are many entirely separate theories (and let me emphasize this fact, ENTIRELY SEPARATE) pertaining to the formation of the universe and everything within it. Evolution, as Charles Darwin intended it, only describes the process by which animals developed and differentiated themselves over time. You should read books that don't say "Bible" on them. Books written by people doing modern research, not relating ancient bedtime stories to the masses.
-- M. M.

I've studied evolution for over 30 years. You are absolutely correct. I DO have a profound misunderstanding of the theory. I cannot for the life of me understand how people still believe that crapola.

It has no "domain" before life existed? Heh? So "stuff" was just here, and evolution started evolving it, then, right? So we're not supposed to ask where the "stuff" came from? So the "stuff" didn't evolve, but the life that evolved from the "stuff" evolved. Right? I think maybe I'm finally starting to comprehend after all these years! Thanks!

"Evolution" as Charles Darwin intended it, is dead. Get over it. The very REASON cosmic evolutionary theories were born is because the evolutionists realized that thinking people were going to ask questions about where the "stuff" came from that was then able to evolve. "Evolution" in our day encompasses everything from the beginning of time and matter (and feeble attempts to explain away what was "there" before that and where it all came from) to psychology. Darwin would probably be appalled at some of it, actually.

You should try reading the Bible, perhaps, because you obviously know nothing about it. I've read it. And lots of other religious books, too, including evolution religion books. I like books by people doing modern research. I just don't like it when they try to force their evolution religion on me when it has no bearing whatsoever on what real scientific research is all about. For example, I can learn about research on sharks' teeth withouth having to be told that sharks evolved millions of years ago and teeth magically formed from scales, which is an evolutionary just-so story that adds nothing to what I've learned about sharks' teeth. Get it?

Now, I'd suggest you go do what I've done, and read lots of books (hundreds at this point) that discuss your beliefs from every angle (not just the ones you like) and read that Bible too, so you know what it says, and aren't just going on what someone else told you.


Explain the variation in felines ranging from lions to the various breeds of housecat without evolution.
– K. W.

Uh oh! Now you got me!

Well, of course, I could "touche" you right back and ask you to explain it to me WITH evolution, but I already know what well-worn answer I'm going to get.

What you need to be able to do is explain where all the genetic information to make various cats came from. Information must have a source.

Let's go over this. In order for evolution to have "created" various cats, first it had to start with nothing. The nothing then became something. Let's call the something molecules. So molecules magically appeared from basically nothing. Ok, then molecules got together and started forming stuff. Then they came to life. Magically. Then they figured out how to reproduce. Magically. Then they got bigger and started forming eyes, ears, whiskers, teeth, tongues, lungs, kidneys, nerves, digestive systems, organs that could say "meow", paws, hair. And they neat part is, all those parts were magically organized and put in just the right places in a body covered by skin that was able to move, breathe, say "meow" and so on! Isn't evolution just...., welll..., MAGICAL????

Ok, so now we know how evolution "made" all those cats, right. And THAT's SCIENCE. REAL science.

There's only one problem. None of it happened. For cats to be cats takes an enormous amount of genetic information. Information doesn't come from nowhere. It has to have a source. This is a major area where mindless evolution fails.

If you believe in creation, an original cat was created within which was contained all the genetic information to allow various species of cats to arise through genetic recombination. That's exactly what we see happening. With dogs, it was likely a wolf-like animal, and other dog descendents began to express some of the variety that was contained in the original genome. However, with descent comes LOSS of information. Thus a cat or dog that is descended from the original would have LESS genetic information in its genome. And that's exactly what we see. We don't see NEW information arising, as would be necessary for evolution to take place. We see selection working on what was ALREADY there, and producing various expressions of genetic information content, without producing anything novel. Evolution only works in a downward direction. Hence, it doesn't work at all.

Oh, and by the way, if you happen to see any of those cats turning into something besides cats (which would certainly help the cause of evolution!) please let us know!



You seem to greatly misunderstand evolution.

You say that mutation and adaptation only alter genetic information that already exists. You also say that evolution requires new information to be spontaneously created. The problem is that "new" information is created by altering "old" information over several generations, until it is no longer recognizable as its ancestral counterpart. We've seen this in short-lived species such as flies and bacteria.

Explain how a strain of rapidly-reproducing bacteria evolved the ability to digest nylon when its normal food source was in short supply. That's how natural selection and evolution works; no outside intelligent agent is needed. Even if it were, that does not mean the Big Bang - which was not an explosion, mind you - didn't happen, or that some god besides yours didn't start the evolutionary process. Which reminds me: evolution and the Big Bang are NOT the same thing. They are totally different theories in separate branches of science. Evolution does not require the Big Bang to work. Neither requires the absence of a deity to work.

Fossilization occurs under very specific circumstances, and it does take some time. Fossils are not found in sediment; they are found in hard rock, most of which is chipped away with tools and heavy equipment, not just "shifting" or eroding. (And for the record, there is NO scientific evidence of a global flood. The mysterious lack of enough water and finding larger creatures above smaller ones in the strata are only two problems with that idea.)

Evolution IS adaptation and mutation. It is not Pokemon-style transformation, and it is not "a fish gives birth to a monkey." No biologist would ever suggest either of those ridiculous ideas.

The Department of Health employs thousands of epidemiologists and evolutionary biologists, who create and dispense vaccines based on (surprise!) evolutionary science, because virii constantly evolve.

It's up to you to say that your book is 100% literal (even though the Hebrews taught by parable, and the Bible has been rewritten and edited so many times), and it's not my right to tell you to stop denying multiple branches of science that have been proven through practical application. But if you want anyone to take you seriously, instead of just being a joke among the entirety of the scientific and scholastic communities, you should do a little more unbiased research, instead of parroting the convicted fraud Kent Hovind.
– T. G.

Uh oh, again I've "misunderstood" evolution. And you're gonna set me straight. Ok, let's have at it.

Right. Mutation and adaptation work with what already exists. The "new" information you're alluding to (without any examples, I might add) adds further support to what I just said. What you're saying, in effect, is that new information arises by a reworking of the information that already exists. What you FAIL to explain is, WHAT WAS THE SOURCE OF THE ORIGINAL INFORMATION? I hope I'm getting through here. Let's do an experiment.

Take the word "EYES." You know what an EYE is, right? Ok, let's take that information and alter it. SYEE. Does that help? Hmm, not much. You don't know what SYEE is? I don't either. How about YSEE. Or let's remove a letter, and just come up with "YES". Well, VOILA! We've created NEW information, right? Wrong. We've just altered what was there. However, YES, we HAVE created a new word! However, in the context of the old word, the new one is USELESS.

Let's take another example. The word GIFT. In English, we know what a gift is. You know what GIFT means in German? Poison. So, there's more to just altering existing information. We have to have a source of information. We need a code. We need a mode of transmission. We need a mode of interpretation. And finally we need a mode to be able to apply the information to perform something useful.

So, whatever short lived "new" information you're talking about in flies and bacteria - was it useful information? Can you give us more detail on how that supports the evolution religion? If it was indeed "short lived" it must not have been very beneficial. I know of some wonderful "proof" of evolution in a fruit fly that developed an extra set of wings. The wing information was already there. The fly was enabled to develop a [second] set of wings. The fly died. The extra wings were useless. Nothing new was created. Just a set of wings using a blueprint that already existed. And it was useless.

The nylon digesting bacteria have been explained away long ago. I could cut and paste a huge refutation of how that example supposedly demonstrates evolution, but you'll have to do your own research. Try going to and type "nylon" in the search engine. Do a little research. And I love stuff like that. Ha ha! We found some bacteria that can digest nylon, so THAT EXPLAINS where human legs that wear nylon stockings came from! In other words, because we found a bacterial strain that can digest nylon, WHOOPEE! We now have PROOF POSITIVE that bacteria turned into Barbara over a few million years! Not that evolution is a leap of faith or anything like that. This is just another example of how badly evolutionists have to strain to come up with examples that supposedly bolster their position. If we can just show that bacteria "evolved" the ability to digest nylon, that will prove that bacteria also turned into people.

The fact is, the bacteria already contained the machinery to adapt the ability to digest the components of nylon. Bacteria have demonstrated an amazing spectrum of abilities to withstand and survive extreme environments. That in no way demonstrates how they turned into anything else. They're still bacteria. Do you get that?

Yes, yes, I know the Big Bang wasn't an explosion. After all, we all saw it happen. Do your research and you'll discover that the term Big Bang was invented by evolutionist astronomer Fred Hoyle, who likened it to a big explosion and thought the idea was preposterous. Of course his own wacko idea of panspermia was worse, but he wasn't about to admit that.

Ummm, fossils are formed in sedimentary rock. Do your research. And they don't take long periods of time. Find me some fossils forming over long periods of time and we'll take it from there.

Bacteria don't evolve. The epidemiologists do not use evolution to determine what they're going to do. They don't have any way of predicting how a bacterium or virus is going to "evolve" or we'd have plenty of vaccines on hand for future events. What they DO work with is various already extant strains that for some reason or other become dominant for a period of time. Nothing new has been created. The strains are already there, just waiting for the opportune time to fill a niche. Again, nothing to do with evolution. Medicine would, and will, proceed forward just fine without it. In fact, because of evolutionary beliefs in things like vestigial organs, in the past, people have undergone unnecessary dissections to remove organs that were either misunderstood, temporarily unused, or just lying dormant. Every so-called vestigial organ (I've read at one time there were as many as 180) has magically found some purpose over the years.

Is the Origin of Species literal? I mean, maybe Darwin meant it allegorically. Why not lets attack it critically like they do with other religious books? Or is is sacrosanct and above criticism?


You shouldn't be so quick to bash evolution. Yes, the theory has some holes in it, but just because it is not completely proven does not mean that it's wrong. I noticed all you did in this "book" was point out everything that is "wrong" with evolution, instead of presenting your own belief on the matter. We only got to where we are through theories, and they were ALL a little bit off at first, and as new evidence was introduced the theories evolved to work with the facts. You mentioned a bunch of times that CDCs (terrible name, btw) make up stories to cover the holes, but thats not what's really going on. We just do not have enough evidence to assure things like where the period came from or why it expanded. but it is the best assumption we can make, given the evidence we have at hand. I also wondered what is your opinion in where we came from, because if you're a creationist, or anything for that matter, you should start doing some research on that too. Let's be honest, the other stories that justify our existence are much much more full of holes than evolution could ever be. Finally, I'd like to say that the whole "book" was written as if evolutionists considered evolution if it was completely right, when in fact, its everybody that doesn't believe in evolution that consider their stories as the ultimate truth (creationists especially). most evolutionists even admit that it might be a bit off, because it is a THEORY!!! since you have the time, why don't you, if you haven't already, write a book about all the holes in the bible's story of how we got here?
-- F. S.

I've been bashing evolution for almost 35 years now. That's not quick. It was well thought out and researched. On the other hand, you are demonstrating your "faith" in a false system by making the common excuse that sooner or later evolution will be proven. Well, it's now been 150 years since Darwin wrote his evolution Bible. Isn't that long enough for some "proof" to show up? What you're doing is like the loonies who don't believe we landed on the moon. If we just wait long enough, will we find out they're right? No. Because they're not right. So, no matter how long you wait (and of course, in evolution, TIME and the waiting game are very important, aren't they?), the fact is that evolution is never going to be proven. Of course, you might want to wait millions of years, but unfortunately you won't be around then to know evolution was finally proven, will you?

You didn't do a very good job of convincing me that evolutionists don't make up stories to cover the "holes." Sorry. That's exactly what they do. They will accuse creationists of using the "God of the gaps" but they have their own god of the gaps, and it's called time. Just wait long enough and sooner or later the evidence will show up. Sorry. Not going to happen. It's time to abandon evolution as a viable theory. It's not, and never will be. There's enough DISproof now. And as far as my pointing out what's wrong with evolution, what's wrong with that? If I'm wrong about what's wrong, then show me why I'm wrong! What I believe has nothing to do with it. What you believe does. If you believe in evolution and the best you can come up with is a bunch of holes you need to fill, something's amiss there, wouldn't you agree?

Since you are obviously a Bible expert too, I think YOU should write the book about all the holes in the Bible. Of course, you will make EXCUSES for the HOLES in YOUR religion, but if there are "holes" in the Bible, imaginary or not, we can't make any excuses for those, now can we? I mean, suppose a Bible believer says there are "holes" in what he believes, but just because they're not completely resolved, that doesn't mean it's wrong? Would you agree with that statement, or does it just apply to your religion of evolution?


Hi John,

It looks like you haven't been answering comments for a while, but oh well. To start off, I think your book is totally awesome. It becomes more obvious to me every day that people who attempt to defend evolution defy logic in favour of science fiction. I find the theory of evolution very similar to the Star Wars saga; that is, more and more books are added to the series every year, and people may find it incredibly interesting and time consuming (those books are huge), but when you come down to it, it's just a long made up story that will not get you anywhere in life. I honestly can see why people who believe evolution find it interesting, after all, science fiction can be interesting, right?

Anyway, just a few more things. I'd like to know why you insist on not using the Bible in your arguments, especially since you've worked with Answers in Genesis a bit (I think). At AiG, they're always saying that for a creationist to defend his position without the Bible is like taking off your armor and putting down your weapons before going into battle. I think you should at least maybe put a bunch of links up somewhere in your website; although like you've said in your responses to people's comments, anybody interested enough can find resources.

Another thing, I think another great example of how everything on earth deteriorates without something to continuously sustain it is: languages. How the heck can an evolutionist explain how incredibly complex languages like Latin, Greek, and Proto-Indo-European came into being from random grunts? These languages have complexities like: 3 genders of nouns, crazy verb conjugating, a bunch of cases, etc. However, we can see that as time goes on, languages become decreasingly complex, although now that many people can read and write, this has slowed down considerably. This makes it pretty obvious that the first languages were all fairly complex, and so couldn't have come from nowhere. And besides, with all these separate language families kicking around, we know they didn't all spring up from just one, although some linguists insist on searching for the "abiogenesis of all languages".

I hope you respond to this, because it looks like you haven't responded to anything in well over a year!

Kind regards,
D. S.

You're right, I have not been answering comments for some time. I apologize for that, but I have a very busy schedule, and also there is a lot of spam coming into the mailbox here and a number of useless comments, so I was just checking it periodically. I will try to keep more on top of things now.

"Science fiction" is the best term you could use. That is EXACTLY what evolution is. In fact, it can be demonstrated that the literary genre of science fiction really did not become popular until about the time Darwinism became popular. Then all of a sudden you had extraterrestrial life forms, and so on, and science fiction went wild. Science "fact" followed, with the "canals" on Mars and such, "demonstrating" that there was "life" on other planets. Of course, we now know that's false, but did the fictionists give up? No way! Now we have SETI, which sucks untold millons of dollars, hoping to find some "sign" of intelligent life out somewhere in the universe, while its adherents don't have enough sense to recognize the signs of intelligent design in creation right here at home.

"A long made up story that will not get you anywhere in life." I love your statement there. That is so true, and is another anomaly concerning the followers of the religion of evolution. WHAT HOPE DO THEY HAVE? None whatsoever! You're born. You live a few years. You die, and become fodder for future evolution. What a WASTE of life. No purpose. No reason. No hope. No future. All the questions they have will never be answered. All the dreams they have will go to the grave with them. You think they stop for a minute to think about any of this? I doubt it. Many can't see past their noses. It's the "now" that matters, and that's all. You can do what you want, and there will be no consequences. Too bad they're wrong and will find that out the hard way. Foolish people.

As for not using the Bible, that is not my purpose on this website. I can defend my positions as well as anyone, but my focus here is on EVOLUTION and that alone. I want people simply to admit it's bankrupt and stupid and without any basis in truth. Then we can move on to other things.

Re: Languages, we get back to the "information" discussion. For a language to exist, you have to first have the brain to develop it and vocal cords connected to that brain to articulate it. You then need a codified system, such as an alphabet, by which it can be transmitted. You then need a medium through which to transmit it, either vocally or in writing, or by some other means. You then need a receiving party, and the receiving party needs eyes or ears or other senses to discern it. Then the receiving party has to be able to understand it. And then it's put into action. To say all that is the result of evolutionary processes is plain, sheer stupidity. Nothing less.

Thanks for writing,

What are your credentials in the area of Evolutionary Biology? What schooling do you have? What papers for scientific journals have you written? Are there any web links you could provide so I can read them? Can you give me titles for any books you have written? I'm curious.

Thank you for your time,
-- S. M.

Evolutionists always need to know the "credentials" of those who disagree with them. Whatever my credentials are is not going to matter. If I tell you I'm a nuclear physicist, you'll simply respond that I'm not a REAL nuclear physicist because I reject evolution. If I tell you I'm a medical doctor, well, how could I possibly be a REAL medical doctor if I reject stupid evolution? If I tell you I'm a biologist, well REAL biologists accept the religion of evolution, right? So my credentials don't matter one whit. All you need to know is that you can't defend your evolutionary religious beliefs. If you think you can, go for it. My credentials have nothing to do with that fact.

Now, you're welcome to answer all those questions about yourself and impress us all with YOUR credentials. I'm sure you know just about everything about everything, so I dare not challenge you further.


I was just wondering if the universities have a Bachelor of Theory available? If not, how about a Bachelor of Politician (basically never answering questions without changing the subject). I am sure they would sit nicely with a Bachelor of Science I was forced to swallow Evolution in my final years at school (it was Catholic), and the first thing the teacher said was "please don't object to the content of this elective based on your religious beliefs, it has already been determined as part of the syllabus" Can you believe it? Who sets the syllabus? And more importantly, who is available to object??? I wonder what other "science" I was taught is questionable.

I have already sent the web address of your site to everyone in my address book because I laughed my head off for 3 nights in a row. I have only had feedback from one who is a scientist. He is now an upset scientist. It really is like offending someones beliefs rather than questioning a theory, don't you agree?

Anyways - all the best mate
( D. in Sydney Australia)

LOL! I love it! You know, evolutionists, paleontologists, etc., get away with stuff that normal scientists would never get away with. "Oh, it's about, say, 2 million or 3 million years old." Can you imagine another scientist allowing such a margin of error and throwing around random numbers like that?

Thanks for sending the site to others, and I'm glad you got some laughs from it. That's part of my intention. This stuff is so STUPID that to think anyone would believe it boggles the mind. The only reason it's accepted is because the alternative is unacceptable to many.

You want more laughs? Look up the theories about how the dinosaurs disappeared. The asteroid bit is just the beginning. Other theories are they died of constipation, or else they had diarrhea and died in their own dung. In fact, if you want to invent another theory and throw it on the pile, I doubt the evolutionists would protest, as long as it was ridiculous enough.

Thanks for writing,

Many many thanks for your ebook, I have read it a few times already and am glad for a well written and thought through work that reinforces my personal beliefs as a Christian.

I am actually writing in to ask you to participate in a popular forum based in Singapore, frequented by many youths and young adults (mostly self-professed Atheist from what i can see).

My friend (going by the nick of BroInChrist) has been debating with a few rabid evolutionists for the past month or so and it has since attracted almost 20,000 views online with nearly 1,500 responses.

I sincerely hope and pray that with your participation, more young minds may be opened to the myths and lies of evolutionism and be prompted to think for themselves.

Please visit the link here: [deleted]

Looking forward to your reply.

In Christ,
D. C.

Hi D--,

As a policy I do not click on web addresses embedded in emails. If you are indeed sincere, I wish you the best, but I'd rather not get involved in the forum. Enough going on here already.


July 21, 2009

We want to know about credentials because they lend you a certain "credibility". They show that you did some work and made an effort to get an education. That's why real scientists actually took a look at Michael Behe when he came up with ideas about Irreducible Complexity. He has an education in the field, although his hypothesis is still crazy...and was proven so. Over and over again. But at least with his credentials, he got people to take a look.

It just amazes me that people with no education in this area of study don't want to believe the experts. In every other area of science nobody questions them. Computers work, rockets go into space and return safely, medicine cures people, cell phones and GPS work, planes fly etc etc... It's the same methods used for these as is used for Evolutionary Biology. Next time someone shows you a new computer processor or a new medical technique, I would like to see you make a website dedicated to how it's all made up and there is no basis for it.

Your religion is having a hard time reconciling with observed facts. That's all it is. You have beliefs based on no evidence, but on faith. You're welcome to believe in all kinds of crazy stuff if you want, but please don't infect others with your special brand of crazy.


*By the way, on your website, you dispute facts of evolution with the phrase "this isn't so, and you know it" and then don't give any explanations or evidence to the contrary. Since when is asserting your position with no evidence a viable means for debate or refutation? -The Bible is wrong...and you know it. I hope you've enjoyed your 15 minutes of someone paying attention to you because it probably won't happen too much more.



But that's why I want to know YOUR credentials! Is there a problem here? You wrote asking about mine. I want to know about yours! The certain "credibility" you're looking for is a joke. No matter what my "credentials" you have already decided I'm wrong without giving any specific reasons why. My credentials are not in question here. Darwin's are. So if you think his "credentials" (as a pretty poor student I might add) are adequate to explain where all life came from and where it's going, tell us why.

Ok, Behe's hypothesis is crazy. That's a perfect example of what I'm saying. Here's a guy with credentials that would make either of us blush, but you've decided his "hypothesis is crazy." Why? Put some meat behind your opinion. WHY is irreducible complexity crazy? Because you've actually studied it and can refute it in your own words, or because you're a brainwashed evolutionist who listens to the opinions of the "credentialed experts" and you figure they can do your thinking for you? Richard Dawkins' refutation of Behe's mousetrap example is so pathetic that he should have been laughed and booed off the stage for even proposing it. But evolutionists would then have nothing better to hang onto.

"I don't need to show my credentials. I trust the people that DO have them. I have them to argue for me with THEIR credentials." Do I even need to respond to that one????!!!!! So, the people who "do have them" were there from the very start, and observed evolution the whole way from the Big Burp to Bob, right? They saw it all. They've repeated it all in their magic laboratories, right? And you TRUST them. Good for you. When their story changes tomorrow, as it does daily, weekly, and monthly, you'll STILL trust them, too, because you have nothing else to hang onto.

"My auto mechanic doesn't know how to fix my roof..." Too bad for him. I could probably fix your auto and your roof too, and I'm not "credentialed" in either field. Some people learn by doing. Others get degrees. I've done both. Sounds like you've done neither.

"It just amazes me that people with no education in this area of study don't want to believe the experts." I LOVE that statement! Thanks for making it.

"It's the same methods used for these as is used for Evolutionary Biology." Forgive me, but are you that dense? You are just parroting something someone told you without even thinking about it, and obviously without having studied the issue. There is a massive difference between ORIGINS science and OPERATIONAL science. The latter is what you are talking about. We put a man on the moon, invent medical technology, etc., without appealing at all to evolutionary "science" because it's totally unnecessary. How does a theory that dinosaurs were killed by an asteroid help land a man on the moon or invent an MRI (which was invented by a creationist, by the way)? There's no connection whatsoever. Origins science is purely conjectural because no scientist was there to see it. It's fabricated storytelling, and nothing more.

Your final statement about my belief being based on "faith" is more evolutionary (forgive me) stupidity. You yourself just got done saying you "trust" those who tell you what to believe. So, uh, what exactly are you trusting? They SAW the Big Burp happen? They saw the first life evolve from inert matter? They saw pond scum turn into people over millions of years? I see, you believe that because they SAW it and they know it's FACT, so YOUR belief has nothing to do with FAITH, right? They SAW an asteroid kill the dinosaurs, right? Of course, there are 99 other explanations for the dinos' demise, but YOUR belief is based on FACT, not faith, right?

Well, I've got news for you. We both have the same "facts." Fossils. Strata. Complex living organisms. Etcetera. You interpret them one way, based on your FAITH, and I interpret them another, based on my FAITH. If you think what you believe has nothing to do with faith, you've fooled yourself. While we're at it, you should read Norman Geisler and Frank Turek's book, "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be An Atheist."


July 21, 2009

To K. W.:

Love it! I'm just going to post your responses as they are, with no reply. They say enough on their own. Hmm, can we say "they speak volumes"?


Oh, and I see what YOU're doing. Trying to avoid the question of where the "stuff" came from that allowed the "theory of evolution via natural selection of living organisms." Apparently I've not gotten through to you yet that "natural selection" works with what ALREADY EXISTS.

You've got to be kidding me. This is what I was telling you all along - natural selection deals with life that already exists, not how it came to exist. Is gravity flawed because it doesn't explain the origin of matter?

You can't get away with trying to explain the "origin of species" which, mind you, not even Darwin's book does (do you even realize that?) without answering for where the ORIGINAL genetic material and information came from BEFORE there was anything for natural selection to work with.

See above.

As for the "colloquial" meaning of evolution, you can blame your brainwashed comrades for that one. You see, as I clearly say in my e-book, they CHANGED the original meaning of evolution, from "simple" to more complex, to now mean just "change over time." So, of COURSE things change over time. So any DUMMY can see that "evolution" is TRUE, because THINGS CHANGE OVER TIME. See? A simple little tweak in meaning, and they think they saved their derrieres.

The colloquial meaning of evolution and the biological meaning are different.

"The theory of evolution via natural selection of living organisms in no way states that dirt formed complex living organisms spontaneously." Oh really? Tsk tsk, you really are behind the times. You need to study "abiogenesis" some. If what you say there is true, then how did the original complex organisms form?

Abiogenesis is a different theory than evolution. If you want some theories on how complex organisms formed, why not do some research? Read a few books on the subject. The will be able to explain things a lot better than I am able to.

Re: The encyclopedia. You really missed the point on that one. One thousand encyclopedias worth of INFORMATION. You get it? Try memorizing the information in the equivalent of 1000 encyclopedias some time. Let's simplify a bit: Different information is needed to make up different parts of the human body. See? So, it takes the equivalent of 1000 encyclopedias worth of information to construct a human body. But, of course, encyclopedias make themselves without any SOURCE of information, so we should have no problem believing that the human body made itself, also.

I never claimed the human body made itself. It was formed through natural processes through millions of generations.

A computer is an information storing mechanism? Gawly, where is the information stored? A brain is an information storing mechanism? Where is the information stored? Do you know anything about genetics? In the same way information is stored in a book via various combinations of letters (the "code"), it is also stored in nucleic acids, which have an "alphabet" that can then be "translated" into various proteins to form various bodily structures. There is NO information containing element known to man that did not have an intelligent source behind it. Information does not arise spontaneously. It always has an intelligent source and designer.

Information on a computer is stored as magnetic charge in the hard drive. Information storage in the brain is poorly understood. There is no information stored in DNA, the letters ACTG are only what we assign to them based on their chemical names so that we can talk about them. Following your logic, carbon is an information storing atom that contains the information needed to form coal and diamonds.

I guess you don't want to learn why nylon digesting bacteria did not create anything new, nor does that explain how bacteria turned into people. Nor, apparently, do you wish to tell me how cats evolved, because you know you cannot. And you also know that I'd then ask you to give me the STORY of how everything else evolved. Cats are the least of your problem.

So because I don't know the intimate details of every single generation of organism from the first cell to modern cats, the theory of evolution is false? There is so much information on the subject available to you online and at your local library, yet you seem to be wilfully ignoring it.

On the other hand, if you want to tell me how cats evolved, I'm game. The "millions of years" of genetic diversification is a cop out if I ever heard one, and just another example of avoiding the truth by appealing to the "time" factor. Now you can't explain how cats evolved because it took so much time! Do you not see anything wrong with that?

The only wrong thing I see in this whole discussion is your willful ignorance of the subject at hand. Have you ever heard the phrase "exercise in futility"? That is why I'm not going to get into the evolution of cats with you. I know a lost cause when I see one. Have a look at this site, it may help to clear things up for you.

[JV note: Have a look at which blasts everything on the above site out of the water]

July 22, 2009

To K. W.:

All I'm asking is you give me a simple overview of how cats evolved. I mean, you claim they did so, so you must have SOME idea of how it took place. Then I'm going to ask you to do the same for a million other species.



Far be it from me to stop you from making a fool of yourself.

--K. W.

July 22, 2009

I came here hoping for some evidence that disproved evolution. Needless to say, i read through the first embarrassing chapters and was greatly disappointed.

Please stop trying to understand evolution, you obviously and i mean OBLIVIOUSLY do NOT process the mental capacity to even begin to comprehend basic fact about evolution. Trying to teach you evolution would be like trying to talk sense into a rock.

But thank you for the few laughs and i hope you enjoy persisting in your unyielding faith and delusion.

--M. J.

Dear M,

Some "evidence" is certainly not what you were looking for. There's plenty of evidence to disprove evolution. You're not looking for any such thing, or you'd find it easily.

I'm not trying to "understand" evolution. There's nothing to understand. It's like telling me please stop trying to understand astrology (which if you're an evolutionist, by the way, you probably believe astrology too, as evolutionists tend to be the ones who support that kind of blarney).

Now, if you don't mind my quoting your next line, I don't think it needs further comment. Just read what you said: "i mean OBLIVIOUSLY do NOT process the mental capacity to even begin to comprehend basic fact about evolution". Read it again. Then again. If you were a non-English-speaking person, I could forgive it, but by your name, I assume you are not.

Thanks for writing and setting me straight on evolution with all the factual evidence you present. i obliviously enjoyed your letter cuz it definitly taxed my mental capacity


August 23, 2009

Just thought I'd write to let you know that your arguments are just about the most juvenile and idiotic things I've ever had the misfortune to read.

But thanks. It is exactly this kind of drivel that keeps science as the only source of truth in the world today.

Keep up the good work.

--D. C.

Hey, thanks for writing, and also for your thorough treatment of the salient points of the theory you believe by faith. Oh, what's that? You believe in "reason" and don't believe in evolution by "faith" because you watched it all happen before your very eyes, did you? Well, feel free to enlighten the rest of us. Science is the only source of "truth"? That's about as foolish a statement as a blind person like yourself can make. If scientific "truth" is always being modified and falsified, then explain just how it is "truth" and define "truth" while you're at it. If all our brains are is a bunch of modified chemicals, how do you even know that what you think is "truth" is true? Maybe my "truth" is different from your "truth," but we're both right. Or maybe your "truth" is WRONG and mine is right. Try THINKING about this stuff and you'll be amazed how your views will change.


July 22, 2009

We all laugh at people like you and your "conspiracy theories".

JV: That's a mighty arrogant royal "we" isn't it? Actually, in 35 years on this topic, I've had very few people laugh at me, and usually I considered them rather ignorant and close minded.

We watch people like you on Youtube and shake our heads..."what's with these people???"

JV: You'd do well to stop shaking your head and start using it. YouTube isn't the greatest place to glean information on the issue, though I guess for some that's the equivalent of a Harvard education.

HA. It's time for people to ridicule this kind of junk more often. Your website is a joke. You assert that evolution is wrong, but fail to show why and never show a testable, alternative theory .

JV: That's a moronic statement, unworthy of response, but since you, on the other hand, produced testable evidence that particles made themselves and turned themselves into you by evolutionary magic, I guess I am constrained to respond!

You are a child that wants people to pay attention to him without actual doing the hard work to get them to pay attention. "Look at me! I'm a great thinker...I'm going to question established scientific research!!!" HAHAHA

JV: Hmm, I don't seem to have much "great thinker" competition here....

Try this: Write a paper (not a blog) and submit it to scientific journals.

JV: Try this: Take nothing and turn it into everything with no direction, purpose, or intelligence. Then write a paper about it. I'll expect it to be submitted within 2 weeks for full peer review.

End of discussion.

JV: You're right. See you later.

Shouting: "Darwin is wrong and I have no proof of why" doesn't make you a scholar or scientist. It makes you look like an ass. Why don't you rail against Atomic Theory? Germ Theory? Gravitational Theory? Because they don't question Genesis and the "perfect word of God"? sheesh.

Yes, I regurgitate the things that I have learned from other scientists...because they have done the work and showed me that the things are true and work. I don't question them because other scientists in that field have questioned them thoroughly and continue to all the time. It's called peer review. The research is out there for you. Try Google.

By the way, Ken Miller refutes Behe very nicely, also. Check him out. Somehow, he is a Christian and an Evolutionary Biologist...It boggles the mind, but, whatever.

I'm going to live in the real world now. Have fun. Good luck in your efforts denying evolution. It's a tough road..even the pope gave in.


July 23, 2009

To: K. W.:

K--, oh K---, you are breaking my heart. I think you are a sincere individual who really wants to know the truth, but you're just so malnourished by evolutionary junk food that you would not recognize a good meal placed before you. Let's tear into what you wrote below:

First, you need to understand natural selection, which can be explained with four points:

JV: First of all, you have completely glossed over the main question: WHERE DID It ALL COME FROM? Like Darwin, you skip the hard stuff and jump to the present, thinking you can get away with it. Living things reproduce? WHERE DID THAT COME FROM? HOW DID IT ARISE on its own, with no direction? Variation? It was already built into the genome when it was created. There's no other explanation. Better able to survive? That's evolutionary bull crap. You can only define better able to survive by saying that what has survived only survived because it was better able to survive. That's called a tautology. What you're really doing is INVENTING STORIES to explain why something survived and something else did not. Bacteria survived because they're small and multiply so rapidly. Dinosaurs survived for millions of years because they're big and can defend themselves. That is evolutionary just-so storytelling and has nothing to do with reality.

Over time, this process leads to change. The longer the time span, the greater the change.

JV: There you have it. Without the miracle working goddess Time, your theory fails. Add time, and evolution can do all sorts of magic tricks.

Start with an early ancestor of all cats. Split the population using various factors including geography, environment, food sources, predators/prey, etc. Over time each seperate population evolves to best survive in its new environment. After enough time, the new populations are genetically different enough that they can no longer breed to produce fertile offspring, making them different species, one or none of which might be the same as the original species.

JV: NO, NO, NO, NO. I don't want to start with an "early ancestor" of cats. I want you to TELL ME WHERE CATS CAME FROM, and how they magically appeared through the processes of mindless evolution. Then we'll take it from there.

Replace the word "cats" with any species, genus, family, order, etc, for the million species that you have in mind, because the process is the same, even if the details, like specific environments, are not.

If you want the specifics of feline evolution, like when and where, I can't give you that information, but an evolutionary biologist specialising in feline evolution would probably be able to.

JV: Your faith in evolution is boundless.


July 23, 2009

You some how connected people who believe in evolution and equated them by saying most believe in astrology. Yet another claim from ignorance with absolutely no evidence to prove your claims. Reminds me of something else creationists believe in, does it not? In case you didn't catch on, I'm talking about your precious cloud king who came before nothing when nothing existed.

So what evidence for evolution do you want? The fossil records? The frequency of alleles in the gene pool for each generation? The 100 on average genetic mutations for every child born? The genetic mappings that dates back to early ancestors? You see the misconception is, when a creationist asks for evidence, that's code for "Let me ignore whatever you're going to say, and spew a few fallacies and over-simplifications of evolution at you"

You don't want facts, you want to sound like you truly look at evidence for each claim and draw your conclusions, when in the real world, something I'm sure you're very unfamiliar with, you ask for evidence not out of a scholarly curiosity, but out of false confidence bred from ignorance.

--M. J.


I have to admit I'm not terribly impressed with your list of "proofs" for evolution, for the simple reason that you obviously just rattled off a few things you've heard about, but likely don't know the first thing about them. The "fossil records" are not "evidence for evolution." They're the same fossils whether you're a creationist or evolutionist. That's the fact. The rest is in the interpretation, and yours is wrong for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is the glaring absence of the quintillions of failed "experiments" that the fossil record SHOULD demonstrate but does not.

Frequency of alleles? Do you know what an allele is without consulting Wikipedia? After you find out, then I want you to tell me where genes came from in the first place, and how they acquired the information they contain to make living things. That would really demonstrate your sheer genius.

Genetic mutations? Enlighten us. What exactly are you wishing to prove with that? Are you even aware that genetic mutations are almost always harmful? Otherwise we should be exposing ourselves to chemicals and radiation to help out evolution, should we not? And once again, you conveniently elide the question of where exactly the genetic material that mutates came from in the first place. Why are evolutionists so thick headed on that question? Why can't you seem to grasp the concept that your argument is based on genetic material that ALREADY EXISTS and you keep avoiding the question of where the genetic material and the information it contains came from in the first place?

Genetic mappings date back to early ancestors. I agree. We all had early ancestors, didn't we? That's some powerful proof that those early ancestors were the result of mindless processes that turned particles into people. Great arguments you have here.

You're right. I don't want facts. I have enough of them. Fossils. Strata. Genetics. Information. The problem is not a paucity of facts. It's the stupid interpretations that evolutionists conjure up using those facts.

Thanks for writing,


July 24, 2009

ok i didnt read all of your writings but i see that you think logically, unlike a lot of people. It is impossible for anything to happen by chance! A house doesnt just build itself, it needs to be created and constructed by people! So if there are people out there who believe that the earth and all the amazing species of animals and plants just exploded into existence, maybe they should rethink their pathetic lives or get a reality check or something, i don't know... Are these the same people who thought the world was flat and being supported by elephants and a massive arse turtle??? wow if thats not completely random, then tell me what the hell it is! Everyone should put their faith in these randomised beliefs that are being made up as they go, depending on what is convenient for their theories to work...NOT! Do these Darwin followers realise what they're committing themselves to?

--S. M.

Hi S.,

Your final question is a powerful one! I never thought of it in quite such strong terms.

Do they realize what they are committing themselves to?

WOW! I'm just going to leave it at that, and hope they really think about that question!

Thank you for writing.


August 27, 2009

Responses to W. H.:

'So, what's my point in relating these stories about sex and flight? THEY'RE STUPID. REALLY STUPID. But, only REALLY SMART PEOPLE believe them, and they belong to the Chuck Darwin Club'

Do you know what the punishment for apostasy is in the majority of major religions?

Well, nowadays it's acceptance and applause. Any other questions?

Darwinism isn't a belief designed to keep people in(it isn't a belief anyway, it's a fact),

If you're foolish enough to believe that, I'm not going to change your mind.

people can disagree with it any time they want,


as long as they have controlled testing and evidence,

Oh, I guess I missed something. You say the Darwinists have controlled and tested the complete process from Big Bang to Bob? Can you document that for us, please? I mean, I've not heard of the Big Bang being repeated and tested in the lab. Nor have I heard that any researchers were able to take a few particles from the Big Bang and make them into the universe and every living thing on earth. If you know differently, please, please inform the rest of us. Otherwise, I guess you'll just have to admit that what you believe, you believe by FAITH. Got that word? FAITH. You didn't see it happen? Then you believe it by FAITH. Let me repeat: FAITH.

and don't just use self-important prose to make a point.

Good enough for poets, good enough for me.

Infact, many parts of Darwin's theory have been debunked with the exploration of modern science,

No, amigo. Not "many parts." The whole has been debunked. Get on with it.

but the core theory still remains.

Sure it does! That's because the atheists need something to hang onto. Just ask squawkin' Dawkins.

Honestly I know children with better linguistic skills than the ones evident in this book.

I do too. In fact, I think I'll ask them to edit it. Now why don't you actually give me something of substance that REFUTES what I've written, rather than descending into the usual evolutionary cesspool of criticizing how I write, or bashing my credentials, or making blanket, unsupported statements like "darwinism is a fact" etc.

I guess that's missing the point. The point is you've not made one reasonable solid argument other than being overbearingly patronizing, and just showing that you clearly have little understanding on the

You don't show ANYTHING.

Well, that's just because I'm a modest kinda guy. On the other hand, so far YOU have shown me and the rest of us absolutely devastating evidence that what you believe is uncompromisingly true (whatever truth is in evolutionary parlance) and irrefutably believable.

So I'll just slam your first chapter since it's the easiest to pick apart.

Uh oh. I'm beginning to shake all over already, given what you've already presented.

Not one part of it takes a scientific fact, and uses rational arguments to debunk it. Evolution is the incredibly slow process of the passing down of superior genes.

Wow, man! If only I'd have known that before I wasted my time writing this book! Isn't it CONVENIENT how SLOW evolution is! That's why we can't SEE it! Oh, and so far you've not told me where those "superior genes" came from in the first place, but I guess we can just let that one go, as it doesn't help your argument much. Continue.....

You treat it as though it happens within seconds(taking the video literally which is obviously not the point), it's a long laborious process.

Ex-ca-use me? Did I make the video that showed quick evolution, or did the evolutionists?

One that has been proved recently.

AHHHHH!!!!! NO, NOT WIKIPEDIA! I'M UNDONE NOW! Wiki said it, I believe it, that does it. Well, my friend, I got Johnnypedia news for you. The nylon eating bacteria stuff is way old information that has been more than adequately responded to, and I will say this again, IF THAT'S THE BEST YOU CAN COME UP WITH TO PROVE HOW EVERYTHING IN THE ENTIRE LIVING COSMOS EVOLVED, YOU ARE TO BE PITIED ABOVE ALL! So bacteria can eat nylon and that somehow proves where bacteria came from in the first place? Don't be so dense, man! THINK about things for a change, instead of just trumpeting such pathetic "proofs" of your foolish theory. If I ate a piece of nylon, I would digest it too. It wouldn't bother me in the least. So there. That proves how people evolved from particles. Yep, I'm devastated by such massive heaps of evidence for darwinism.

'In 1975 a team of Japanese scientists discovered a strain of Flavobacterium living in ponds containing waste water from a factory producing nylon that was capable of digesting certain byproducts of nylon 6 manufacture, such as the linear dimer of 6-aminohexanoate, even though those substances are not known to have existed before the invention of nylon in 1935. Further study revealed that the three enzymes the bacteria were using to digest the byproducts were significantly different from any other enzymes produced by other Flavobacterium strains (or any other bacteria for that matter), and not effective on any material other than the manmade nylon byproducts.[1]'

Do you even understand the above?

So without sounding like you're a child, debunk that.

I'm just flavogasted! How can I ever debunk such overwhelming evidence for how bacteria arose from nothing and turned themselves into stocking-eating monsters? It's already been debunked. Do the research. Now YOU tell ME where bacteria came from in the first place, and then CREATE one in the laboratory using no intelligence and starting with nothing. Debunk THAT.


September 1, 2009

FirstName: Robert
LastName: Idontwana

Hello Robert who's afraid of giving a last name like I did. My responses follow your paragraphs:

The "Light" isn't strong enough to blind people anymore. Why is Christianity being challenged by no belief after almost 2000 years of growing? When you bring the facts and commen sense, belief based on the Bible doesn't make sense. Am I to believe that a book that was written over 2000-6000 years ago is historically accurate and truthful? Am I to believe that the world is only 6000 years old? Am I to believe that in those 6000 year, 1 couple called Adam and Eve created all the humans on earth? Am I to believe that evolution is "Just a theory"? Am I to believe that there was a man refered to as Jesus whom was said to preform miriclas? Am I to believe that politicians haven't used religious belief to line their wallets? Am I to believe that religion is not corrupting they way people think? All these things that are thought to be true are just illogical.

Not sure what "light" isn't blinding people any more, but certainly the "light" of darwinism is doing just that, and apparently has affected your own "sight." No, you don't have to believe a book written thousands of years ago that has corroborating evidence to support it in every discipline known to man, from science to archaeology, and more manuscript evidence to prove the fidelity of its transmission than any ancient text. It's much better to believe a debunked book that was written 150 years ago, and to believe some 30-year-old scientist who takes some smashed bones (a-la the recent "Ardi" skeleton) and tells you all about what that "pre-human" was like 4 million years ago. I think it's much more logical to believe that than some book that has been around so long. After all, the longer a book is around, the less true it becomes, right? I mean, don't books become untrue with time? I always thought so. Therefore, if an old math book says 2 plus 2 equals 4, we shouldn't believe it because that's an old math book. Or if some old history book says the pyramids were built by the Egyptians, we shouldn't believe that because it's an OLD history book. Right? Yes, I see the logic in not believing what a book says just because the book is old. Thanks for pointing that out.

First off the bible is where all Christain belief is formed. It has no doubt changed history, but were the deaths of millions (The crusaides) really worth it's signifigance? Some choose to take the bible literally which is where there are the most flaws. If the Bible was a book of fairy tales with a moral at the end then it would be a read for all, but when matters that hurt other people are made based on the bible is where the line needs to be made. The book was not written by God, and I think we can all agree that human are well known for mistakes or their ablity to lie, so that's 1 flaw already. Then after all those years it was around for it changed into different languages and rewritten millions of times. Thus upping the percentage of it being altered during any of those things.

The ignorance displayed in the above paragraph is phenomenal. What you demonstrate is that you, like so many others, choose to believe the most negative information that supposedly supports your own belief, instead of actually researching whether that information is true or not. Just as one example, since darwinism hit the world, more people have been killed by those who bought into that philosophy than in all the "religious" wars throughout history. Millions have died in the name of darwinism. There are lots of books out on that. Try Dinesh D'Souza's What's So Great About Christianity? for starters, then read some of the late books out on darwinism's influence on Hitler, Stalin and the like.

Now the Bible talks about 2 different stories where there were only 2 people left on earth. Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark. Both suffer from the same problem, which is incest. Can you say without lying that 2 people could create all humans on earth right now, not once, but twice. Since the earth is only 6000 years old by their logic then it would take unbelieveable amounts of mating for them to get to the number it is today. Don't forget that when you mate with someone with similar DNA you have the likely hood of difective DNA. Not to mention the percentage of women and/or the baby dying at birth(Atleast before modern technology). In the span of those 6000 years man needed to evolve it's skin color depending where the human lived. Also how the Native Americans got on the continent of America in those 6000 years when there is no ice age to logically explain how they got there?

Oh, here we go with the "incest" argument. I suppose that all your ape ancestors had a code of morality where they wouldn't dare touch one of their ape siblings, eh? Incest is only incest because God declared it to be so, not because of anything man invented, and He did so for the very reason you mention. As we got farther from the original sinless creation, we became more corrupt, including in our genetic makeup. If it were up to us, we'd be having sex with every living thing, including apes. Did Darwin write a book about morality? I guess not. If all we're here for is to pass on our genes and have a good time, who are you or anybody else to say I can't have sex with whomever or whatever I please? If you say it's "wrong", on what basis? Just because YOU think so? You are also absolutely wrong about how long it would take to populate the earth beginning with two people. There's plenty written on that. Do the research.

In some states in the Unites States kids are not taught or taught to disregard evolution. On some text books they put a sticker that said "Evolution is just a theory". The fact thet they don't let kids make the logical choice for themselfs shows that they have a fear. "There is nothing to fear, but fear itself" - F.D Roosevelt. And in this case I fear that the fear of change will rob these kids of proper education. Evolution is based on mankind evolving from monkey/apes. With fossils that strongly suggest that mankind had evolved from monkeys/apes. It has said hinted that Adam and Eve may not have been the only humans at the beginning. Then you'd still have to ignore that all humans (except the ones that lived near where the Bible was created) were hated. God never did tell the Africans or Native Americans about his plan for the world as they never did believe in any sort of God of that nature. The most likely reason is that the people that made the Bible were unaware of those places. Or could God not see what he had created.

LOL! Somehow the point seems to have gone over your head. The REASON they put the stickers on the books was because the children were NOT being allowed to make a choice, but were rather being FORCED to believe in evolution, whether they wanted to or not. The ones who are cowering in fear are the darwinists, because their lies are being exposed. And if you want to believe your ancestors were monkeys, go right ahead. What I'd like to ask you and the others who have bought that baloney is, SO WHAT? Can you answer that question? If all you are is a bunch of nicely organized molecules that turned into a monkey that turned into you, SO WHAT? What's your point in living? And SO WHAT if somebody finds a few bone pieces and arrogantly proclaims that we've now "pushed back human evolution a million years." SO WHAT? How does that change your, my, or anyone else's life? Does it give you hope for your personal future? You're going to die and become food for future evolving things. SO WHAT'S THE POINT OF YOUR LIFE? Have you ever even thought of that?

Now the New testiment talks a lot about this Jesus character, but there was once a God named "Horus" that the egyptians believed to be the son of God aswell. Horus was born on Dec 25th, Born from a virgin mother, his birth was accumpanied by a star in the East, on his birth he was adored by 3 kings, at the age of 12 he was a protical teacher, Horus had 12 disciples he traveled with, he preformed miricals like healing the sick and walking on water, Horus was betrayed, crucified, dead for 3 days and then resurrected. Now these are just some of the many traites Horus had that also belonged to very many Gods in very many different cultures. The most well known son of God with these traites is none other then Jesus. One of few differences between Jesus and Horus is that Horus was made in roughly 3000 BC. 3000 years before Jesus. Infact, Jesus was believed to be a Jewish Rabbi name Yeshua Nazaret. He was only called Jesus after several years after his death.

My purpose with this website is not to get into that sort of stuff. You can believe what you want to, no matter how false or unsubstantiated. There's plenty of evidence to the contrary. You just don't want to accept it.

Now you've seen why there is much doubt in the Bible. When people base their moral based on what God say is idiotic. In several States in the United States, someone who wants to join the politics in those States must be Christain. Now the idea for the Decliration of Independence was that all men be created equal. Now when you exclued someone because of their religious belief that is dicrimination. It's not treating them as equals. It's obviously an abuse of power and when people put restrictions on stuff like this they're most likely afraid of change. If change means getting rid of discrimination then I'm all for change. From another point of view they don't want change because well then maybe with change will change how much they make a year. How disrespectful people will become when they want to line their wallets.

Actually, I think you're imposing your own doubts on the rest of humanity. For a book that you claim has so many doubters, it's still the largest selling book in history, and the most read. Millions of people read the Bible for comfort, inspiration and hope every day. How many read "The Origin of Species" for the same?

Anything man made will at one point or another be corrupted in time. Religion is no exception. Now excluding cults like Scientology which I don't have to argue is not a religion, but a full out cult with the tax excempt status of a religion. The United States has used the name of God on their money and in their anthem. The phrase "In God We Trust" was only added in 1961. It was used as a way to protect the freedom of America from Communism. What's really funny is that the first 10 words of the US constitution are "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Then in 1956 passed that "In God We Trust" would be the nations motto. That sounds like religion is used for more then what it was intended to be used for. Impairment of integrity, virtue or moral principle in other words. Isn't that the discription of corruption?

I fully agree. Many religions are corrupt and man-made. I don't believe in religion. I believe in a Person.

Debateable topic in the bible are a... debateable subject. Same sex marrige, Abortion and Stem cell research being the major of them that are being debated today. Without going much into detail I'll give some views on each subject. Same sex marrige has been a debateable subject because it's rather if it's a choice or not. Now with records of animals like penguins and dolphains having same sex relations and they only have the libic system which is just thinking based on instinc, thus proving homosexuality is not a choice. Abortion should be in the disition of the pregnent woman. Not the government, the woman. Stem cell research should be funded because if God didn't want us doing it he'd make it a commandment. Or did he not see it coming? He created the universe, but could not for tell us using stem cell research? What an inconsistant God.

Of course, there are no debatable topics in evolution. Right? All the above is clear, cut and dried.

Now there are other things that don't make much sense when looking at what's happening and what religion has been saying is true. Here are some questions that are extreamly hard if not impossible to answer from a religious point of view. Throught out the thousands of years people have claimed God made them recover from an illness, none of those people have been an amputee. Why does God not help amputees? Marrige is a ceremony where a couple will get together and ask God if they should continue as a couple. So why do 50% of Christain marriges end in divorce? If heaven is so perfect then why did Lucifer want more? If God could see all and knows all, aswell as what people's motives are then why did he accept Lucifer in the first place?

I'm not saying you don't have valid questions. Many of us ask the same. But the problem is you're not looking for answers, and this site is not dedicated to providing the answers to your [types of] questions. If you really do want answers, there are plenty of books and people to help you. But you sound like you're more contented to speak rather than listen, so there's not much that can be done to help.

In closing, I hope you can see that the bible was most likely written by some men that stole stories to get people to listen to them. The bible is not meant to be taken literally, but when it is then I die alittle inside. Those whom take it medofoically are logical and intelligent people. Sadly with what has already corrupt the meaning of the bible. When important choices are made based on what the Bible says isn't right. So think about the choices you made in life and question everything. If we did not ask "why" we might still be blinded by the "Light".

This website is not about the Bible. But of course, you can't seem to grasp that the same accusation you're making about the Bible can be applied to every book ever written about evolution, too. My question to you is, Why should I accept what you say? Are you some kind of authority who has been around since the beginning of time that I should listen to what you say and believe it?


September 8, 2009

Thanks for the great book! I spent a full ten years blindly following evolution, until an agnostic friend started talking about it and I actually thought about what he was saying. I have since realized that evolution is complete bull-crap.

I know you're trying to keep the focus on evolution, but I was wondering if you could tell me what makes you think the Earth is younger than current estimates. So far you, like all the other young Earth proponents I've read, have only given evidence that we can't prove the age of the Earth with any accuracy, which means we don't know if it is old or young. Why then do you assume it is young?

I also noticed you mentioned Richard Dawkins' statement in The Blind Watchmaker, about how life gives the appearance of being designed. I don't know if you've ever read through the book, but I found that there was a particular gem of a quote towards the back:

"Even if there were no actual evidence in favour of the Darwinian theory (there is, of course) we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories." (Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, pg 287)

Dawkins himself admits that Darwinists don't care about evidence.

--No name


Sorry you didn't give your name, but I'll still post your feedback.

There is a lot of evidence for a young universe, and plenty can be found online if you just google Young Earth Evidence, rather than my parroting it here. One of the best arguments for a young Earth is the population problem. If evolution were true, the Earth should be covered by pre-humans and humans by now. Rather, if you extrapolate backward from the current population, taking into account various causes of death such as famines, wars, pestilences, etc., you come up with a population that's only a few thousand years old. Further, written history is only a few thousand years old. Before that it's all conjecture. And you can't ignore the evidences for why radiometric dating doesn't work. It's all based on assumptions.

What you're never told is there are NUMEROUS ways of estimating the age of the Earth and universe, such as galaxies winding up too fast, the amount of salt in the oceans, the amount of helium in the atmosphere, etc. Hardly any of them deliver the same old "ages" as radiometric dating, so they're ignored because evolution needs the goddess Time in order to function. Which it doesn't do even WITH the goddess Time, but you're not told that either.


September 12, 2009

Very nice read!! I read it in one sitting!! anyways you are so right!

I find it amazing that evolutionists are blinded by their pride to see how dumb evolution really is. They bash Creationists for having faith that Creation happened, but dont realize that you need faith to believe evolution! Faith aside, I believe just looking into the sky whether its day or night, or seeing the wonders of earth prove there is a GOD! Its overwhelming even trying to think that a big bang could create something so beautiful. Anywhoo enough with that, I enjoyed the read, Thanks!

--K. M. (Hawaii, USA)

Aloha K--,

Thank you for your feedback! Very refreshing, and keep looking at that sky! As an amateur astronomer, I can't imagine how someone can look at the beauty of the universe and miss the fact that neither that beauty nor the eye and brain that can comprehend and admire it, happened by accident. How foolish we really are.


September 12, 2009

You've written nothing but a long vomitorium of strawmans. If you don't think evolution occurs, then please, don't ever take any antibiotics, which are based on evolutionary science. Again, nothing but strawmans.

--J. G.

If you still believe that, you have: a) been completely blinded and b) not bothered to do any research on the issue. Antibiotics have nothing to do with evolution. Look it up. I'm not going to do the work for you, as you've already made your mind up to blindly believe something somebody told you and you really don't want the truth.


September 20. 2009

Don't you ever think it might be a good idea to learn something about science before criticizing it, or do you think Jesus wants you to just lie about it?

--D. L.

I know a lot about science. It's my favorite topic! Evolution isn't science. It's a faith belief. A religion. Now, of course, if you want to fill me in on something scientific, I'm all eyes. Jesus believed in Adam and Eve, by the way. I don't recall him talking about ape ancestors. And he also changed six EARTHEN WATER pots into wine as His first miracle. In case you missed the symbolism there, it didn't take him lots of Time to make the wine.


September 20, 2009

Is your site a serious site or a mock site?

--R. C.


You're really just making fun of creationism, right?

Don't recall having said anything about creationism on the site. Given the name of the website, I guess you're the kind who needs everything explained to you?

The site is just a bunch of mindless rants without a single shred of supporting evidence.

Sounds a bit like this letter, but I'm trying to be nice.

Most of the chapters don't even talk about evolution.

Oh, sorry. I'll see if I can fix that.

I have a bet with a couple of friends that your site is nothing but a mock site making fun of creationism.

I hope you win! You certainly haven't done so if you're betting on evolution.

I've got a cold beer on the line, so don't let me down.

Sounds like it won't be your first either. Hope you enjoy it with your evolved tastebuds. Thank lightning and the big bang that we evolved a brain that could figure out how to make beer to affect the brain, eh?


September 20, 2009

From D. C.:


You'll have to excuse me for not discussing the salient points that support Evolution. I saw no point. You began your "book" by expressing a complete ignorance of The Theory of Evolution... Obviously you were unaware that the origins of the universe have nothing to do with Evolution. So, what would be the point of discussing something that you do not understand?

Oh, come on! I'm tired of hearing that. Your own evolutionized dupes call it cosmic evolution. What do you think, that you can get away with just starting out with the material world that has all the right "stuff" in it for your mythological origin of life to take place, while ignoring the obvious question of where that material world came from to begin with? Forget it. You're not getting away with it. Why do you think the big burp was invented? It's because they knew they had to come up with something to explain how something came from nothing in the first place.

I dont fault you for your ignorance of that which you condemn. I takes time and effort to learn about something, while it takes much less effort to ignore facts and express opinion as fact.

I don't fault you for your ignorance, either. Until I realize that it's just plain hard headed unwillingness to accept the facts. Then I fault you.

Your email contains many of the same old arguments arguments against Evolution. They carry no weight, and as if often the case they can just as easily applied to your beliefs.

So far you've presented nothing of substance apart from the usual evolutionary brush offs. I can ditto the above for your own beliefs. Same old arguments in favor of evolution. All of which have been debunked. Nothing new. Ever. And your arguments are applied to your beliefs, too, because what you believe is a BELIEF and nothing more.

For instance: "don't believe in evolution by "faith" because you watched it all happen before your very eyes, did you?"

No, I did not. But there are mountains of evidence to support it's existence. This evidence is what seperates what I know from your beliefs.

Actually, the mountains you've chosen to see are hiding the oceanic expanse of contradictory evidence that you can't see because you've chosen not to look beyond the mountains. So far you haven't even presented a grain of dirt, much less a mountain.

Many people who oppose Evolution use the same argument wrongly thinking that they have a point. You dont. Let's look at another example shall we? "If scientific "truth" is always being modified and falsified, then explain just how it is "truth" and define "truth" while you're at it."

So, DO IT.

No one said everthing in science is an absolute truth. You are trying to use a strawman argument. I clearly said that science is "the only source of truth in the world today". You have resorted to dishonesty to try to discredit my statement..... rather than offering an absolute truth that is offered by an alternative to science.

Ok, let's be honest, so I'm not accused of dishonestly discrediting your statement. Honestly, now, define "truth" for me. Honestly, now, explain how if "science" is the only source of "truth" and scientific information is continually changing and being discredited, explain to me how I'll recognize truth when I see it. And if I tell my wife "I love you" but can't prove that scientifically, does that mean I've not told the truth? No? Then there must be other "sources" of truth in the world, otherwise we have to accept your statement that there are not as an absolute truth in itself, but since you can't prove scientifically that your statement is true, it may well be false. Got that? If not, let me put it another way. You're saying that "the only source of truth in the world today" is science, but that statement itself cannot be proven scientifically. You've backed yourself into a philosophical corner there.

Then ofcourse we have the childish Matrix-like argument: " If all our brains are is a bunch of modified chemicals, how do you even know that what you think is "truth" is true? "

Refute it.

That might stump a five year old, but anyone older would tell you that because all those "modified chemicals" that make up my brain have the support of my senses, and the repeatable, quantifiable results, that any other set of "modified chemicals" can confirm.

So, then, you're refuting your above statement by saying that senses can also determine what is true. Touche' again. Can you prove to me that the results with another person's brain are actually the same repeatable, quantifiable results you're having with your own? You still have not explained how an evolved bunch of chemicals determines what "truth" is. Suppose my evolved chemical brain sees green when yours sees blue - color blindness. Which evolved group of chemicals, if any, is seeing the correct color? And based on what criterion?

Finally you end with: "Try THINKING about this stuff and you'll be amazed how your views will change."

That's right. My statement stands.

I have given it much thought. And continue to on a daily basis. I would suggest that you stop thinking about it, and gain a foundation of knowledge that you can rest your thoughts upon before you start thinking again.

If I stop thinking about it, I might become an evolutionist again. My more advanced brain won't let me do that. Now, how is it that my brain and yours are in disagreement on this issue? And why is your brain right, and mine wrong? Suppose we're both right, or both wrong? That is, if we can figure out what right and wrong are to begin with. Maybe what you think is wrong, I think is right, and vice versa. We're in quite a fix, aren't we? Oh, and just how do you know for sure that my beliefs don't demonstrate a MORE ADVANCED ability to think and reason than yours? Maybe you're actually BEHIND me on the evolutionary scale. THINK ABOUT IT.

Until you do so, your arguments are childish, and rest solely on willful ignorance.

So far you've not demonstrated anything of value or worth considering, nor an ability to reason beyond what you've already imagined is true, or what you've been told is true.

Feel free to respond if you wish to discuss any particular topic with regards to evolution, but I must warn you - I am not 5 years old, and I am not impressed by your Opinions. Facts are what are important.

I know 5-year-olds who can see through evolution for what it is. Maybe you should meet some of them. Unfortunately sometimes when kids get big they're more easily led by peer pressure and a desire to conform than young kids, and they're taught not to think for themselves. Then the problems come.


September 21, 2009

From Steven:


I'm still laughing. I forgot all about you. Your e-mail just made my day!!! That's how much you mean to the world. People look at your ideas, laugh, then forget all about you.

Glad to hear you're laughing. Just keep in mind the saying about "he who laughs last." ;-)

I see you still have no alternative explanation and no paper submitted for review. Too bad. The biblical explanation has been looked at for centuries and never holds any scientific merit. So..don't even go there. What's YOUR idea, though? The world is waiting! You can't just deny one theory without having one of your own!!!

My paper has been submitted for review to any duped evolutionist "out there," yourself included! Thanks for reading it!

I just did a Google search on the topic "Journal Papers on Biological Evolution" and received over 5 million that enough research that has been done on it so far? Even if 1/10 (a GROSS underestimate) of the papers are actually on the topic of the Theory of Evolution...that's still 500,000 peer reviewed, tested and accepted papers by the people who are qualified to discuss this.

I just did a google search on "eat flies wrong" (left out a key word just to not be foul), and 2,590,000 hits came up, so guess what we're having for supper?! And then I did a search just for "astrology" and TWENTY SIX MILLION hits came up, so I guess we'd better all go check our horoscopes, because that PROVES that astrology is scientific!

Love and kisses from
A much more EVOLVED person than you,

Can you prove that scientifically?


October 26, 2009

No...we aren't talking Google hits...we are talking peer reviewed in scientific journals by qualified people who study this for a living. You failed to see my point even if it was painfully obvious. If you don't know the difference, that's why you can't grasp why you are wrong. You have no clue of how to actually do research. You said that you have submitted a paper on your hypothesis...are you referring to your website? If so (as I have only read your website), I have no clue how science works . Hilarious....simply astounding that someone would think that this is how science works.


What you need to do is get out your Google fingers and read some articles about the established fact of bias in "peer review." The operative word is PEER, as in PEER PRESSURE. Are you naive enough to think that an evolutionist is going to give an unbiased review of research that goes against his cherished mythology? If you are, then too bad for you.


September 27, 2009

Hi, I was just reading some things in your feedback section, and I wanted to jump in as well! I think I have the right interpretation when I say that there seemed to be a huge disagreement on how eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes, as well as how prokaryotes evolved from prebiotic soup, as well as how sex evolved. these are really great questions that people have dedicated their lives to researching. because of the special nature of evolutionary biology, however, there's always problems inherent in making claims about the contingent past. the following theories that i'm going to mention are not "how actually" explanations, but "how possibly" explanations. How-possibly explanations have value that is independent of whether or not they reflect the way something actually evolved. put another way, how-possibly explanations have a cognitive value that is independent of their truth. I, for one, take the skeptical position that complete adaptation explanations are going to be very rare in evolutionary biology. The consequences of this skeptical position is that natural selection faces the challenge of explaining how organs of extreme perfection could have evolved, as well as how anything as complex as a prokaryote could have evolved. darwin was the prime runner who tried to provide accounts of how they could evolve. since i'm not presenting a formal theory of explanation, i'll just jump ahead to current hypotheses. evolution of prokaryotes: please read "vital dust" by Nobel Laurette Christian de Duve. I saw that you as a rule of thumb don't usually click on links embedded in emails, so you could definitely search for it in the library :) evolution of eukaryotes: endosymbiosis. why there's pretty good reason to believe in it: we are observing an endosymbiosis happening right now. if interested, please read "A Secondary Symbiosis in Progress" by Noriko Okamoto and Isao Inouye. If you can't find it, I have a pdf file distributed through a course I took and I could send it to you.

i took a course that, going into it, i wasn't so sure about and i was skeptical about adaptation and natural selection, but it's changed my mindset completely. there were a lot of open debates, some of the topics and pre-discussion readings can be found here, if you're interested:

hope i've been slightly helpful! not all evolutionists are as bad as you think! i'd love to continue this discussion further, so feel free to contact me. i'm a lowly undergrad who welcomes any chance to procrastinate.

--A. B.

Hi A--,

Thanks for a fun and even intelligent (for a nice change) response! You sound like the kind of person who would be willing to sit down and have some dialogue about what we respectively believe, rather than one whose mind is made up, and don't bore me with the facts. Yes, my mind is made up, but I remind you that I USED TO BE an evolutionist, so HAVE considered both sides of the coin very thoroughly.

As for endosymbiosis (and no, I do not like to open hyperlinks, but will include them when I post this), it is by no means an explanation of how prokaryotes "evolved" into eukaryotes. All you do with that explanation is open up a can of worms. How did the symbiotic relationship begin, and if each organism was surviving without that relationship, how did symbiosis confer any survival advantage? How did the symbiotic organisms come into existence to begin with? Why is evolution almost always somehow, magically, diverted onto a path of increased complexity and functionality? Is there some magic "ether" involved in evolution that forces it in that direction? Can we actually, experimentally, extrapolate BACKWARD from the organelles contained in a cell, to the original "symbiotic" organisms, and is there actually any hard evolutionary evidence (fossils, etc.) that demonstrates the factuality of it? What you're really doing is what Fred Hoyle, Francis Crick, and others did with the question of life's origin on Earth. Since they realized it was way to complex to have just come about by random processes, they invented "directed panspermia" which pushed the origin of life to "somewhere out there" in space, where it then came and "seeded" the Earth. They therefore felt they could avoid the question of where THAT life came from to begin with.

Well, thanks again for writing, and if you feel like procrastinating some more, feel free to write again.


October 2, 2009

From I. K.

Hi I--,

Thanks for writing. Your letter is really long, so I'm just going to have to interpolate my responses, as follow:

I'm sorry, but I really get the impression that you don't have the slightest understanding of evolution, or the "facts" you're refuting. The majority of your arguments seem to be based not from an actual analysis of the theories of how various features evolved, but just laughing at museum displays designed to summarize a complicated explanation.

That's fine. You can "interpret" what I've said as you wish. As for not having the slightest understanding of evolution, I take that as a compliment. There IS nothing to understand apart from the fact that it's a big lie and will one day go down as one of the greatest deceptions in science.

You also clearly have had no conversations with any real scientists. You don't seem to have any idea that the big bang theory is entirely different from the theory of evolution (which, in turn, is quite separate from natural selection)

Zzzzzz. I'm getting sleeeeeppppyyy..... Same old, tired arguments.

Saying things like:


Actually, scientists love to ask such questions. It's just that there's no satisfying answer yet. Just because something hasn't been completely explained doesn't mean its nonsense. Are you familiar with why, exactly, the big bang theory is taken so seriously? Do you believe that Hubble's Law is correct? Do you even have a complete understanding of how Hubble's Law was verified and its implications? If not, how could you possibly feel qualified enough to refute it?

"No satisfying answer YET." Your FAITH in action. I don't think the BB theory is taken anywhere near as seriously as YOU think it is. It's just that they (and you) have nothing else to hang onto, and the alternative is too frightening to those without backbone. How does accepting Hubble's Law (and its oooooh - IMPLICATIONS - which are exactly what?) prove (in your mind) that matter burst forth out of nothing and turned itself into you, who could then contemplate it all? Can you answer that for me? And suppose, as happens to many scientific theories (which Hubble's Law really is, as there are other explanations for the phenomena it purports to describe) one day Hubble's Law is demonstrated to be false? Then what?


Okay, clearly you haven't done any research beyond the Discovery channel. No scientist says the singularity came out of nothing. Not one. Ever. And the "stories" about how matter came from the big bang were not just "invented", they're based on observation, what we know about physics and chemistry, and the fact that these ideas are mathematically sound.

Sorry to disappoint, but I don't even have a TV, and if I did, the Discovery Channel would not be on my list of faves, as there's too much evolutionary BS there. You obviously never heard of Alan Guth, who invented the inflation theory and said the universe popped into existence from nothing. And, pray tell, if it did NOT pop into existence from nothing, then where did it come from? Oh, I know, it came from a parallel or a baby universe, or from a multiverse. I see. That explains everything.

A theory in science is an idea that accounts for all the available data, and is a sound and elegant explanation. If a better explanation emerges, or new data becomes available that does not fit the theory, then it is revised or scrapped. This happens ALL THE TIME in science. The reason the big bang theory is taken seriously is because it explains the nature of the universe extremely effectively. A whole lot better than "an all powerful magic guy did it.", which isn't an explanation at all.

All the available data refute evolution. Random mutations. Natural selection. Information genesis. Lack of transitional fossils (uh oh, I feel the retort coming on where you're gonna show me the few pathetic examples of so-called transitions evolutionists still parade around, when there should literally be mountains upon mountains of failed experiments in the fossil record). In any event, the theory has been thoroughly debunked. People like you want to hold onto it because you're fanatics who believe in the religious myth and you can't give it up for the real thing.

You claim to have 30 years investigating evolution, but it looks to me that you've just wasted 30 years trying to find reasons to call evolution stupid. Pretty much every single argument I can see in your book is just ad hominem attacks and straw men. Your chapter 6, which is essentially about abiogenesis, makes absolutely no sense, and again clearly shows you've done absolutely no real research on the topic. Not a single mention of proteins, amino acids, and the ludicrous claim that we see absolutely no evidence of anything like this happening today. Also, cells are not the most basic life form. In chapter six, where you talk about cells suddenly forming out of assorted materials, would put any molecular biologist in a fit of hysterics. Cells are a relatively complex life form, with little organelles and their own systems. You might want to begin by just reading the wikipedia article about abiogenesis (while you're at it, read the big bang, evolution and natural selection articles as well, you might learn something).

No, I've just wasted 30 minutes responding to someone who can do not much more than parrot what he's been told, and who himself has offered nothing of substance to support the myth you believe in. Hubble's Law? I'm impressed. How does it prove evolution?

Then you go on to compare abiogenesis to the old idea of spontaneous generation, which have absolutely nothing in common. Abiogenesis could well be happening today. We've found amino acids in comet samples, and there is evidence that abiogenesis may still be occurring in underwater thermal vents. Spontaneous generation claims that very complex and clearly evolved life forms like insects magically appear out of rotting meat. If you can't understand the difference between these two ideas you're either intentionally imposing ignorance on yourself to justify your beliefs, or you're clearly not qualified to be criticizing over one hundred years of scientific research.

Do me a big favor. Go to Now look up "abiogenesis." Have fun!


This just goes to show you completely miss the point of science. Of course the theory of evolution is evolving and adapting. That's what makes science different from faith. A religion comes up with an idea, and sticks to it no matter what. If the facts contradict it, then you adjust the facts. Science looks for explanations. It never claims to be perfect. Any good scientist knows he can't get everything absolutely right. When new information comes along, he adjusts his theory to account for all information. This improves the theory, making it stronger and more and more correct with time. Religion, on the other hand, looks more and more ludicrous as our knowledge of the universe grows. Sure there are disagreements and unanswered questions regarding certain details of evolution, but many of them will be resolved, and new questions will arise.

The point of science is to investigate what is. Not to invent myths that do nothing to explain where "what is" came from. Science invents rockets. Science Fiction invents evolution. Science would not exist if it were not for faith. The scientist has faith that his hypothesis will hold water and turn out to be a demonstrable fact, otherwise he wouldn't bother. The fool has faith in something that he has neither seen, nor can see, and that can not be demonstrated from either an empirical or a logical standpoint. If you believe that nothing turned itself into everything when there is absolutely no factual nor logical way of proving such a thing, then you have blind faith. It has nothing to do with science. You just can't seem to wrap your evolved mind around that, can you? "Many of them will be resolved" is your FAITH in action. But many of them HAVE BEEN resolved. You just don't want to accept the resolutions, because they don't support your FAITH. So you'll wait till something comes along that SOUNDS good to you, because it supports your faith. Of course, you don't recognize that, and perhaps never will. But what you believe you believe by FAITH. You did not SEE any of it happen, nor can it be tested and repeated.

You're even contradicting yourself on this point. In one breath you claim that evolution is a faith, and it proponents refuse to listen to any dissent, and in the next you talk about how it keeps changing. This is precisely why science & evolution are not faiths, they are willing to accept contradicting evidence, as long as it is sound.

If you say so.

If I had more time, I would go into a lot more detail, but the main thing I urge you to do, just for a couple of days, is do some role playing. Pretend you're a staunch evolutionist, and you think that the biblical explanation is silly (I know you claim you were once in this position, but I find it impossible to believe that there was ever a time where you both believed evolution to be true, and seriously studied it, because you make a lot of statements that nobody who truly understood evolution and natural selection could possibly make).

If you had more time? This is a pretty long letter! I'm glad you DON'T have more time, 'cause I don't either! I do appreciate your having shared your thoughts, though, and I mean that sincerely. I know I get sarcastic but I sincerely want people to THINK about what they believe in hopes their eyes will be opened and they'll see there are better answers to the basic questions we all have rather than that I came from nothing, have no real meaning, and will return to nothing. Do you ever stop to consider that that's what you're pinning your life on?

Read about evolution from science websites. Get the in depth story. Read their criticism of the arguments against them. In detail.

Been doing that for over 30 years.

Nobody who understands evolution would ever say "And how inconvenient is it that humans, more than any other so-called "animals" have to spend so much time feeding and training their kids? I thought we were supposed to be more ADVANCED?"

Oh really? Then you need to do more reading, too. It's a well-known conundrum that other animals have babies that can take care of themselves right out of the womb or shell or whatever, but humans, who are supposedly more advanced, can't do that.

No, we're not more advanced. Evolution is not about inferiority and superiority. Natural selection is really only about whoever manages to survive and pass on their genes, does. We're just as far advanced as every other living thing on the planet, from virii to giraffe, to squid, we're all only here because we've managed to pass on our genes. I'm not sure what this video was you watched at a museum about the evolution of sex, but I don't really think you understood it. Bacteria do not reproduce sexually. None of them do. There are many protists that do, but those are all cellular organisms.

Oh, I see. I guess I've missed that all these years. Every one of the books I've ever read promoted man as more advanced and complex, but I guess they were all wrong about that. As you well know, that's the evolution of evolution in action. As for the bacteria, I think YOU missed a little something there.

Then you say: "I suppose EVOLUTION KNEW that women had to evolve breasts for feeding their young, and the breasts knew how to evolve just the right milk, right? And evolution knew the baby would have a mouth that could suckle on the breast to get the milk, and then evolution knew how to make the baby's body assimilate the milk and turn it into bone and other tissue? OH, SURE! That's EASY to believe, as long as you don't THINK about it."

This is just jaw droppingly, ridiculously, insanely stupid. Yes, stupid, as you're so fond of calling evolution. Do you know what Darwin actually came up with? Because it wasn't the idea of evolution. Evolution had been around a while before Darwin. Darwin came up with natural selection, which is the mechanism by which specific traits evolved. To me, it's absolutely astonishing that someone would decide to write a book, an entire book, bashing evolution and Darwinism, and not even understand the difference between evolution and natural selection.

Ummm, so, I guess I missed something again, but I'm not sure I see your explanation of the origin of the breast, breast milk, the mouth to suckle it, and how evolution knew we needed all that apparatus in your above statements. Could you explain it a little better for me? Thanks. Oh, and a few transitional fossils going from bacteria to breast would be a nice addition, too.

"Why there had to be cave couples, I don't know, but the Club almost always shows them that way in its made-up, imaginary pictures. Yes, those pictures of cave people are someone's imagination. Give an artist a bone, and who knows what "pre-humans" will look like when he gets through with it? It's all imagination. Nobody can take one of my jaw bones and tell me what I looked like without having actually seen me, but these guys are dead sure about what somebody looked like, and where they lived, and how they lived, based on a few fossil teeth or bones."

Good god. This is just painful. You're seriously claiming that the only reason we believe anyone lived in caves is because of a few jaw bones? Did you write this entire book off the top of your head? Or right, you DID..... you DON'T EVEN LIST ONE SINGLE $@%# REFERENCE! NOT ONE! You (apparently) went to college, yet you didn't learn that its important to cite references. Well, whatever, fine, ignore the numerous cave paintings, remnants of food, fire, clothing, and other refuse in caves throughout europe, africa, and the middle east. Not to mention very complete skeletal remains of ancients humans in these areas. Clearly you're confusing your information.

People still live in caves. Proves nothing. As for the paintings, I often chuckle to myself that they were probably just doodles to waste some time, and archaeologists then turn around and attribute some intense, often spiritual meaning to them. It would be fun to know the real reason people drew some of those things on cave walls. Oh, and there are also drawings of dinosaurs, triceratops included, around the world. Have you heard about them? Of course, you'd have some lame excuse for why they could not have possibly been dinosaurs, because, as we all know, dinosaurs lived way before humans.

As for identifying skeletons based on small bone samples like a jaw bone, have you done much research on exactly how this is done? Has it occurred to you that while it sounds amazing, it might actually be a far more effective method than it seems, if you're only willing to look into it in more depth? Of course not, you're not willing to look into anything in depth. If it's too complicated to be explained in a paragraph, it can't possibly be true.

I don't waste time looking into things in depth when I know they have no depth to look into. If you want to believe that a pickup truck full of bone fragments prove where you came from (yes, a pickup truck full is about all they have at this point) you're free to do so. Pathetic, though, to hang your purpose and destiny on a truck full of bone fragments. But it's up to you.

Which pretty much summarizes your entire belief system. If the explanation is complicated and requires a great deal of time and research to truly comprehend, then it's obviously false.

My belief system isn't based on blind faith. If something looks designed, and if it's complex, it doesn't take a horde of scientists to prove to me (with peer reviewed papers) that it didn't make itself that way with no outside direction and input. It just takes common sense, logic and intelligence. That is, it takes intelligence to recognize intelligence. Except in the case of SETI employees, perhaps - who are looking for signs of intelligent design in space when they can't even recognize them on Earth.


October 2, 2009

From I. K.:

I had to send you another message after reading through some of your Feedback section. After reading several answers to mail you'd received where you refused to reveal your own personal belief on what happened, I found that you went on to lambast "D. McE (North Dakota, USA)" for "[merely] telling me is where it did NOT come from". Do you not see the contradiction there?

No, I don't even understand what you wrote above.

Either way, there are some very good explanations about various moments in evolutionary history. The details of how every single change happened are, like all history, impossible to see for sure (though if that's a valid argument against it, then any account of past events is false, because the only way to verify it is to look at the evidence that remains after the event), but we can look at the fossil record, which shows very clear lines that match with carbon dating and geological layout as being millions of years old. You can claim that all these dating techniques are flawed, but the fact that they are consistent would seem to have some significance.

Hey, I like it! GREAT MOMENTS IN EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY! Like, when men and women split apart and became men and women. I wish I'd been there to see it! Or when the first fish walked out of water, put on his sunglasses and poured himself a margarita, and said, "Wow, I didn't know the beach was so hot!" The only clear lines the geological record shows are clear lines. Which means the strata were laid down successively and contemporaneously, not over eons. In fact, that's undeniable. I just came across an article about the Grand Canyon. The article mentions, and I had a good laugh over this, the two competing theories evolutionists have about its formation. One says it's old and formed about 70 million years ago. The other says it's young and formed about 5 million years ago. See!?? The PROOF is RIGHT THERE in the STRATA! Except they're having a little difficulty interpreting what the strata seem to be telling them, but aside from that, I'd say it's a pretty exact science, wouldn't you? And there are about 100 theories about how the dinos disappeared. Well, there are other interpretations of how the strata were laid down, but since you've been brainwashed, you're incapable of evaluating them.

You go on to complain about evolution because "It is NOT science. NOT testable. NOT repeatable. It's already done, and you're just building your creation mythology on it."


Well, how is any past event really testable? Especially one that occurred over the period of millions of years? Of course you just say that this is too convenient, as though the geologists of the nineteenth century (not to mention pretty much any other related secular scientific investigating I can think of) came up with their theories on the age of the earth based on some sort of contrarian impulse.

Now we're getting somewhere. Are you admitting evolution from nothing to everything is not testable and repeatable? And your invocation of the goddess Time to "prove" that evolution can't be tested... well, maybe ya need to think about that! There are LOTS of ways the "age of the earth" can be measured, by the way. Most of them conflict with the conventional wisdom of radiometric dating, so they're not mentioned in most texts. Do the research.


October 22, 2009

Thanks for the laughs while pointing out the obvious lack of reasoning behind the theory that so many these days call "fact". Evolution is not only un-scientific, but probably the biggest barrier to any real scientific progress in the understanding of biology in modern times. Evolutionists are - simply put - stupid, and must realize this before they have any hopes of enlightenment. Thanks again for telling it like it is.

--T. B.

Hi T--,

Thanks for the feedback. I wouldn't necessarily say evolutionists are stupid. They just have nothing else to hold onto, and refuse to consider the alternative because they're afraid of it, and afraid of peer pressure. Fear is the motivating factor behind any rabid, blind faith belief, and the evolutionists know they can prey on that. Keep their peers in fear of ridicule or looking "less intelligent" or backward, or whatever, and you've got them right where you want them.

Have a good day,

October 26, 2009

Thanks for the response.

But there is a mountain of evidence supporting evolution.

For example, why aren't shared pseudogenes in chimps and humans very compelling evidence for a common ancestor?

--R. C.


This is just another example of straining to come up with the silver bullet that's going to kill off the competition and leave evolution the undisputed winner. Pseudogenes or not, you still haven't demonstrated where they came from to begin with, how they became functional, where the information they contain came from, etc. And if they are NOT functional, how dost THAT support evolution? They're useless genes. So what? However, there is current evidence that some pseudogenes are in fact functional, but regardless the fact we might "share" some with primates is in itself meaningless unless INTERPRETED by evolutionists to somehow pervertedly support their mythology.

Regardless of what genes we "share" with primates, the genetic information expresses itself in completely different ways. Did you know humans and bananas share about 50% similar genes? Meaningless. It's how the information contained in the genes is expressed that counts, not the similarities in makeup. I like to use the example: GODISNOWHERE. That might say GOD IS NOW HERE or GOD IS NOWHERE. One hundred percent similar letters (makeup). Completely opposite meaning (expression). So the number of genes, pseudo or not, that we share with chimps or bananas is meaningless. Genes just happen to be the carriers of information. How that information is interpreted and expressed is what's important, and evolution has no explanation for either the source of the information in the genes, nor for its origin, nor for the complex mode of transmission and its expression in various phenotypes. You can't explain any of it by random, mindless processes.


October 26, 2009


You ARE that dumb.

When they say peer...they don't mean "friend". They mean "people in the same field of research". And these people want nothing more than to tear down someone elses research. Funding and grants are scarce in science (thanks to assholes like you who keep putting garbage out there and confusing people) so other researchers are sharks when it comes to reviewing anyone else's papers. They want nothing more than to disprove any new ideas in the hopes that their own get more recognition. Geez, you are so uneducated about how science works. Go back to school..and not theology college.


Yep, I sure am dumb. Thanks for smartening me up. Unfortunately you were not quite adept enough to figure out that "peer pressure" doesn't only come from "friends." Try looking up the word "peer" (noun) on then get back to me with a more educated response once you've seen that "friend" isn't even in the definition. Of course, being an evolutionist, standards don't matter, so naturally "YOUR" definition is as valid as the dictionary's. I understand that.

Oh, and it doesn't appear you did any research on bias in peer review. So go do it and then get back to me on that. Let's see if I can explain this to you in a way you'd understand. If an evolutionist "peer reviews" another evolutionist's paper, he might criticize the methodology and the conclusion, but he's certainly not ever going to call evolution itself into question. Let me give you an example. Not a hard one, so you should be able to follow it.

A few years ago an evolutionary researcher found SOFT TISSUE and BLOOD CELLS in fossilized T. rex bones. Did you hear about that? If not, get your Google fingers working. In any event, let's see what the evolutionists did. Did they dare question how blood vessels and cells could possibly survive for 70 million years, which valid, unbiased peer review should do? HA! You kiddin'? That might upset the mythology! Instead, they had already decided that the vessels and cells WERE 70 million years old, and set out to figure out how it could be possible that soft tissue and cells lasted that long. Peer review, my butt. Yeah, they'll tear down somebody's research and try to prove them wrong, but QUESTION THE MYTH? NO WAY! No bias in peer review? How's this for an unbiased quote:

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism ... Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
-Richard Lewontin
Evolutionary geneticist, Alexander Agassiz Research Professor, Harvard University, "Billions and billions of Demons," The New York Review, p. 31, January 9, 1997

An aside, as for "tearing down" the research of others. Here's a blurb from a recent news item, with some GREAT peer review (LOL!!):

"Remember Ida, the fossil discovery announced last May with its own book and TV documentary? [emphasis mine] A publicity blitz called it "the link" that would reveal the earliest evolutionary roots of monkeys, apes and humans. Experts protested that Ida wasn't even a close relative. And now a new analysis supports their reaction. In fact, Ida is as far removed from the monkey-ape-human ancestry as a primate could be, says Erik Seiffert of Stony Brook University in New York."

Now, take that and then look up "Ardi". They just don't learn, do they, despite peer review.


October 26, 2009

Hi John

Miracles are the department of religious systems like yours, not scientific theories like religion.


Say what? Scientific theories like religion? I have no idea what you mean.

Of course, if you're talking about Time, she is the goddess of evolutionary miracles. Can't deny it. Given enough Time, anything can happen, right? Like, if I let a dime sit there, given enough Time it'll turn into a dollar bill. Well, in evolution, that's exactly what will happen, because Time works evolution's miracles.


October 26, 2009

If you would like to actually discuss the facts, rather than just state your fatigue associated with denying the truth, just let me know. I would be more than happy to discuss anything with you on any public forum.


Define “Truth.”

November 12, 2009

From D. L.

Thank you for finally replying to my e-mail. A few comments:

You're welcome. A few of my own......

You: I know a lot about science. It's my favorite topic!
Me: That is not apparent on your website.

JV: So sorry. I didn't know you were the final arbiter in such matters.

You: Evolution isn't science.
Me: Last week, scientists announced a new vaccine against HIV. They tell us that an understanding evolution is essential for understanding HIV.

JV: "THEY TELL US"? Whoop de doo for "them"! Have you actually looked into it yourself?

A friend of mine is chief scientist for a large laboratory associated with two of this country's most prestigious universities and a major hospital.

JV: Wow!

I just saw a TV segment about a scientist investigating animals from the Amazonian jungle in Ecuador and comparing them with animals in the nearby Andes to see how closely they are related and how the differences relate to their different environments. He found for example a number of different species of hummingbirds, with beak lengths varying according to the types of flowers found in their respective environments.

JV: Wow. If it was on TV, it must be good science. I'm speechless. So to you the above somehow proves that particles of matter turned into flowers and hummingbirds, eh? Nobody in his right mind would argue that environment does not effect changes in living things. Has nothing to do with evolution. If you could wrap your head around that, it would be a start, at least.

What is not science about any of that?

JV: You seem to know the answer already, so nothing I can say will help, I guess.

You: It's a faith belief. A religion.
Me: Yes, I guess you could say that scientists have faith that God is not lying to them through His creation. What religion spends so much efforts looking for evidence and practical applications, such as finding disease cures or more useful crop strains, for example?

JV: Forgive me, but that's a dumb question. If it were not for religious motivation, a lot of good science would never have been, nor be, performed. It's the desire to serve mankind, knowing that in the end it will be WORTH it, that drives many good scientists on. And no, God isn't lying. Man is.

You: Now, of course, if you want to fill me in on something scientific, I'm all eyes.

JV: Blind ones, apparently, or you wouldn't accept evolution as truth.

Me: There are plenty of books out there, university courses, information on the web. I can learn about it. Why can't you?

JV: Good! Get learning, then. Apparently you prefer to let websites do your thinking for you. I don't.

You: Jesus believed in Adam and Eve, by the way.
Me: How do you know His views on Adam and Eve?

JV: They're in the Bible. He created them, so I guess he has some opinion on the story. I love the way you just blasted me with all those websites, then ask me how I know what Jesus's views were. Suppose I ask you how do you know what the views of the writers of those websites were? Kinda dumb question, eh? You'd answer, "Read them." If you pick up a Bible, you'll see Jesus considered Adam and Eve historical beings.

Anyway, is science limited to what you think Jesus believed. Did He believe in electricity, atoms, germs, airplanes, satellites, computers, Rush Limbaugh, or California?

JV: He created them, or the ability to know them. So I guess He knows something about them. Gee, He might even know more than YOU do, if that's possible!

You: I don't recall him talking about ape ancestors.
Me: Why would He? His time for his mission was so short. What would ape ancestors have to do with anything that He WAS trying to teach us? Or maybe he did, but the Evangelists didn't think it was important enough to record. What does that prove? There's no record of Him talking about Mars or volcanoes or tsunamis or iguanas or the Grand Canyon or machine guns or Australia either.
You: And he also changed six EARTHEN WATER pots into wine as His first miracle.
Me: He changed pots into wine? Check your Bible. That is not how I read the story. Anyway, if He had told us how to do it, THAT would be science.

JV: Actually he said God could turn stones into bread, so I guess He could do that too. You know you're just being childish now. But I'm glad you at least READ that story.

You: In case you missed the symbolism there, it didn't take him lots of Time to make the wine.
Me: Is science based on your symbolism?

JV: No. Your mythology.

I'm afraid you still have not demonstrated that you have any great knowledge of science.

JV: You should be afraid. What you believe is a grand lie that has eternal consequences.


November 12, 2009

From D. C.:

Why am I not surprised that you would need "Truth" defined?

Because the evolutionist has no solid ground on which to define "truth." That's why.

Well, we can go with... a verifiable statement. Or if you would prefer, the actual state of a matter.

Or even, conformity with fact or reality.

They all sound good, but let's hit them from an evolutionary standpoint. For something to be "verifiable" means it has to conform to the observations of all. But how can you prove that your observations are the same as mine? Perhaps my brain has evolved to see green where you see red. Or maybe my brain is more advanced and can grasp the concept of God and yours can't. How would you know?

The "actual state of matter" is constantly changing, so forget that one. What's true one minute may not be the next.

"Conformity with fact or reality" according to whose definition of what is fact and reality?


October 27, 2009

holy crap...the level of your stupidity is far worse than I thought. I'm done with your pre conceived ideas of how you think science works. For the record.."experts" on Ida didn't make the big stink about it...the media hyped the sh-- out of it. Experts gathered data.


In other words, I one-upped you so you're backing down now so as not to admit it. Classic evolutionist cop out.

These people explain things better. I'm sorry that you don't want to see how the rest of us deal with reality.

AHH, so really THAT is the issue. You have to rely on others to explain your position, so that makes ME stupid. Now I understand.


October 27, 2009

Hi K--,

My responses follow.

Sorry, John, I was about to go to work so I was a bit rushed. I meant to say "scientific theories like evolution".

No problem.

If you let a dime sit there long enough it won't turn into a dollar bill. This is in no way an accurate anology to evolution.

It's not an analogy, actually. Just trying to make the following point: Evolution Cannot, Did not, and Will not happen. Ever. So, no matter HOW MUCH time you add to the equation, it's not going to happen!

ALL change requires time, it takes time for a tree to grow, it takes time to bake a cake, it takes time for erosion to form geographical features and it takes time for evolution to produce changes in organisms.

That's no better an "analogy" than mine was. We know a cake will bake. We know a tree will grow. We know that erosion can create geographical features (though it did not create the so-called geological column of strata that is part of the evolution lie). We can TEST and OBSERVE those things. But we also know that EVOLUTION DOES NOT HAPPEN, nor did it, nor will it. So the "Time" factor is irrelevant.

You're talking as if time is the ONLY requirement for evolution to take place. It isn't. The fact that evolution needs time to take place is no different than the fact that I need time to write this email to you.

You're still not getting it. There is not a shred of evidence that particles can organize themselves, come to life, begin to replicate, and turn into every living thing we know. NONE. Therefore, the "time" element is irrelevant! You can add all the Time you want! It just ain't gonna happen!

If I just sat here for a significant amount of time without doing anything else, this email wouldn't suddenly appear.

BUT THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING EVOLUTION DID! CAN'T YOU SEE THAT? If you sat there for a significant period of time, you'd die and decompose. But you're saying evolution magically did the OPPOSITE of that by sitting there a significant period of time. Can't you see that?

Likewise, if you observed a biological population over a long period of time (thousands of generations), yet there was no variation in the population and there were no selection pressures, evolution would not occur.

Let's get back to the basics, K. We still have the issue of where everything came from to begin with. You see, you insist, as all evolutionists do, on starting with what's ALREADY there. You need to go back to where it all began, then you'll understand that it could never have happened. "Selection pressure" is another miracle worker for evolution. What "selection pressure" turned one bacterium into a human and left another as a bacterium over BILLIONS of years. That's ludicrous, laughable, and a lie.

You're also talking as if evolution is the only scientific theory that requires time to work. Do you argue against erosion or plate tectonics?

I don't think that needs an answer at this point.


November 25, 2009

Hi D. L. Thank you for replying. I've tried to cut out some of our former correspondence for brevity's sake.

I don't have the time, knowledge or facilities to do HIV research myself. Is it irrational to listen to those who do?

JV: You see, that's what this is really all about. Somebody told you, or you read somewhere, that HIV research is dependent on evolution. Well, it's not. Not at all. There are plenty of articles online about why it's not. Yep, things mutate. That has NOTHING to do with where those things came from in the first place, and mutations do not create anything new. They work with what's already there.

A friend of mine is chief scientist for a large laboratory associated with two of this country's most prestigious universities and a major hospital.
Is such sarcasm necessary? Do you think it advances dialog in any way?

JV: Well, forgive me, but "so what?" I have friends who are scientists in every discipline. How does THAT advance our dialogue?

On what basis do you claim to know more about science than those who actually do the research?

JV: So you're saying that if someone does a little research in their particular specialty, all of a sudden they're an expert, not only in that specialty, but in every other scientific arena? Have you considered just how LITTLE one person can possibly know about everything there is to know? You need to think for YOURSELF and stop letting the "experts" do your thinking for you.

Nobody in his right mind would argue that environment does not effect changes in living things. Has nothing to do with evolution. Well then, what is your explanation of how these changes occur?

JV: We're discussing evolution. Changes occur everywhere. I look in the mirror in the morning and see changes. We're talking here about how particles came into existence from NOTHING and, using NO intelligent input, made themselves into everything. I do not have an explanation for how that happened, because it didn't. It's the evolutionists who are trying so desperately to figure it out. For what reason? I mean, does it give them hope and inspiration, and if so, why? If you came from nowhere, have no real purpose other than what you invent to make yourself feel good, and are going nowhere, why even bother? This argument has nothing at all to do with real science. It's a philosophical war for souls.

You: It's a faith belief. A religion.
Me: Yes, I guess you could say that scientists have faith that God is not lying to them through His creation.

JV: The problem isn't God lying through his creation. The problem is men lying about the creation.

What religion spends so much efforts looking for evidence and practical applications, such as finding disease cures or more useful crop strains, for example? Forgive me, but that's a dumb question.

How so? I don't see many people out looking at nature or other evidence to prove or test their religious beliefs. Can you give me any examples?

JV: Your question is faulty because you don't understand the concept of worldview, or to impress you with the popular German word, Weltanschauung. "Religions" don't look for evidence. People do. And people are influenced by what they believe. Science has advanced more under Christianity than any other "religion" because we believe God put us here for a purpose, and we believe we are responsible to Him for what we do with what He's given us, including brains. See if you can find a lot of altruistic organizations that were founded by atheists. On the other hand, Christian workers have gone throughout the world seeking to improve peoples' lot in life. From medicine to engineering, to teaching, etc., there is no group that has done more for humanity than those who have been motivated by a love of God and Christ.

For example, why aren't people out there using the ideas of Flood Geology to find new sources of oil, coal, gold, silver, and other metals?

JV: LOL! I know someone personally who's doing just that!

And God is telling us through His creation that the Bible is to be understood as a religious message, not a science text. It is creationists who make God to be a liar.

JV: You are just parroting something you heard, not thinking for yourself. What is a "religious" message? And who decides what parts of the Bible are to be understood as "religious?" You? If the Bible is true, then it should hold up scientifically too, and it does. It's humans who distort it into lies and try to fit evolution into it. Even rabid atheists like Richard Dawkins recognize that the Bible and evolution don't mix. The two accounts of origins are almost diametrically opposed.

All I have said about evolution at all is that you do not appear to be very knowledgeable about what it is you are criticizing

JV: That statement made by someone who admits he doesn't have the time or desire to study the issues involved.

So what do you suggest? Where should I start? I have been trying to learn more about everything all my life.

JV: Start with the Q&A section at

You: Jesus believed in Adam and Eve, by the way.
Did He? Or did He just have more important things to talk about during His short stay on earth?.

JV: If Adam and Eve are not literal, there's no need for Jesus or the rest of the Bible. So I guess He considered them a little bit important.

You: In case you missed the symbolism there, it didn't take him lots of Time to make the wine.
Me: Is science based on your symbolism?

JV: No. Evolutionists have enough of their own.

I'm afraid you still have not demonstrated that you have any great knowledge of science.
You should be afraid. What you believe is a grand lie that has eternal consequences.
If you think that, why can't you provide any evidence, rather than just mocking and sarcasm?

JV: What evidence would you like me to provide? And if I do, are you going to believe it?


November 25, 2009

Hello [from D. L],

"Because the evolutionist has no solid ground on which to define "truth." That's why."

That's just weak propoganda that only works on the uninformed.

JV: Obviously the "uninformed" doesn't include you. Wrong. "Weak propaganda"? Then tell me how to define truth without a standard of what's true and what's not. Do YOU make the final decision? Has science ever considered something as "true" that eventually was falsified and became "not true"? Well, that's what's happened with evolution. Time to stop trying to hide in the sand.

"They all sound good, but let's hit them from an evolutionary standpoint."

An evolutionary standpoint? LOL How about you just try the Truth? You are unable to prove your beliefs, so all you can do is attack the opposition. Which of course, does not prove that you are right.

JV: Hmmm, did I miss something here? Let's see... Evolutionist scientists try to prove their beliefs with lies and misleading information. Millions of people fall for it because they're the "experts" after all. I and others like me expose their lies and misleading information. That, of course, does not prove we're right. But to you, it proves the lying evolutionists are right. Right?

But dont let that stop you, it's the only game you've got.

JV: What other game is there? Either we evolved, or we were created. Either evolutionists are lying, or they’re not. If you can think of another way to play the game, I'm game.

"For something to be "verifiable" means it has to conform to the observations of all."

Wow. Perhaps you need a dictionary. That is not what "verifiable" means. Since you may not own a dictionary but you do own a computer, might I offer the definition from [note: I was unable to post the results he pasted in the email from --JV]

JV: Well, thanks!!! Obviously, being a good evolutionist, you let others do your thinking for you, so you're not capable of seeing the fallacy in your thinking here. Let's take your definitions one by one.

Well, I hope I don't have you thinking too hard....

Since you are just making up your own defintions, and they have no basis in reality, the rest of your argument on this topic is garbage.

JV: I think you just reaffirmed my point. Thanks again.

Do you actually have any point to make, other than of course, that you really have no idea what you are talking about? You have already made that abundantly clear.

JV: Sure I have a point to make. And I made it. You just can't accept it, or you'd have never written in the first place. This isn't a war of words, or a war about science. It's a war of truth against lies. Most people prefer the lies because they think it gets them off the hook of being ultimately responsible for their beliefs and actions.


November 25, 2009

Yes..I rely on experts in certain fields to explain things...Just like you go to the doctor when you are sick...and the mechanic to get your car fixed. I just don't have time to deal with issues that have been explained many times to weirdos like you by people who work in these fields for a living.


Explain to me how someone can be an "expert" in origins. Do you know someone who was there who actually saw the Big Burp create everything from nothing? And they can explain exactly how it was done, eh? Start thinking for yourself, and you'll soon discover the "experts" aren't quite as savvy as either you or they think they are. Evolution is an invented story, and everything they do is an attempt to fit "science" into their mythology. You can be an expert in ANY field without having anything whatsoever to do with evolution. It's not necessary for the advancement of any field of science or otherwise. Not only that, as I just said to another writer who relies on "experts" to do his thinking, have you ever stopped to consider how LITTLE any "expert" really knows about all there is to know? That's why knowledge is constantly changing, and "truths" become untruths real fast. Because the "experts" of our day are often the embarrassments of tomorrow. As Darwin is fast becoming.


November 25, 2009

From T. B.:

Thanks for the reply, but I would maintain that evolutionists ARE stupid, for several reasons:

In all cases it comes down to the individual to ascertain any truth or falsehood behind any philosophy. In the case of evolution there is no truth behind it. Please explain why this should not be seen as - "stupid" - to retain the word being discussed.


I think most evolutionists know exactly what they're doing, and why, by manipulating facts and telling outright lies. I think they're foolish, but not necessarily stupid, though your arguments are pretty convincing :-)


November 25, 2009

Hi K--,

By saying this you are wilfully ignoring the substantial amounts of evidence that suggest that evolution did, is, and will continue to happen.

There is NO evidence that evolution ever did happen, is happening, or will happen. Take off the blinders, K--. Just saw a new DVD (there's a book too) called Evolution: The Grand Experiment. Look it up, and check it out.

We know that, given a population with variation, over time this population will change in response to selection pressures from its environment. We can test and observe this, and we have done so.

I have tried over and over to get you to see that that has NOTHING to do with particles coming alive and turning themselves into every living thing we know of or have known (as in extinct living things). The population can only show variation if the genetic information for such was ALREADY present within it. As populations become isolated, they're not evolving but DEvolving, because they're LESS adaptable and able to survive outside very limited environments. We don't see anything NEW being created, just the expression of information that's already there.

What you've described is abiogenesis, not evolution, they're two different theories. It would be like arguing against erosion because you don't believe that accretion can form planets.

Any honest evolutionist will tell you that without abiogenesis, evolution would not be possible. And I don't believe planets were formed by accretion either. That's another evolutionary myth. All you have to do is look at the geological and other diversity of planets, and it's obvious they're not all from the same stock.

Key words: without doing anything else. I'm trying to explain that evolution requires more than just time, it requires variation, reproduction, and selection pressures.

K, it requires GENETIC INFORMATION THAT'S ALREADY PRESENT! Get that, would you!? Evolution could not even occur if it didn't have something to work with. It's a tautology from start to finish.

Evolution is not a theory that deals with the origins of life, it deals with the development of existing life. What you're saying is the same as if you claimed that erosion doesn't explain how the planet formed, so it's not true.

You're kiddin', right? What you're saying, once again, is that all we have to do is IGNORE everything that happened up to mutations and natural selection? Where did the stuff to mutate and select come from?

You ask what selection pressure turned one bacteria into a human and left another as a bacteria? You're removing almost three BILLION years of evolution between these two points, and TRILLIONS of generations. Speciation requires a seperation (not always physically) of populations. We know that all modern dogs are descended from wolves, yet there are sill wolves. Not every wolf, or pack of wolves was taken by prehistoric humans and bred to be a dog, and not every bacteria, or population of bacteria experienced the selection pressures that eventually led to the evolutionary development of humans via countless intermediates.

You just blew your own argument. Darwin too admitted there should be "countless intermediates." So where are they? The fossil record should be chock full of failed evolutionary experiments. Instead we have evolutionary "trees" that have fully formed, complex life forms at the end of their branches, but nothing in between. Some feeble attempts to construct imaginary lines of descent for horses and whales have been amply debunked, and the latter was shown to be an outright fabrication in the DVD I mentioned above, among other places.

I would suggest reading The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution if you're interested in looking at some of the evidence for the theory.

That's one I've not read. I'll look into getting a copy, though I'm sure it's full of the same old boring "evidence" since there's nothing new they can come up with. "Show" is the right word for it, because that's just what it is. I would suggest you read Shattering the Myths of Darwinism or Icons of Evolution or Darwin's Black Box for starters.


[Addendum from John: When I found out that the book K-- recommends was by Richard Dawkins, I was disappointed. I thought it was going to be by a more interesting, challenging author. Dawkins' last book, The God Delusion , was aptly named, only he's the deluded one. The popularity of the book pretty much shows the average person's depth of thought. Dawkins is not a good writer, and even less a philosopher, and it is one of the few books I've ever put down before completion, because I found it completely boring, thoughtless, and unchallenging. At least evolutionists like Sagan and Gould presented thought-provoking analyses of scientific and historical information. Dawkins just has a chip on his shoulder. If anyone would like to see Dawkins make a fool of himself, simply view his interviews in the videos From a Frog to a Prince , or Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. But the guy just doesn't give up.

Atheists are among the easiest to back into a corner. Simply ask an atheist the following question: "Do you know everything there is to know?" The honest atheist, if there is such a thing, would answer, "No." If they respond "Yes," you should consider them to be delusional and end the conversation there.

Assuming a "No" response, you can then ask them the following: "Ok, then, if you do not know everything there is to know, is it possible that something you DON'T know just might be God?" The honest atheist, if there is such a thing, would answer, "Yes." If they respond, "No," they are both delusional and a liar. This is exactly how Ben Stein corners Dawkins in Expelled. Dawkins claims he is "99 percent sure" that God doesn't exist (leaving himself a little wiggle room, just in case, though that 1 percent is a rather big gamble in his case). Interestingly, he's 100 percent sure that evolution occurred, even though 99.9 percent of mutations are harmful, and the rest create nothing new (which is the point on which Dawkins is cornered in the other video). Figure that one out. Stein then asks Dawkins how he ended up with the 99 percent figure, and seeing Dawkins squirm and try to worm his way out of that one is priceless.]

November 25, 2009

Hi again D--,

Please provide evidence that Evolution is falsified.

I've already done so. No matter how much evidence I provide, it's not going to make a difference to you. It's out there. You don't want to see it. Mutations don't work; they don't create anything new, but tamper with and usually ruin information that's already there. Natural selection only works with what's already there, and creates nothing new. People don't create themselves out of nothing. The fossil record gaps have not been filled, nor will they. The fossil record shows fully formed, functional living things, not "becoming" things. Information, such as that found in genetic material, cannot arise on its own, without a source, nor is it useful standing on its own, without a code, mode of transmission, mode of reception, and the machinery to make it useful. The universe is winding down (entropy), not up. I can go on and on, but already have done so, as have so many others before me. If you don't want to listen, you're not going to. If you don't want to see, you're not going to. I have an article online you might want to read on the matter:

NO evidence support creationism or ID - as demonstrated by your inability to actually provide any evidence.

JV: I'll pose the same question to you that I've posed to probably hundreds of other evolutionists. It's like the Flood question, which is, "If there were a global flood, what evidence would you expect to see?" I have NEVER gotten a straight answer from an evolutionist on that one. Evasion, changing the subject, blowing it off as a "dumb" question, etc., but NEVER a direct response. So here's my question on design: "What evidence would you expect to see?" Thanks. Now I'll tell you what evidence I'd expect to see if evolution were true (see my above answer to K-- on that, for starters). I'd expect TRILLIONS upon TRILLIONS of FAILED fossils in the record. I mean all sorts of evolutionary monsters, not fully-formed, functional entities. I'd expect to be seeing LOTS of evolution in action RIGHT NOW, that is, species changing from one to the other. I'd expect to see new life forms appearing all the time. I'd expect to see evidence that nothing can turn itself into everything with no outside help. I'd expect to see evidence that life could come about all on its own. I'd expect evidence that reproduction was a simple process that could just become more complex over time. I'd expect there to be "simple" organisms, and there are not. The more we look into the cell alone, the more complex it appears. I'd expect to see nebulous galaxies at the edge of the universe, and that things appeared to be becoming more organized, rather than falling apart all around me and throughout the universe (I'm talking about the NET entropy of the universe, which is INCREASING, so don't try pulling the "crystals" bit on me, because that one's been debunked). I'd expect to see billions of fossils continuing to form all over the world. Want more? I would expect to see a sudden explosion of fully-formed and functional living things in the fossil record (ever heard of the Cambrian explosion). I would expect to see a lot of diversity in living things due to the creative process involved in making the original plants and animals. I'd expect to see an obvious purpose and plan in the overall ecological systems of the earth, and purpose and plan in individual organisms, such as that the tongue is for tasting, teeth for chewing, stomach for digesting, intestines for assimilating, anus for eliminating. I would also expect to see a brain that controlled all that, along with all the other purposeful systems it controls. I would also expect to find sentient beings who could investigate it all and discover that there really was a creator behind it all, but I'd also expect those beings to have the freedom to reject that notion, otherwise they would not truly be free, but rather automatons made to do their creators will, regardless.

An evolutionary standpoint? LOL How about you just try the Truth? You are unable to prove your beliefs, so all you can do is attack the opposition. Which of course, does not prove that you are right.

JV: Nope, it doesn't. Just proves they're wrong. The exact purpose of my website. As for Truth, well, given that the only thing that really changes in the evolutionary theory is the theory itself, you're the one whose back's agains the wall there, not me!

Hmmm, did I miss something here? Let's see... Evolutionist scientists try to prove their beliefs with lies and misleading information.

dc: Just saying that does not make it true. If you could actually provide some examples, I would be happy to consider them. But for some reason, you cant back up your claims... I wonder why?

JV: Well, well, where to begin... Let's start with Piltdown Man. Then Nebraska man. Then the peppered moth lie. How about the debunked Miller-Urey experiment. The antibiotic resistance lie. The "brute" Neanderthal lie. The "whale evolution" lie, exposed very nicely in "Evolution: The Grand Experiment." The horse evolution lie, now thorougly debunked. The "tree of life" lie, which evolutionists even admit is flawed. Haeckel's embryos - one of the grandest lies of all. Read "Icons of Evolution" and be enlightened.

dc: Evidence proves that evolution is right. I know that it is hard for you to deal with, I know it really makes it difficult to keep believing in a creation myth, but that is your problem.

JV: Now it's your turn. The "evidence" please?

But dont let that stop you, it's the only game you've got.

What other game is there? Either we evolved, or we were created.

dc: LOL Now you are just flaunting your ignorance. Millions of people accept both, a form of creation, and evolution. Theistic Evolution is very common. Once again, you do not have a point.

JV: LOL right back at ya. "A form of creation?" You mean evolution with God thrown in as a token because they recognize that EVOLUTION COULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED ON ITS OWN? Is that what you mean?? Any informed creationist understands that evolution and fiat creation don't mix. Even atheist god Richard Dawkins recognized that you cannot be a creationist and an evolutionist at the same time, and rightly accused them of being compromisers of the lowest sort.

1. To WHOM are you "proving the truth"?

dc: To whoever is in a position to judge. You may be able to make your own judgement.... but it doesn't mean that everyone has to accept it, nor does it mean that no judgement can be made until EVERYONE agrees.

JV: LOL! And just WHO is it that is in that "position to judge" and just how do you or anyone else determine that, in which case you're putting yourself in the position of judging the judge! LOL for sure on that one! Re-read your own statement and look how confused you are!

dc: LOL If you decide to misspell words that is your business... but again, you dont have the right to make everyone else take part in your stupidity.

JV: Are you setting yourself up as judge here? If I "misspell" something, why is that stupid? Why isn't it just the language evolving? After all, you're saying evolution screwed up countless times till it got things right, whatever right might be since after all we're still evolving. So what makes something spelled "right" and something else spelled "wrong" and who are you to judge? If you haven't caught on, you are backed into a philosophical corner.

dc: To whoever is in a position to judge. You are able to judge for yourself, what you want to deem true or not.... but that doesn't mean that everyone else has to accept it.

JV: Same as above. I really would like to know who "whoever" is.

dc: We dont have to. You only have to prove or confirm it to those who are in a position to judge.

JV: We're kind of going round and round with this, aren't we? Did you know before space travel, scientists did not think we could travel faster than about 750 miles per hour? Somebody judged wrongly there, I guess... But no doubt good folk like youself would have figured that, because they were EXPERTS, they were in a position to judge. Right?

People all over the world have different religious beliefs and they all claim them to be true... Scientists all over the world however, agree that certain scientific principles are facts. Scientists in India agree that acceleration due to gravity is exactly what North American scientists say it is. Science agrees that Evolution is a fact.

If you want that to change, then you better start coming up with some repeatable evidence.

JV: A BIG LOL to that one! Gravity is testable and observable, though no one knows what it is. Acceleration is observable. Evolution is not. Now, if you can come up with a repetition of the Big Bang, so I can see it turn into everything we know, and along the way you can show where life came from, where the first cell came from, how it began to reproduce, and how it turned itself into you and every other living thing, we'll get somewhere. If scientists everywhere agreed evolution was a fact, there would not be an ever-growing, ever-vocal group of 'em that say it's not. Try looking this up for starters. I'll bet you didn't even know it existed. It's "A dissent from Darwin," signed by hundreds of scientists who no longer believe darwinism's tenets hold water.

dc: Not at all. You haven't provided any evidence to even think about. Which is to be expected since you are just restating faulty arguments that have been shown to be wrong long before now.

JV: The burden's on you now. Where's the beef?

dc: Actually, I wrote to ask for the evidence that you claimed to have. I would love to see it. You just cant seem to produce any.

JV: Once again, the burden's on you. Show me the evidence of evolution. But I don't want just some cheap attempt at where whales or horses came from. I want to know how EVERYTHING evolved, and how one original cell formed itself.

dc: That is exactly what science is. Science proves the lies of religion.

JV: So science has disproved the existence of God? Even dummy Dawkins gives God a one percent chance of existence (see the "Expelled" DVD) just to hedge his bet. On the other hand, given that the very basis of science is that something can be FALSIFIED, it seems much of science is about proving itself wrong! LOL! Of course, though, the excuse is that that's what science is all about, not that the unthinkable would happen and - GASP! - a SCIENTIST would actually tell a LIE about something. (That is, of course, as long as money's not involved...)

dc: Keep up the good work. As long as you rely on propoganda, science is safe

JV: And as long as you rely on pseudoscience, science fiction and mythology, you're NOT safe. However, you ARE wrong.


November 25, 2009

From D. R.

Well actually, I think I've read a number of accounts, quite detailed, explaining what they had been finding, and how it fit in with previous research. I don't think I've ever come across anything describing their work that said evolution was irrelevant.

JV: Come on, will you? They have a vested interest in keeping the evolution myth going. OF COURSE they're not going to admit it's irrelevant!

Could you give me a few references please?

JV: Just look up "antibiotic resistance is not evolution" and you'll find lots of articles on it.

If I can't belief these people when they tell me things I can check, why should I believe them when they say things I can't check?

JV: That is, forgive me, but a laughable statement. You're saying you can check that the big bang came out of nowhere and resulted in everything we know of, and that life started magically from material things getting together in the ocean and being hit by lightning and that's how you got here, and YOU CAN CHECK THAT? I think the only thing evolutionists check is their brains at the door.

I was referring to evolutionary changes. They are not the kind you're likely to see in the mirror in the morning.

JV: They're not the kind you're likely to see. Period.

We're talking here about how particles came into existence from NOTHING and, using NO intelligent input, made themselves into everything.

This has nothing to do with evolution. I think you are talking about cosmology now.

JV: I'm amazed at how many people come up with that. You forgot one word. EVOLUTIONARY cosmology, because something had to come from somewhere to make everything out of nothing. Get it?

Science, as I understand it, is an attempt to understand how things work. Am I wrong?

JV: Not why? Not when? Only "how?"

It has nothing to do with philosophy or souls, or theology.

JV: Absolutely WRONG. Anyone who's been in the scientific arena for long knows full well that not only philosophy (worldview), but bias and, perhaps above all, ECONOMICS, play a large part in scientific "investigation" too.

My point was that scientists look for evidence to test their scientific ideas. I don't see anyone doing anything to test their religious views.

JV: Take off the blinders. You've got to be kidding. The very HISTORY of theology is one of continual testing and trying and constructive and destructive criticism. God gave us brains to use them. Unfortunately some of us are too dumb to know how to use them right.

Most altruistic organizations that I am aware of don't advertise their religious affiliations, so it's impossible to tell. Like trying to find altruistic organizations founded by people who don't collect stamps.

JV: Well, in that case, see if you can find lots of atheists working in altruistic organizations.

For example, why aren't people out there using the ideas of Flood Geology to find new sources of oil, coal, gold, silver, and other metals?

LOL! I know someone personally who's doing just that!
Could you give me details?

JV: No, I can't. It's not my business to broadcast his business on the Internet. However, there are plenty of geologists around who don't buy the evolutionist view of geological history and are working in the petroleum industry. If you're not savvy in that area, you wouldn't know about them.

Why do you feel obligated to believe Richard Dawkins's views on religion.

JV: Huh? I don't believe RD's views on anything.

Start with the Q&A section at
Thank you! I read through the section on "Can Flood geology explain thick chalk beds?"
Snelling seems to be able to tweak the science so as to argue that his argument is plausible, but he doesn't offer any evidence.

JV: Of course, you'd never accuse an evolutionist of "tweaking" evidence, now would you? Have you read about the numerous evolutionary frauds, such as those I mentioned in my response above? The whale evolution is one of the latest. The "Grand Experiment" DVD catches the guy in his lie, and it's priceless.

If Adam and Eve are not literal, there's no need for Jesus or the rest of the Bible.
Why not?

JV: I'm not getting into that here. As I've tried to say over and over, that's not the purpose of this website. That issue is dealt with adequately elsewhere. Take it by faith.

Me: Is science based on your symbolism?

No. Evolutionists have enough of their own.
Examples, please.

JV: Read "Icons of Evolution" for starters.

What evidence would you like me to provide?
Whatever you have.

JV: Done. Above letter. Now it's your turn. Blow me away with all your evidence for evolution from nothing to everything.

And if I do, are you going to believe it?
I can't rationally answer that until I see the evidence, and see how solid it is, can I?

JV: That's not a question that evokes a "rational" answer. It's a philosophical question. You are NOT going to believe it. All the evidence in the world won't convince you if you've already made your mind up to see what you want to see. That truth plays itself out over and over in the course of human events.


November 26, 2009

Hi K---,

> There is NO evidence that evolution ever did happen, is happening, or will happen. Take off the blinders, K--. Just saw a new DVD (there's a book too) called Evolution: The Grand Experiment. Look it up, and check it out.

This is the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

JV: I'm sure any bit of information on the Internet can become an iceberg nowadays. I can point out lots of websites to you, too. That proves absolutely nothing but that your side has its (pathetic, if I may say so) arguments, and my side has our arguments too. What you need to do is not let others do your thinking for you. I believe in researching BOTH sides so that I know what each says, and then weighing which makes more sense, which is more logical, and which has more scientific merit. There is no scientific merit in saying that particles came into existence with no former cause, and then made themselves into everything we know of, including the brains we have to investigate them. Neither is there logic in it. Neither is there sense. It did not happen, no matter what those pathetic websites try to come up with to "prove" it did, which they can never do, because it can't be repeated. Meantime, I'm very familiar with talkorigins and their pathetic arguments (btw, take a look at my comments to you above this letter, on your recommendation of the Dawkins book). Meantime, check out for a plethora of good responses to talkorigins dribble.

And I have tried over and over to get you to see that the theory of evolution has NOTHING to do with the origin of life. Does germ theory have anything to do with the origin of bacteria? Does gravitational theory have anything to do with the origin of matter? Also, evolution doesn't fundamentally have anything to do with increasing information or creating anything new. Evolution, at the most basic level, is change. It doesn't matter whether you or I think that this change is good or bad.

JV: I'm afraid you're way behind the times on that one. Enough said. And I already discussed the bit about evolution meaning "change." That's the classic modern bait-and-switch game evo-illusionists have plied to the unsuspecting.

Evolution would very much be possible without abiogenesis. All evolution requires in order to get started is life, it doesn't matter how this life came about. Accretion has nothing to do with evolution. Not every scientific theory you disagree with can be lumped togther under the headaing of evolution. Also, when you get down to it, planets aren't that different from each other. They all have pretty much the same basic features.

JV: Evolution is not possible without abiogenesis. Again, you're behind the times and also not informed. As for "All evolution requires in order to get started is life," that statement stands alone in no need of further comment, if you would simply THINK about it.

I've never disputed this fact. Of course evolution needs something to work with. You might as well shout that EROSION REQUIRES ROCKS THAT ARE ALREADY PRESENT! Of course it does, but you don't need to explain where rocks come from to explain how they can be broken down over time by the environment, just like you don't need to explain where life comes from to explain how it can develop over time.

JV: Nice try there! You're right. We don't need to know where rocks came from to see that they erode. However, you're comparing rocks and socks (cutesy little play on the apples and oranges bit). You don't need to know where rocks came from in order to demonstrate erosion. However, you DO need to know where life came from in order to know whether it's evolving or not, because the process is so SLOW that you can't see it happening, unless, that is, you believe in punctuated equilibrium, which makes it so FAST, we can't see it happening. You can look at rocks and see that they're eroding, but you can't look at a lion and see right away how it became a lion, and what it'll turn into next. You have to try to extrapolate backwards or forwards, which you can't. And the origin of rocks is easy enough to explain because we see it happening. A volcano explodes, and, voila'! rocks are formed. A concretion forms around an object and turns to rock. We don't see evolution happening, no matter what pathetic "examples" the evolutionists try to foist on the public. In all the millions of species that still exist, not counting the extinct ones, there should be lots of evidence of evolution, and there's not. Stephen Gould called the lack of transitional fossils "the trade secret of paleontology." That's from one of the popes of evolution. What more could you ask for?

We don't know yet where it came from. Once again, evolution deals with what happens to it once it was here, not where it came from.

JV: Wrong again. Do you read books on this stuff? Almost all of them begin with the big burp, then the "origin" of life, which none of them can explain, then how that life took on all the forms we now know.

You do realised that not every organism that dies becomes a fossil, right? It's quite a rare process. The fossil record is chock full of so called "failed evolutionary experiments", they're what we call extinct.

JV: You are not thinking. Things are going extinct in our own day. I think this is kind of funny, actually, how hypocritical evolutionists are. They're crying and whining about things going extinct on the one hand, while on the other they'd say that if things DIDN'T go extinct, "new" living things could not take their place. Well, where are all the "new" living things that should be popping into existence to supplant the ones going extinct? And why, for that matter, get upset about pollution and such? Won't new living things just adapt and evolve to live with it? And didn't all living things start in a mixture of noxious gases at the beginning of time? So why worry?! The fossils do not show "failed" evolutionary experiments. They show completely formed, functional living things, with eyes, bones, etc. They show things that died off for one reason or other, and were NOT replaced. A "failed" evolutionary experiment (and the record should show COUNTLESS ones) would be something like an eye on the butt of a horse, or an elbow on the forehead of a human, or a toe sticking out of a knee. THOSE would show that evolution was "at work" to figure out where would be the best place for those things to be. How about a stomach attached to a hand, or a mouth with teeth on the outside, running up the nose? That would be a real evolutionary experiment in the making. How is it that evolution "knew" just the right places to put everything? How did it know to put teeth in your mouth, and not on your feet? Have you ever THOUGHT about this stuff?


December 3, 2009

Hi K---

JV Said: There is no scientific merit in saying that particles came into existence with no former cause, and then made themselves into everything we know of, including the brains we have to investigate them.

I totally agree with you. It's fortunate, then, that no scientific theory states this.

JV: It's understood. However, Alan Guth did say so in his "inflation theory" and there's a new book out, "Nothing Created Everything" that you might want to check out, though it's not by an evolutionist because they would not be honest enough to admit that's exactly what they believe.

Why is evolution not possible without abiogenesis? Abiogenesis is one way life could have started on Earth. There are other theories as to the origins of life here, none of which have any bearing on theories regarding the development of existing life. A higher power could have provided the catalyst for the beginnings of life, and evolution could still happen.

JV: Repeat: Evolution is not possible without abiogenesis. End of story. Don't throw in a token "higher power" or Dawkins will get after you.

You can't look at a rock and see that it's eroding.

JV: As a collector of rocks, I beg to differ.

You can look and a rock and see a piece break off, but this is not erosion. Erosion is a cumulative process, not an event.

JV: You're confusing the process with the evidence. You CAN look at a rock and see it's eroding. By its appearance, by the resultant debris around it that's of the same appearance and composition as the rock, and by the plain fact that it's exposed to the elements.

There is evidence for evolution,

JV: I keep hearing that statement, but not one of you has produced a speck of it.

Yes, they start by saying that at some point in time, life appeared on Earth.

JV: Isn't that convenient? Life "appeared" on earth. Do you know how many other times they use the word "appeared?" Complex fossils "appear" out of nowhere. Flowering plants "appear" suddenly in the fossil record. And on and on. In fact, it's the very fact of how often things conveniently "appear" in evolution that got me thinking about it being false to begin with!

You and I both agree that life hasn't always been here. “How” it got here is meaningless to how it developed once it was here.

JV: Say what? You're kidding right? Meaningless? That sounds like a classic evolutionist brush off. The very fact that we search for our origins betrays that we believe there's meaning in it to begin with. You don't want to know where you came from, why you're here, or where you're going?

What data have you seen to suggest that people who are worried about extinction all accept evolution?

JV: Prove me wrong. Most environmentalist fanatics are not creationists, by any means. I'm not saying environmentalism is a bad thing. Just that most of those concerned about it believe we're the result of a bunch of poisons being hit by lightning to begin with. Prove me wrong.

Through evolution, species don't "pop" into existence. That's at the core of creationism.

JV: I just gave you examples above that put the lie to that statement. Ever heard of the Cambrian explosion? The sudden appearance of gymnosperms? Ever hear of punctuated equilibrium? Its basic tenet is that new speciee appear suddenly. Ie, pop into existence.

JV Said: The fossils do not show "failed" evolutionary experiments. They show completely formed, functional living things, with eyes, bones, etc. They show things that died off for one reason or other, and were NOT replaced.

How do you know they weren't "replaced"?

JV: Show me the goods. Ever seen an evolution "tree?" Even the evs now admit it's a bit off, since it shows fully formed, diverse organisms at the tips of the branches, but nothing in between. The only "replacements" are due to the imaginations of the evolutionists, like the whale example I keep mentioning. Or the horse. Ever seen the "evolutionary" tree of a horse? It's all in the imagination. No fact or testable, repeatable science involved at all.

Evolution doesn't start with a whole bunch of parts and put them together randomly to see what works.

JV: Apparently you're not familiar with Richard Dawkins as much as I thought you were. That was EXACTLY the argument he used AGAINST Michael Behe's "irreducible complexity".

You mentioned earlier that you prefer to research both sides and decide for yourself which makes sense, yet you constantly demonstrate a lack of even the most basic understanding of evolutionary theory.

JV: Thanks! I'd rather be lacking when it comes to stupidity. There IS nothing to understand in evolution apart from the fact that it's false, a lie, and has been thoroughly debunked at this point.


December 3, 2009

From D. C.:

Mutations don't work; they don't create anything new,

dc: Simple to say. And probably acceptable to the uneducated. But in science if you make a statement, you have to prove it. Otherwise you are just stating your opinion, and your opinion is not evidence of anything.

JV: Very simple to say. Also simple to demonstrate, as has been done thoroughly. Since you disagree, now it's YOUR turn to prove that mutations DO create something new. That is completely new, not just some rearrangement of what's already there. Go for it! PROVE IT! Obviously you're not just gonna sit back and take it on the chin!

dc: Evolution does claim that people make themselves out of nothing (apparently you are unclear on the very topics you claim to argue). In fact, only Creation claims that things are created out of nothing.

JV: "Evolution" doesn't "claim" anything. People do. Now, what you need to do is go back to Evolution 101. If people did not come from nothing, then where did they come from at the very beginning, before there was anything that could become the something that became people? You're grasping at straws, and you know it. This is a CLASSIC example of the religious fanatic nature of evolution. You believe in something blindly, and make every excuse for that belief, despite all the contrary evidence and logic.

The fossil record gaps have not been filled, nor will they.

dc: Denying the sky is blue, is just a faulty opinion. Just like claiming there are no transitional fossils. Unless of course you can actually support your opinion? Otherwise you are just talking nonsense.

JV: So far all you have done is make blanket, unsubstantiated statements claiming that my claims are false. How about putting some oomph behind your words? My "opinion" is more than adequately supported by fact. Otherwise, I will expect you to provide evidence for transitional fossils for every living thing, not just a handful of imaginary, and falsified, evolutionist wishful thinking "transitions."

The fossil record shows fully formed, functional living things, not "becoming" things.

dc: Wow. I am always surprised when a creationist uses this ridiculous argument - you wear you ignorance like a badge. What else would transitional fossils be other than "fully functional living things"? If they weren't, how would they survive to pass on their genes? You apparantly haven't given this much thought. Coupled with your ignorance of evolution, this is actually quite comical.

JV: I've already answered that, but it doesn't seem to have gotten through. First, you don't know your own theory, because vestigial organs are those which became NON functional, supposedly, and that was supposed to be a "proof" of evolution. Unfortunately evolutionists didn't have enough sense to realize that because an organ becomes non-functional, that doesn't demonstrate where the organ came from in the first place. Further, almost all "vestigial" organs have now been shown to have had a function, or to still be functional. Next, you need to show me (that is, dispel my ignorance) how it is that evolution always knows just where to put everything. If you can show me teeth evolving on fingertips, then finding their way into the mouth, that would be a good transitional fossil. If you can show me a wing growing out of an eye socket, or a liver growing on a knee till they found the right places where they'd function best, that would be a good transitional fossil, not fossils that have all the right appendages and organs in just the right places. Are you really so dense that you do not understand that? Even Darwin admitted the lack of transitional fossils was the biggest threat to his theory. Get over it - they ain't there.

Information, such as that found in genetic material, cannot arise on its own, without a source, nor is it useful standing on its own, without a code, mode of transmission, mode of reception, and the machinery to make it useful.

dc: That's why living things evolve. Living organisms have genetic material, with a source, that does not have to stand alone, with a code, a mode of transmission, a mode of reception, and the machinery to make it useful. You really dont have a clue do you?

JV: Hmm, maybe I don't. On the other hand, it seems to have flown right over your head that I alluded to the impossibility of information arising on its own, and you passed right on by that to living organisms with genetic material. Now tell me where the genetic material and the information it contains came from. You really don't have a clue, do you?

The universe is winding down (entropy), not up.

dc: So? Are you suggesting that things can never be more organised than they were in the past? I guess we can add the Laws of Thermodynamics to your list of topics that you are ignorant of.

JV: Once again the typical "you're ignorant" brush off with absolutely no evidence to support your position. Because you know there is none. If you're going to attempt to bring up the debunked "crystals" argument, the NET entropy when crystals are formed is an increase, and the crystals begin decaying as soon as they're formed. So don't bother trying that one on me.

dc: LOL I dont even have a science degree

JV: That is obvious. Of course, if you DID have a science degree, that would make you an EXPERT in EVERYTHING, right? You'd be up there with the other science gods.

dc: Rather than actually post evidence, you are going to ask me a question.... why am I not surprised?

JV: ZZzzzzzzz. Same old boring responses. Can you actually respond with something of substance for a change?

It's like the Flood question, which is, "If there were a global flood, what evidence would you expect to see?" I have NEVER gotten a straight answer from an evolutionist on that one. Evasion, changing the subject, blowing it off as a "dumb" question, etc., but NEVER a direct response.

dc: I dont think it is a dumb question. It is difficult to answer unless we establish a few things first. Is the flood in question, the flood of the bible? And by that I mean, is it supposedly responsible for deaths of every living thing on the earth (other than the occupants of the ark) all at once, about 6 thousand years ago?

JV: That is irrelevant to my question, which was, if there was a global flood, what evidence would you expect to see? The fact of your bringing the Biblical flood up and immediately dismissing it as false does nothing less than demonstrate my point that you and others like you have a bias that you're not able to overcome, no matter what the facts and evidence. Of course, you have no problem believing that an asteroid selectively killed off the dinosaurs, do you?

dc: If so, there are some very obvious things we should expect. For instance, if the flood in question happened in our recent past, one should be able to find a fairly regular layer of silt and shale that is absolutely packed with the remains of literally trillions of organisms. Futhermore, this layer would be faily close to the surface in most cases. You should be able to go out to your back yard, dig a couple of feet down, and find not one dinosaur, but dozensof organisms everywhere. You see Flooding is actually pretty good conditions for fossils to form. Quick death, Quick cover. We should find dinosaur skeletons with human skeletons and chicken skeletons, and bird skeletons... all in the same layer. This ofcourse does occur anywhere, let alone everwhere.

JV: Obviously you have not studied a single word about hydrodynamics, specific weight, and deposition mechanics, so it's not worth trying to argue that with you.

So here's my question on design: "What evidence would you expect to see?" Thanks.

dc: Done, see above.

JV: You're kiddin', right?

Now I'll tell you what evidence I'd expect to see if evolution were true (see my above answer to K-- on that, for starters). I'd expect TRILLIONS upon TRILLIONS of FAILED fossils in the record.

dc: Why? The conditions needed for fossils to form are fairly rare, it's not like science claims a world wide flood killed everything. If anything, you should expect there to be a shortage of transitional fossils. So you are wrong.

JV: I don't understand the above statement at all. If there was a worldwide flood that buried things that were living contemporaneously, we would expect a LACK of transitional fossils, which is exactly what we have.

I mean all sorts of evolutionary monsters, not fully-formed, functional entities.

dc: As explained above, your suggestion that transitional organisms not be functional is just silly, and not reflected in the reality of what science says transitional fossils are. So again, you are wrong.

JV: I've been told I'm wrong about a half dozen times here by someone who admits to having no science background and who obviously is speaking off the top of his head with no real knowledge of the subject matter. If you want a good "transitional" fossil, look at the monster fruitfly that is supposedly a "proof" of evolution, but has four wings, two of which are useless, and antennae growing out of places where they are totally useless. There's your "proof" of evolution.

I'd expect to be seeing LOTS of evolution in action RIGHT NOW, that is, species changing from one to the other.

dc: Why would you expect to see species changing from one to another as we watch? Science clearly explains that it is a process of small steps that take hundreds of thousands, even millions of years.... but you think it should happen while you are watching? Your ignorance of that which you condemn is appaling. Again, you are wrong.

JV: Well, now, you're telling me on the one hand there are lots of transitional fossils in the record, but on the other hand you're telling me evolution happens too slowly to see transitional forms evolving. How convenient! Evolution happens, but we just can't see it happen. Sounds like religious fanaticism to me!

I'd expect to see evidence that nothing can turn itself into everything with no outside help.

dc: Well that has actually happened.

JV: THANKS! That's the BEST statement you've made yet! I'll be quoting that one! So, did you or anyone else actually SEE it happen? No? You mean you believe it did, but nobody saw it? Oh, that's right, it all happened too slowly. Sorry, I'm wrong again.

dc: Here is some reading if you are actually interested:

JV: First you admit to not having a science background, then you quote me some pathetic articles, the subject matter of which you know nothing about?

dc:Again, you are wrong.

JV: So are you. Majorly. Only, you've not done much more than tell me I'm wrong and quote a few articles that other people wrote who at least know something about the subject matter.

I'd expect to see evidence that life could come about all on its own.

dc: Why? Evolution has to do with the changes in life forms, not the origin of life forms. Again, you are wrong.

Wow, this is getting tedious.

JV: I agree. In fact, we're really getting nowhere because you've not provided one iota of information to demonstrate what you've obviously put all your faith in. And for what reason? You're going to die and become fodder for future evolution. So what difference does it all make? Have you ever even thought about that? You're arguing for a past that has no meaning, a present that only has the meaning you assign to it, and a future with no hope whatsoever.

You're wrong. Big time.

Ciao for now.


December 3, 2009

D. R. L. wrote:

What "vested interest" do they have in keeping any myth going? How do you know? What is your evidence?

JV: All the evidence in the world won't convince a blinded fanatic. If you don't see it now, you won't see it then.

This sounds like the logical fallacy known as "poisoning the well." These authors offer evidence. You only make snide remarks to suggest that anyone who has any ideas different from yours must be a liar and a fraud.

JV: Maybe they are! If not, how do you know? What is your evidence?

After all, science is judged by its results, so there's not much to be gained from myths. Do you think computers, airplanes, satellites, modern medications, sanitation, nuclear power, etc. are myths as well?

JV: The same old tired arguments. Can you demonstrate for me how evolution was necessary in any of those endeavors? Evolution is not necessary for any branch of science to advance. It is a faith belief about where we came from, why we're here, and our destiny, and a pathetic one at that. I fail to understand what you people are fighting for. Let me see: We're fighting for ape ancestors, no purpose, and no future. Onward HO!

Could you give me a few references please?

JV: Just look up "antibiotic resistance is not evolution" and you'll find lots of articles on it.

I got four hits. Two just repeated your claim, without providing any evidence. The other two patiently explained why it is not true. Science's definition of evolution is "change in frequency of alleles over generations." This exactly what happens when antibiotic resistance develops.

JV: You must have used a pretty poor search engine. I just looked it up on google, and 372,000 articles came up. Certainly there must be something in there that would educate you. However, to make it simple, antibiotic resistance does not demonstrate evolution for the following reasons: First, it arises in genetic material that is ALREADY present. I can't say that enough, but evolutionists just don't seem to get it. Second, when an antibiotic is introduced, bacteria that are ALREADY PRESENT and have resistance flourish, where the normal flora is killed off. Third, when the antibiotic is removed, the normal flora return and the resistant strains die out. Now, if you can tell me how that demonstrates how bacteria arose from nothing and turned into bacteria, then we'll be getting somewhere.

This has nothing to do with evolution. I think you are talking about cosmology now.

JV: Why are you people so dense? If you have done any reading on the subject of evolution whatsoever, you would know your statement is wrong. What you're trying to do is get around the fact that you can't demonstrate how living things arose from nothing, so you evade the subject by saying that's cosmology, not evolution. Well, I'm not letting you get away with it. If you can't show me where the material came from that turned itself into living things, you're nothing but a deceiver and blinded religious fanatic. I'm not going to let you get away with making the starting point of evolution the "first living cell" as if you then don't have to demonstrate how that evolved to begin with.

Anyway, it has nothing to do with evolution as biologists study it.

JV: Obviously you are not well read on the subject, at all.

To the extent that why and when are subsumed under how. Scientists don't try to read God's mind, it that's what you mean.

JV: No, many prefer to see themselves in God's place, so they don't need to read His mind.

One case I thought of was Norman Bethune, an outspoken atheist, who devoted his life (and died) to help provide medical care for the poor and help fight fascism.

JV: One case? Compared to probably millions who have been motivated by a devotion to God. Also, Dr. Bethune came from a line of ministers, so no doubt knew something about what it means to have faith in God, or a god, or whatever, and perhaps rebelled against that. In any event, you will have to demonstrate that his altruism was MOTIVATED by his atheism, which would be a complete contradiction. How can a belief in nothing more than yourself motivate anyone to anything that is truly not self-serving?

Of course, most atheists don't advertise their generosity.

JV: LOL! Most believers in God don't either. They just do it, and get criticized by those who don't have the guts or energy to do it themselves. If we actually knew all the good that God-fearing people did in the world, and took it away, I'd love to see what condition the world would be in then.

Thank you! I read through the section on "Can Flood geology explain thick chalk beds?" Snelling seems to be able to tweak the science so as to argue that his argument is plausible, but he doesn't offer any evidence.

JV: I'm so tired of that boring argument. All the evidence in the world is offered in those articles. But if you're blind, you simply refuse to see it, or if you're dishonest (like Dawkins, who can "see" design in living things, but is sure they're not designed), you simply refuse to acknowledge it because you fear the ramifications. The "Grand Experiment" DVD catches the guy in his lie, and it's priceless.

I'm trying to cure myself of my addiction to buying books and DVDs before my house collapses from the weight. Can you summarize what it says?

JV: Sure! It says that everything you believe about evolution is false. Now, go get the book, Evolution: The Grand Experiment. Anyone who can read a book like that and come away still believing in evolution is just downright dishonest.

Keep in touch,


December 4, 2009

Hi K--,

Sorry to not get back sooner. I just have to find the right time to respond to stuff on the website. Also, my wife graciously formats it and uploads it to the site in the Feedback section, and she has to have the time to do that, too.

Why is evolution not possible without abiogenesis?

JV: I fail to understand how you can ask that question. The very reason for the existence of abiogenesis, which is a fancy word for the falsified theory of spontaneous generation, is that scientists have to come up with some way that life arose from inorganic material. In other words, you can't just start with a single cell organism and take it from there. Inquiring minds want to know how a single cell organism arose from inorganic matter. So, you push the "evolutionary" timeline back further and further, till you arrive basically at the fact that nothing was there in the beginning, and nothing somehow managed to make itself into everything.

No. You can look at a rock and see that it HAS eroded. You can't look at a rock and see that it IS eroding. You can look at a species and see that it HAS evolved, but you can't actually see evolution happening.

JV: Well, now, that is very convenient. We're sure evolution is happening. We just can't see it. And we're sure it HAPPENED. We just didn't SEE it. Only evolutionists could accept such a thing. If a creationist came up with it, he'd be laughed into oblivion. In fact, if a creationist came up with a lot of what evolutionists proffer, the same would happen. Suppose a creationist said the Bible was written somewhere between 10 and 20,000 years ago? That's a margin of error that pales in comparison to what evolutionists come up with, but would never be acceptable if a creationist said it. I once did an Internet search for the age of the universe, and came up with claims between 8 and 20 BILLION years. Just stop and think about that a minute.

If you are able to see enough generations (such as with bacteria), you can see the results of evolution on a population within a human lifetime, but can't actually view the process, just as we can't actually view the process of a tree growing, but can compare it over different points of time and see that it has changed.

JV: Oh, come on K--! Just look at what you believe in! How many generations of bacteria have come and gone since the first alleged one-celled organism appeared? But they're still bacteria, and in fact, supposed 3 billion year old "fossil" bacteria are still recognizable as bacteria. Ok, so in your belief, some of those bacteria turned into other things, including people, but others just kept the status quo. And even though some of those bacteria "evolved" into MILLIONS of other species, we just don't see it happening now because it happened too slowly. Come on! Just stop and THINK about this stuff for a minute, and hopefully you'll see how ridiculous it is!

You ask for evidence, we present it, you say it's not evidence. What more do you want? It's not like we're going to sit you down and force you to look at it.

JV: Excuse me? Exactly what evidence have you or anyone else here presented that demonstrates how nothing turned itself into everything?

Things SEEM to appear suddenly in the fossil record because the fossil record is incomplete.

JV: Lol! That's what Darwin whined about 150 years ago. It's also what Stephen Gould called the "trade secret of paleontology." You need to read the book Evolution: The Grand Experiment. It does a great job of blowing the "fossil record" argument you present out of the water.

Imagine you were watching a slide show of pictures taken of a person everyday for the entire life. The change from day to day would be so gradual that you couldn't notice it between any two photos, but would notice it to a greater extent the further the two photos were removed from each other. This is analogous (in incredibly simple terms) to a complete fossil record for a species.

JV: No it is not, at all. The first flaw in your argument is that the person would show deterioration with time, not improvement. The second flaw is that it's observable and quantifiable. There would be no guesswork involved, no contrived stories. The FACT is, the fossil record shows nothing but fully formed, fully functional organisms. It's a well-known embarrassment to the evolutionary community that evolutionary "trees" show fully formed, fully functional organisms at the tips of their branches, but nothing in between. If your "film" scenario could be used to show evolution it should show millions upon millions of flawed, useless things evolving while evolution was "weeding out" the "stuff" that would not work and honing each living entity into the one with the most "survivability." In other words, there would be teeth showing up on knees, and wings on noses, and fingernails on tails, and lungs on ears, and so on, till evolution got it all right, and got the wiring to the brain all correct so it would all function together. Instead, we see a fossil record where functionality and form rules, not chaos.

Let's say each day is a generation, and the man lived to be 100, giving us 36500 generations. The actual fossil record would be more like missing YEARS worth of photos in any given place,

JV: Again, very convenient. And again, your argument fails because you're using what's NOT there to "prove" evolution, not what IS there.

and we'd be lucky to find consecutive photos that span a few weeks, during which we wouldn't see any noticeable change.

JV: Again, proving evolution by what's MISSING.

and each species would SEEM to appear suddenly,

JV: Ahh, now you're appealing to the Richard Dawkins Method of Reasoning : Things "seem" to be designed with a purpose, but don't let your eyes, logic and intellect deceive you! In reality they're not! And on the same line of reasoning, complex living things "seem" to appear suddenly in the fossil record, but we have to appeal to what's NOT there, and what's NOT evident, and what's NOT visible, in order to support our evolutionary mythology.

yet comparing the similarities between species of different ages (not just using fossils, but comparing the DNA of existing species), we can get a fairly solid idea of the relationship between them.

JV: Any "relationship" between them is purely contrived human imagination, with no basis in fact or reality. It's like saying there's a relationship between a wagon wheel and an auto tire. Sure, they're both made to do the same thing, but to say one turned into the other is a bit ridiculous. They were just both designed to perform the purpose for which they were designed.

Why do we see similarities and differences between species and what is the explanation for the diversity of life on this planet?

JV: Simple. We see similarities and differences because they were made with similarities and differences, depending on what function they had. Just like there are similarities between a pen and pencil and everything else created by humans (how about shoes, for example?!) but that doesn't mean one turned into another. If we believe in a Creator, then we attribute the similarities to having to perform similar functions, like flight, and the differences to creative whimsy. The explanation for the diversity of life on this planet is that the original kinds of life were created with the information and capacity for diversification already present in the created entity (genome or whatever you wish). There was no starting with dirt that turned itself into something living and that living thing started on a journey to increased complexity all on its own, till we arrived at all living things and then some. Things just don't happen like that, and it's nothing but a myth to try to explain origins without appeal to intelligence, design or a creator. Sort of like arguing that a computer made itself so we don't have to give any credit to a creator or designer.

That a species SEEMS to appear suddenly doesn't mean it has popped into existence, it means that we don't have a complete picture of that time period. The fact that we have the fossil record we do is astounding, considering how rare an event fossilisation is.

JV: Yet again, and appeal to what's NOT there to prove your point.

Every species can be linked to every other species by following the branches back to a common ancestor, then turning around and following the branches forward to another species. The evolutionary tree of a species is based primarily on evidence and secondarily on logical extrapolations based on this evidence.

JV: You're missing something here. Even your scientist priests have recognized that evolutionary trees are flawed and don't show evolution at all. You need to catch up with the times. Read Icons of Evolution for starters.

As far as I can recall, the argument used against irreducible complexity was that if a system can perform a given function ONLY with all parts present, yet each part can perform a different function independently of the others, or the system can perform a different function when parts are removed, the system is not irreducibly complex. Irreducible complexity suggests that if a single part is removed from the system, the system will be completely useless for ANY function.

JV: Irreducible compexity is the argument that to perform a particular task, all the parts have to be there and fully functional. In other words, to use one of Behe's examples, to have blood clotting, you have to have the entire system ready and functional or else the whole thing fails. Without blood clotting, none of us could exist. So to take away a part of the cascade mechanism and say that part could have originally been utilized in some other capacity fails as an argument, because what you need it to do it no longer does. Like taking a carburetor and making it into a flower pot and saying you've improved your automobile. Take away one part of the clotting mechanism, and we die. Dead things don't evolve.

So you admit that you don't understand evolution, but are running a website trying to say how it is false.

JV: As I said, there is nothing to understand because it's a falsified myth. Sort of like accusing me of admitting I don't understand how the earth could be sitting on a turtle, when in fact millions say it is doing just that. I understand just fine why it's a falsified myth. Hope you catch on soon, too.

Shouldn't you at least have a basic working knowledge of the theory before attempting to argue against it? If you wanted to see if a biography written about a person was accurate, wouldn't one of the steps be to actually read it first?

JV: If I listed all the books, videos, DVDs, etc. I've studied on both sides of this topic over the years, let alone discussions with people on all facets of the question, it would probably bore you to tears.


December 28, 2009

Love your E-BOOK, God Bless
--D. S.

Thanks! Always nice to get a positive note now and then!


January 2, 2010

DC writes:

dc: LOL You are just going to rely on the old creationist tricks? You dont honestly think I have to prove you are wrong do you? Are you that ignorant of science? The onus is on you to prove you are right. Science has already won this battle. The status quo is fine with me. Evolution in the science classroom and creationism in churches. If you want that to change, then you have to prove you are right.

JV: That's a great demonstration of your ignorance and inability to argue your position with anything substantive.

Until that happens, I dont have to worry about taking anything on the chin, Science has already won.

Won what? Hmm, let's see.... We came from monkeys. We have no real purpose. Then we die. And all with not a shred of evidence to demonstrate that any of it is factual! I'd say you've won BIG time! I wanna be on your team!

"Science" has proven evolution to be wrong, and I and others have given sufficient reasons why. That's why you have more and more scientists signing the "Dissent from Darwin" document (look it up on Google, and be amazed). Little by little, they're coming out of the closet. First the leaders, then the fence sitters, then the followers, who comprise the bulk of the non-thinking who are easily led by those they consider "experts." I get the impression you are in the latter group.


January 2, 2010

D. R. L. writes:

It sounds like you would rather call me names than present any evidence.

JV: Uh, yeah. I've presented no evidence, while you've given me the usual "mountain" of evidence for your myth. "There are none so blind as those who will not see."

Isn't it the responsibility of the person making an accusation to present evidence? Otherwise, I could just say, for example, that you were mean to your neighbour when you were a kid. Prove me wrong.

JV: Interesting that you'll believe what someone tells you happened millions of years ago, a someone who was not there, a someone who has only lived a few years on this earth, but if you said I was mean to my neighbour I'd have to prove you wrong. I really do find that interesting! Now, of course, I could perhaps just go look up my neighbor (or other neighbors who lived nearby) and he or she could give you an eyewitness account, but as an evolutionist you're in a bit of a quandary because you simply believe the imaginary story someone told you and there's no way you could have an eyewitness or any other account, other than a story you and others have contrived to supposedly "fit" the facts.

I was referring to science in general, not just evolution. Here are some articles on the uses of the concept evolution in doing medical-related research:

Here is a list of related articles:

JV: So you get your "science" from PBS? Too bad. I appreciate your looking up articles on the Internet that you think support your position, but I'd really like to see you argue and articulate it yourself. Naturally there is going to be a smattering of articles here and there that try to "prove" that a belief in evolution is necessary for science and medicine to advance. But they are articles written for the unthinking who are happy to be led along by those who think for them. If you actually study antibiotic resistance, you'll realize that it has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution, and, like the other pathetic concepts evolutionists are constantly trumpeting, it actually demonstrates anything BUT evolution. Now, if you could take antibiotic resistance and show me how that proves that human beings evolved from nothing, THAT would be quite a demonstration that the myth you believe might be true. Otherwise, it's just another pathetic example of the brainwashed grasping for straws.

Evolution is not necessary for any branch of science to advance. Scientists say otherwise. Why do you think you know more about their work than they do? Where does Jesus call for such arrogance?

JV: "Scientists" say lots of things. Other "scientists" disagree. They say the earth is warming up, despite the fact that it's actually cooled the last few years. They once said the universe revolved around the Earth. Some of them say not to eat eggs. Others say eggs are good for you. Too bad you've made them your final authority. Not a good thing. Try thinking for yourself, please.

Second, when an antibiotic is introduced, bacteria that are ALREADY PRESENT and have resistance flourish, where the normal flora is killed off. Right! That's how evolution works. Survival of the fittest - in this case, the most drug resistant.

JV: You gotta love it! No matter WHAT I said, that would be how evolution works, because the brainwashed see everything as working for evolution. I just got done pointing out that antibiotic resistance has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with how anything evolved or is evolving, and VOILA'! to you, that's just how evolution works! Just gotta love it. "Survival of the fittest" has been amply demonstrated to be a tautology. You have to define "fittest" and of course, those are the ones that "survive." In other words, it's just another evolutionary word game that explains nothing whatsoever.

JV said: Third, when the antibiotic is removed, the normal flora return and the resistant strains die out.

Of course.Who ever said otherwise? The environment changes, so the definition of what "fitness" is within that environment also changes.

How would you explain this phenomenon without using evolution? That evil spirits are changing the bacteria? How would that help to deal with the problem it presents?

JV: You are demonstrating a complete lack of understanding here. Let's take a look at your reasoning, using my example:

If you do not see the foolishness of that "reasoning" then I'm at a loss for further words.

If you're interested, there's a segment on this question in the PSB series on Evolution.

JV: PBS again, eh? Try some other sources, would you?

JV said: Now, if you can tell me how that demonstrates how bacteria arose from nothing and turned into bacteria, then we'll be getting somewhere. Aren't you confusing evolution with Genesis, where God created everything out of nothing? That's NOT evolution.

JV: Oh, no, far be it from me! I'm talking about evolution, where EVERYTHING CAME FROM NOTHING AND MADE ITSELF INTO EVERYTHING! Forgive me for the confusion!

How living things arose is something biochemists are trying to understand and call abiogenesis. Evolution is about what happened and happens to living things AFTER they first arose. What you're saying is that you can't read a map until you understand everything about road construction.

JV: They used to call it "spontaneous generation" but since that's a well-disproved "scientific" notion that was believed by MOST "scientists" at one time, and no doubt those who disagreed were ostracized, but now they call it "abiogenesis" to fool the foolish. And here we go again with trying to start with what's already there, and not have to explain where it came from in the first place. No, you are wrong, along with all your cronies who are trying to weasel out of it too. Evolution had to start somewhere, and you're not getting away with trying to evade the question.

You don't know what I believe or don't believe about evolution or much else, for that matter. Is such arrogance necessary?

JV: If you'd stop telling me what you believe in these emails, I wouldn't have to be so arrogant and assume that what you're saying you believe is actually what you believe.


January 8, 2010

You have purposefully misunderstood evolution in order to justify your own beliefs. I will make one point on this matter and one point only, in the full title of Origin of Species, Darwin is referring to the races of animals all across the planet, not the different races of man. The fact that you ignore this simple point proves to me that you are going to attack evolution by whatever means necessary. Considering a mountain of evidence and the best scientific minds are all against you, it is understandable that you would distort information in such a way. Good day sir. Read a book.

--W. F.

Hello and thanks for your input, flawed as it is. You apparently misunderstand the fable you believe in, and are unaware that Darwin followed the Origin with a book called The Descent of Man, in which he espoused his theories on such, including making distinctions between the "savage" races and the more "civilized" ones. To insinuate that Darwin's "Origin"does not include human origins is naive at best, and the fact that his follow-up book focuses on that should quiet people like you once for all, but of course it will not.

As for "justifying my own beliefs," of course an evolutionist would never do such a horrible thing, now would he? Richard Dawkins comes immediately to mind for some reason, but nah.... Say it isn't so! No reasonable person would try to justify their beliefs. I'm sure you would never be guilty of such a thing!

As for the "mountain of evidence" (a rather insipid phrase we hear all the time), I don't see that you've provided even a grain of sand's worth of it, let alone a hill. I'd say it's more a "valley" of non-evidence, but that's just me.

As for reading a book, some advice you might consider yourself. Start with something like Evolution: The Grand Experiment, or Shattering the Myth of Darwinism. That is, if you're not afraid of having your cherished beliefs challenged by intelligent thinkers.


April 17, 2010

Just wanted to say thank you for the info! I love your figure of speech:) Easy to understand for kids and adults. It goes to show that you don't need to have a PhD to show how stupid the religion of evolution really is.
--V. C.

Thanks, V-!

April 29, 2010

dc: So once again, if you think you see it, it must be true.

JV: Only for evolutionists.

dc: That's the best you can do? You might as well say "I know you are but what am I?" As I have said many times before, your arguments are nothing more than childish and illogical.

JV: Geocentrism was taught in science classrooms in Galileo's time, too.

dc: It was. And those were classrooms run by the christians. The same christian run classrooms that persecuted Galileo. And it would have stayed in the christian classroom until SCIENCE PROVED it was wrong.

JV: "Science" proved it wrong? I didn't know "science" was a person. I wonder if there were any Roman Catholics among the "science" that proved it wrong. Hmm...

dc: Science isn't a person? LOL Again, this is all you have? Why not show me that I am wrong? Show me that religion didn't persecute Galileo. Show me how religion has advanced scientific knowledge. You cant. Which ofcourse is why all you have is "science isn't a person, nana na na na na." For some reason I dont find your argument convincing.

dc: I suppose you are going to deny that Galileo was forced to recant his support for Copernicus under threat of torture and imprisonment?

JV: You don't know anything about the story of Galileo. Need to do more studying - unbiased if you're able.

dc: I notice that you didn't show I was wrong. I wonder why? Thank goodness science isn't the closed minded dogma that is religion.

JV: Thank "goodness"? Which "goodness" are you thanking? Christian, atheist, or some other "goodness"? "Science"? Here we go again. Is "science" some person you know?

dc: And again, when unable to show I am wrong... you make childish arguments. Is it any wonder that religion is such a laughing stock?

JV: Closed minded? You mean like the evolutionist atheist I spoke with recently who cut me off just for mentioning I was a creationist and didn't want to carry the dialogue further?

dc: Who ever said that individuals weren't closeminded? Not I. There are many idiots on both sides of the fence. The beauty of science is that it is self policing. No one person can dictate the facts. It must be offered up for peer review.

In short, once again, your argument is pointless and has no bearing on the conversation.

JV: Oh, I'm sure you'll excuse her, because she was one of them unbiased "science" people.

dc: You think what ever you want. The fact of the matter is that she can do what ever she wants, even be a closeminded idiot. But that does not mean that she is representative of all atheists. Just as your childish arguments and faulty logic is not representative of all creationists. A scientific definition for what? Goodness? Are you unfamiliar with the term? It means "the state or quality of being good". No science needed, might I suggest a dictionary?

JV: Huh? You mean "science" can't prove what "goodness" is? My goodness!!

dc: You seem to think that science should be able to provide an absolute position of a relative term.... You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Are you suggesting that science should be able to "prove LOUD"? It's a relative term. Perhaps we should add the english language to the comprehensive science education that you need?

That's the best you've got? If your'e not there to witness it, it cant be true?

JV: Tsk tsk! You've forgotten your "scientific method" which consists of Problem, Material, Method, OBSERVATION, Conclusion, Practical Application. See that word in the middle there: "OBSERVATION"?

dc: You seem to think that Observation means you must observe a phenomena for it to be true. The reality (sorry to break this to you) is that you only need to observe the effect of the phenomena. For instance, have you ever seen gravity? Or a light photon? Are you suggesting that they do not exist?

You aren't really that ignorant are you?

JV: Do you know of any "science" besides evolution which does not require observation?

dc: I assume you mean direct observation of a phenomena? How about these? Gravity theory. Quantum Mechanics. Cosmology. Astrophysics. Nuclear physics. Mathematics. Planar geometry. Magnetics. Electromagnetics....

Shall I go on?

JV: And if observation is NOT required, why are evolutionists so desperately seeking to observe any contrived example of evolution they can find?

dc: Observation is no longer needed to confirm evolution. It is a scientific fact. But continued observation is important so that we can continue to learn.

I know this a foreign concept to you. Once you read the bible you didn't need to learn anything else. You thought you knew it all.

Ignorance is bliss.

JV: Have a good day while you can. One day you'll meet your Maker, and that won't be a good one at the rate you're going.

dc: I have no concerns regarding death. But you obviously do.

May 8, 2010

Enoch states that all life came from the sea. Your Bible has been manipulated by the adversary to cause strife among men and doubt about God's existence. Read it all, not just what Religion hands you on a silver platter. (Religion = Re-Legion)

Enoch 30:8 "[Thursday]. On the fifth day I commanded THE SEA, that IT should bring forth fishes, AND feathered birds of many varieties, AND all animals creeping over the earth, going forth over the earth on four legs, AND soaring in the air, male sex and female, AND every soul breathing the spirit of life."

Genesis is a poor account of the truth. I feel sure this knowledge won't stop you from confusing people about science and religion but you can't tell God you didn't know now.

--C. M.

Enoch must have been a pretty smart guy! So, it's too bad that he didn't tell us how life could spring out of water. We have the evolutionists to do that for us now. Great science! Every time they find water somewhere in the universe, suddenly there must be life there, too! WOW! The scientists said it, so it MUST be true, even though you can let a glass of water sit there for a million years and nothing will appear in it. Unfortunately that "science" which is now called by the fancy name of "abiogenesis" was debunked long ago. Too bad some people like yourself, apparently, still fall for it.


May 11, 2010

Dear John,

After reading your E-book I was inspired to jot down the following thoughts.

About eyes, if we assume the original single sell life forms didn’t have them, or at least the pre-programmed seeds of them, the single celled life forms embarked on numerous evolutionary paths, becoming various animal forms, all without eyes, from which all other life forms evolved.

Then, suddenly, one of those animal life forms develops the eye. And suddenly all the other animal life forms have eyes. This makes no sense. Only one branch of animal evolution should have eyes. All the others should be blind.

Even if we assume all the other branches that were blind died out because they weren’t the fittest, we then have to assume that all the sighted animals that survive come from that one branch, which puts an incredible weight of diversity on one source. It suggests that evolution was just running about willy-nilly, spinning off life form after life form from one source, all coming into being after the development of the eyes, nose, mouth, 4 limbs and other attributes which are a standard for most animals.

I don’t see any way the fossil record supports this theory. Nor does the Theory Of Evolution support it. For that matter, the evidence of our eyes does not support it. If evolution was that chaotic, surely in the recorded history of civilization some support could be found. But it’s not. Meaning possibly that, if evolution was like that and is not anymore, that evolution reached the end of a pre-programmed chain of development, and things are now in their final forms, which in itself necessitates a programmer.

This has a parallel in religion, by the way. If I ask, if God could talk openly to people in The Bible days, why does he not talk directly to people anymore? You have to make up an excuse. Like, you could say The Bible is not to be taken literally and God didn’t really speak to these people in the open fashion it describes, and therefore you shouldn’t take The Bible literally. But most religions depend on people taking it literally. Thus the excuse kills religion. Likewise, any excuse you make to explain any inconsistencies in evolution implies the necessity of a creator and kills evolution.

It seems far more likely that the DNA of the earliest life forms had pre-programming that would give them evolutionary options. This can be proven if it can be found that two creatures with eyes, nose and mouth developed independently of each other. If one creature develops eyes, nose and mouth, and only creatures that are born from it have eyes, nose and mouth, then evolution is supported. But if any creature not descended from that one turns up with eyes nose and mouth, then it’s pre-programming and evolution is knocked into a cocked hat.

If I understood what you wrote correctly, eyes did not start appearing until the Camawhatsit explosion. That sounded to me like suddenly all animals, no matter which branch of evolution they stemmed from, suddenly start having eyes. If that’s so, it kills evolution dead. Because that means the eye was a pre-programmed advancement which did not come about by chance.

I’m neither scientist nor religious, but from a purely logical point of view, evolution as it’s being presented, doesn’t come off as any more credible than any mythology man has ever concocted to explain the unknown.

Certainly I would not dispute that creatures adapt, mutate and change over time due to breeding habits. That is very observable. But that’s not evolution. Evolution is something old turning into something new, on its own with no outside influence, strictly by random chance. I just don’t see how believing such a thing is any more logical than believing some old man in the sky makes it happen. The two lines of reasoning sound identical to me. One is no less magic than the other.

The big bang theory is also extremely illogical. Actually, when I started looking at the evidence for intelligent design, the little nano-bots in the cells and so forth, it became clear to me that what science actually reveals is micro-universes within micro-universes, all being unaware and incapable of perceiving the larger universes that contain them. Why then, at our level of perception, is it not logical to assume that this progression of larger universes doesn’t stop with us?

It’s so idiotic to say we do not want to consider what came before the big bang, or consider the possibility of something existing outside the universe we perceive. Why not consider the possibility that what scientists see as the big bang was not an explosion at all, but the birth of a cell in a larger living organism, which of course would grow and expand, and which would have preprogrammed into it the data on how all aspects of our universe should assemble themselves?

This, of course is an unprovable theory, just like the big bang. But it sounds a lot more logical to me, as it is based on structures we can observe in life and doesn’t depend on deliberately not asking essential questions.

Also, since I’m not a scientist, when I call my idea a theory, it’s a theory, pure conjecture, a fantasy even. I don’t have to defend it by suggesting it’s supported by evidence, when there isn’t any. And I certainly don’t need to encourage people to not ask questions. It’s just an idea, and ideas prompt the asking of questions, and it is from the asking of questions that answers are found.

I entirely agree that the scientists supporting evolution are myth makers. They base their theory on the popular dream of the week, and then try to shove it down our throats as fact. Never mind that next week some other scientist will dream something else and put the lie to the so called facts they’re forcing on us today.

But what I really hate is this business of a scientific theory is not a theory but a fact. That is such bull. A theory is a theory, a guess. The best you can go with a scientific theory is an educated guess, but never a fact. If it was a fact it wouldn’t be a theory. It would be a fact. And evolution is not a fact. It’s a mythology that’s been concocted to explain facts that nobody on this Earth understands.

And no matter how many accredited scientists you can get to sign off on a mythology, that won't change one little bit the likelihood that scientists will be denouncing this so called fact in a few years in favor of something else which they will be telling us is a fact, until they come up with a new so called fact to replace that one.

People should understand this before weighing the worth of theories that are touted as facts. A fact is something that stands forever. Things that only stand until disproved are called myths. And when people congregate around a myth and believe in it in defiance of all logic, that’s a discipline of faith. i.e. a religion.

Thanks for getting the truth out there.

--P. R.

Hi P--,

Thank you for writing. You've made some very insightful comments, and instead of responding to them (most are self explanatory and well-thought-out, I think), when I post your email I'm just going to highlight things I think people need to think about.


May 19, 2010

I must ask you your credentials.

As for your argument, after reading through your paper I did not see any evidence supporting that you know much more about evolution nor particle physics other than misquoted anecdotes taken completely out of context. To truly argue a point, sir, you must know the full extent of what you are arguing against--for example, it seems as if you do not know much at all about the nature of the physical sciences. Combined with what I see as an abysmal knowledge of the experimentation leading up to the conclusions, as well as the scientific method as a whole, I am forced to say you are quite foolish.

I posses 2 degrees in science, a certificate in Anatomy and Physiology, and am currently enrolled in medical school. Though I am by no means an expert, it is even apparent to an apprentice that you are quite foolish. You can't hide your lack of knowledge with sarcasm.

--A. Y.

You need my "credentials"? I am a rocket scientist, physicist, medical doctor, lawyer, blue collar worker, police officer, pastor, nurse, sanitation worker, waiter, and on and on. My credentials have absolutely nothing to do with anything. I'm a person who has used the brain God gave me to sift through the garbage I've been fed and not accept it just because the "experts" tell me it's so. I'm a Galileo, or a Newton, or a Luther, or anyone else who refuses to submit to the party line, and rather do my own thinking and draw my own conclusions, even if they go against the tide of lies with which I'm being inundated. And I'm not impressed at all by your fancy "degrees," sir. What your degrees should REALLY do is humble you to the point that you realize how LITTLE you know about all there is to know in the universe. Your puny degrees might impress you and some of your peers, but just because you know a little extra about one or two subjects doesn't make you a god, nor an expert in everything. I've known people like you, and what you need is a dose of humility. It's how much you DON'T know that should impress you.

Now, since you were actually there, and witnessed the evolution of the universe, and can test and repeat it, be sure to do so for all to see, so we can REALLY be impressed by your credentials.


May 21, 2010

Muahaha! This is one great site!!!

I can't believe those so many people still hold to that stupid Evolution Theory. It doesn't matter if you\'re believe God or not, Evolution is definitely stupid and it is NOT science. Put some simple thinking based on logic, and Darwinism will go down the drain!

Keep up the good work!

(Sorry for my bad english... I'm from Malaysia)

--W. H. (Malaysia)

Your English is just fine! I understand very well when someone says they agree evolution is stupid! I hope you're making people in your own country aware of that fact, too!

Thanks for writing,

June 2, 2010

I can't believe how fallable your site is! It's ignorant people such as yourself that will help keep our nation from prospering in science and physics. Teachings such as this will help turn the U.S. into third-world nation. Get with the rest of the First Word, dummy: EVOLUTION IS HAPPENING...DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--T. H.

Thanks for writing, T-, and telling me how ignorant I am. Just a few suggestions, though. You spelled "fallible" wrong. You have no idea what you're talking about, as evolution makes no contribution whatsoever to real science (of course, if you can demonstrate how we'd have never gotten to the moon or invented the auto without it, I'm game). The USA became a first world nation without any help from evolution, and no scientific discovery has needed evolution as its basis (ok, maybe the lightbulb somehow can be connected with evolution - let me think about it). Since the teaching of evolutionary science fiction entered our science curricula, science literacy in the USA has gone consistently downhill. And your grammar and punctuation also needs work. Evolution may be happening, but it does not seem to be helping you much. If so, do let me know how.


June 6, 2010

No one will give me hundreds of examples of witnessed mutations that are acquiring brand new base pair information, the backbone of evolution. [not looking for some recombination of DNA]

evolution is a fact, we are still looking for the facts though!

--J. D.

"Evolution is a fact. We are still looking for the facts, though."

Good one!


June 6, 2010

actually, evolution is pretty smart, but I havn't been aware of it working anywhere.

--J. D.

LOL! Good one!


June 20, 2010

Ok I have to ask, are you being serious or is this just what is known in internet parlance as a poe? If so it is a very good one.

I ask because, for example, your argument against the evolutionary explanation for sex seems to be that you went to a museum, though can't remember which one, and watched a film aimed at the general public, more probably children, and decided that it was silly. That is your entire argument on the subject.

Do you really think that animated kissing bacteria accurately reflects the full scope of the evidence for the evolutionary history of sex? Do you really believe that by pointing out that a cartoon didn't answer all your questions or explain things in enough detail that you have in fact refuted the hundreds of peer reviewed papers published on the subject and the tens of thousands of man hours that scientists have spent investigating the issue?

You also do understand that the presentations that museums put on are at a level which the general public will understand and do not represent the full amount of knowledge on the subject? You do get this, don't you?

For example my local museum has a display where kids can lift up blocks and then drop them. Beside this it says something along the lines of "gravity is the force that pulls these blocks back down to the ground." Do you think that this display constitutes a complete account of the evidence for Einstein's theory of relativity? I ask because you do seem to believe that museum displays constitute the full amount of evidence for evolution.

I haven't read through the rest of your book yet, though I plan to, but I have to ask if you do actually present any evidence to back up your claims, you know other than your personal feelings on the matter? As far as I can see so far all you do is misrepresent evolutionary arguments and then call those misrepresentations stupid. I believe that particular logical fallacy is called a straw man argument.

Anyway I look forward to hearing from you and finding out if you are really serious about all this is due course.

--A. D.


What I do understand, that you apparently don't, is that evolutionists have no explanation for the origin of sex. Sex exists, so of course they have to contrive an explanation to fit their mythology. But anyone with a few brain cells working, who really thinks about it, will realize that their "explanation" is nothing more than invented fantasy, untestable, unverifiable, unfounded. The "hundreds of peer reviewed papers" bit is nothing more than a typical smoke and mirrors excuse that is used by evolutionists like yourself to "prove" your point a priori. If you'd stop relying on the papers and peers of the experts and do some thinking of your own, you'd realize that they have an agenda and must stick to it, so no matter what their papers say, their peers are going to approve, because if they don't, their mythology might be placed in question. If you do some research, you'll find there are many scientists who do NOT agree with the evolutionary party line, and they are immediately marginalized or even ostracized. Get a copy of Ben Stein's DVD "Expelled" and watch it.


June 12, 2010

Hello, John. Forgive me for not having read all of the feedback you've gotten so far, but I've stayed up far too long reading your book (I just couldn't stop reading it)….

(requested to keep the email private between us, so I’m not printing any more – John)

August 12, 2010

Your first sentence makes absolutely no sense. I couldn't make it past the first paragraph because the grammar and sentence structure was absolutely horrible. I came here to ready the moronic thoughts you spewed onto the computer, however, there's not a chance I would subject myself to your painfully dull and improperly written arguement. Please hire or bribe an editor.

LOL! Sorry my english ain't as goot as yourn. Actually, I've done quite a bit of editing, and you're the first person in my entire life who ever made such comments about my spelling and grammar abilities, so maybe you didn't have your glasses on straight? Anyhow, that's a good excuse for not reading any further, given that you might have had to think about what you were reading, and that doesn't appear to be your forte.

Hav a gud day,

August 21, 2010


Can you explain why any reasonable scientist would consider Evolution to be good science? The very idea that environmental changes can be passed on genetically is absolutely crazy. Several examples against such a theory should send any serious scientist in a different direction. First example is skin color, If I spend many years in the sun and my skin develops a different pigment, I will not pass on that pigment to my offspring. Another great example is the effect of acid rain. plants exposed to acid rain do not change genetically. In Fact when seeds from plants grown under the effects of acid rain are removed from the environment, they develop into normal healthy plants. Evolution was an attempt by whites to explain why Europeans were dominant in the world of the 19th century. The book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life classified the races of humans with whites and asians at the top and was used by the Nazis to justify the Holocaust. Political Liberals use this theory to try to eliminate God and put forth their agenda, never realizing that godless socialist society did not work in the Soviet Union and cannot work because of the lack of stimulus. As a Behaviorist, I can say for certain that even humans need stimulus to behave a certain way. Why is it that you never seem to connect the sociopolitical implications of evolution with those who espouse it?

--B. M


Hello B--,

No "reasonable" scientist would consider evolution to be true. However, unfortunately "reason" doesn't really come into play here, though the atheists and evolutionists will often appeal to the word, as if they're the ones who are "reasoning" and the others are fools.

Scientists are people. People have biases, fears, alibis, motives, etc. Many scientists are simply afraid to admit evolution is false, and with good reason. Despite the fact that scientists will say they're "open minded" and that science is all about testing, repeating and falsifying, the fact is that if they have a bias, they're going to support it no matter what. For a scientist to have ascribed to, and taught, and defended, evolutionary theory, then to suddenly say it's wrong, just is not going to happen in most cases. There's pride. There's fear of peers. There's possible loss of status or employment.

The rest of your letter is nothing short of excellent and true. I and others have pointed out those facts over and over. Evolution has been used to justify the most horrific crimes ever committed against humanity. Now some will counter that religion has done the same. Two wrongs don't make a right, but that is no justification, and is also a gross exaggeration. Read Dinesh D'Souza's What's So Great About Christianity for more on that topic. He crushes the opposition who argue that "religion" has been the cause of all the ills of history.

Also, your examples of traits that are not passed on are good ones. I have argued, as have others, that evolutionists really are hypocrites when it comes to being "green" and "saving the earth." Because if what they believe is true, all the wonderful living things we see around us were the result of some fortuitous events involving poison gases, lightning, and extinction events. So why worry? We should be happy and excited about all the new life forms that are going to arise out of our polluted earth, right?

Thanks for a well-thought-out and interesting response.


September 2, 2010

Hey John! I like the way that you wrote your book. Very funny! Ive always not believed in evolution but after reading your book i realise that evolution really is ridiculous. I think what you're doing on website is awesome.

--T. V. (South Africa)

Hi Tara,

Thank you! You've made my day!


September 2, 2010

I don't mean to be rude, but you haven't very well proved your point that evolution exists. You merely repeated the same idea of one tiny flaw in the evolutionary system over and over again. Creationism is basically a bunch of religious people saying the same thing over and over again, without proof. Science can be wrong. Everyday, scientists are trying to prove themselves wrong. They could have made some mistakes in Evolution, I admit that. But Creationism... ugh.... They don't even try to prove themselves wrong. They just say the same crap over and over again, without thinking of how stupid they sound. Evolutionary proof: millions of years of fossils that were uncovered. DNA linking evidence between humans and other primates. Creationism proof: A book that was written 2000 years ago based on beliefs that dated hundreds of years before that time. That time was way before any anthropological or paleontological discoveries.

One day, I was at my local library. I went to the fiction section. Without reading the title, I pulled out a thick book that seemed interesting to me. I looked at the cover of it. It was the Bible. I laughed. I told my friends about this. They laughed. Even my Christian friends laughed. In fact, I have many Christian friends that do believe in Evolution. Although some of them are pretty right-wing, they do believe in evolution. I come from a very religious family and yet I still believe in evolution.

Going over to your Michelangelo and the Statue of David statement, he did have some observers watching him when he built the statue. He didn't create the statue out of thin air. Michelangelo wasn't created out of thin air. His parents made him. their parents made them. This goes on back for a few thousand years. Homo Erectus climbed done out of trees and conceived children. Using bones found by Scientists we can see the extreme similarities between different species of creatures. the most modern relative of the T-Rex is the chicken. How do we know this? By comparing their bones. Does 1+1+1=1? no. it equals 3.

--Signed John Doe


First, why be afraid to post your name? You know mine! I'm not afraid to express my views. Why are you?

Second, I could paraphrase your letter and just replace the references to creationism with "evolutionism." Let's see....

Evolutionism is basically a bunch of religious people (though they'll deny that evolution is a religion) saying the same thing over and over again (they've really not come up with anything new - just keep repeating the same old mantras like peppered moths, Miller-Urey, antibiotic resistance, etc.), without proof. Evolution can be wrong (oops, I mean, it IS wrong).

Every day scientists are trying to prove themselves wrong. You're exactly right! And thousands of them have come forth and said that evolution is wrong! You just can't accept that, apparently.

They "could have" made some mistakes? Apparently you've not read up much on the history of science.

Evolution proof: A book that was written over 150 years ago, and whose premises have been demolished over and over. You just can't accept it. The dumb argument about how long ago a book was written is one more evolutionist mantra. What does the age of any book matter if what the book says is true? Do you also attack other old, historical literature and say it can't be true because of its age? Then I guess we should throw out all history because we have no trustworthy historical manuscripts, right? That's a stupid argument. Forgive me. Conversely, because a book is only a year old, it must be true, right?

I have "Christian" friends who believe in all sorts of things. I have atheist friends too. They believe in evolution, UFOs, astrology, ghosts, you name it. I guess that makes it true and right, right? Who cares what your "Christian" friends believe. The question here is, "Is evolution true?" The answer is, "No." Oh, and by the way, I have "The Origin of Species" in the fiction section of my library. Pretty funny, eh?

Did YOU see Michelangelo create the statue? That's the question. Whether he had observers or not isn't the issue. Are you going to believe some 500-year-old document that says Michelangelo sculpted the statue? I mean, after all, if the book or whatever is 500 years old, it can't be telling the truth, right. And you've just blown your own argument, because nobody saw evolution take place from particles to people like you who fall for it. According to evolution, what makes you YOU popped out of "thin air" and thin air is exactly what's still keeping darwinism afloat. But the baloon has been popped now. You'll have to accept that.

You'll laugh at a Bible being in the fiction section of a library, but then you go being suckered into believing that T-rex was an overgrown chicken. Thanks for proving my point. Evolution is stupid. Why are you allowing yourself to be duped like that? T-rex bones are similiar to a chickens? That's all you have to go on? Sorry, I'm not terribly impressed. Nor is Colonel Sanders.


September 3, 2010


Me thinks Darwin would have conceded by now. What in the world keeps the stubborn vacuous theory going? I have some views, but would like to hear yours.

--J. P.

Hi J--,

Thanks for responding, and I'm sorry about taking so long to respond.

There are a number of reasons people hang on to Darwinism. Atheist Richard Dawkins thanked Darwin for making atheism "respectable." What does that tell you? The first, and main reason, is that people who think they can avoid a God to whom they'll be answerable turn to evolution to somehow "prove" God does not exist.

The second reason is that Darwinism is considered to be "intellectual." If you want to be looked up to as being among the intellectual elite, you have to subscribe to Darwinism, despite the fact that there are thousands of highly educated and, by the world's standards, successful people who recognize Darwinism for the drivel that it is.

The third reason is that many people who have been backed into a darwinian corner are simply AFRAID to reneg on the theory because their status, or jobs, or the admiration they receive from others, are threatened. They're unwilling to stand up and say it's simply not true. It's cowardly, but I understand it, especially where one's livelihood is at stake. I've known teachers and scientists who did not believe evolution at all, but just could not come out and deny it for fear of ostracism or losing their employment. If you don't think that happens, watch the documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed."

Have a good day,

September 4, 2010

I appreciate this site a lot, very nice work. With the direction our world has gone, truth seems to be of little interest. I have read many books and articles, watched videos, debates etc. for and against evolution. While it seems obvious that micro evolution is a fact, macro on the other hand appears to be pure rubbish. I'll admit I am not an educated scientist, but I am well educated. Despite the public schools putting their hooks into me, by the grace of God I am no longer blinded by the "wisdom" of men. The truth is, evolution is the catalyst behind a much broader scope of objectives these folks have. I wish more people would give subjects like this the attention they deserve. Sadly though we are doing a great job of teaching our kids not to be honest critical thinkers. Oh it's in a school text book, it must be true!


Hi S--,

Thank you for your input. As for microevolution, keep in mind that it's not creating anything new. It's just minor changes that are better called adaptations, and that are the result of information that's already contained in the genes of the organism. The evolutionists will corner you and say that numerous "micro" evolution events add up to macro evolution. They do no such thing. For "macro" evolution to occur would require massive amounts of NEW information that was not already contained in the genome. Doesn't happen. Never did. Never will. They know we have that argument so are looking desperately for any example of "new" information arising from nowhere. The one or two attempts they've come up with have been pathetic, for instance the ability of some bacteria to digest nylon.

Have a good day,

September 22, 2010

Great stuff. Also, there is no evidence of any hopping from one genus to another. "Everything after its kind". Evolution would require that. We can have 'evolution' between species in the same genus, but not across genus.

--S. B.

Thanks for the input, S-. Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. Keep up the fight, and don't let 'em take you for a ride!


September 28. 2010

I invite you to articulate your claim by email that Evolution is dumb- that is - take me on in argument to prove your point.

The fact is it is happening and continues to happen - anyone who says it isn't is the one who is stupid.

--L. B. (United Kingdom)

Thanks for the "challenge" but evolution never happened, never will. So there's nothing to argue about. My article is just one of hundreds of articles, books, etc., that demonstrate the impossibility of evolution. If you're convinced that it's true, all the facts, disproofs, etc., in the world won't convince you otherwise. Like alcoholism, it's a matter of first admitting you have a problem, then perhaps your eyes will be open and you'll begin to see. From the few words you wrote, I can tell you have a vested interest in evolution being proven true, and likely would lose something that is important to you - status, job, whatever, if you were honest and admitted it could not be true.

I would suggest you get a copy of Evolution: The Grand Experiment and read it HONESTLY. Or watch the video. If that doesn't convince you, nothing will, which is what I suspect is the case here anyhow.

Have a good day,

Post script by John: Not long after this letter was written I received a general notice from the producers of Evolution: The Grand Experiment that there was a campaign of disinformation by evolutionists on to knock the rating of the book and DVD down from five stars. People who apparently had no idea what the book or DVD were really about were attacking its content and giving bad reviews all of a sudden. Can’t imagine why….

October 4, 2010

John. Liked your book. I used to take evolution as undisputed fact until i read this article, made me think. One question, whats all this about artificial cells and such? Is this the abiogenesis crap the evs are trying to emphasize?


Hi J--,

Thanks for writing and I'm sorry for not getting back sooner. The site gets a lot of spam, and I just have to find the time to get thru it all.

I'm not sure about artificial cells. Have not heard such a thing. However, regardless, even if man could "make" an artificial cell (and we're quite a long way from that), all he will have done is copy what was already made, and prove that it couldn't have come about without a design, designer, and maker.

Have a good day,

October 17, 2010

You are f---ing retarded. I'm so glad you're kind is dying out...evolution and whatnot. Lol


Thanks for the intellectual input. Never heard of CNU, but I guess you're getting a good education there.

October 24, 2010

where are you?
i miss your retorts to the "educated" glob called scientists

nothing since January - maybe I will have to wait for your next response to evolve. If it doesn't however, do you think that may convince some of the opposition to abandon evolution theories?

--D. McM. (Australia)

I apologize for the delay. The site gets so much spam mail that I just don't have the time to go thru it, so only do so every few months when I have a day that I just "feel" I can endure it ;-)


November 28, 2010

A christian perspective on radiometric dating, in case you haven't seen this yet.

--K. S.

Hi K--,

Don't know that I've seen that particular article. Will take a closer look. I've read (at least in part) the book Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, and numerous other articles and books on the topic. If you're interested in that sort of thing, you might wish to pick up a copy.


December 19, 2010

This diatribe of an ignorant man is a testament to how BLIND humans can be.

Obviously, we have not evolved far enough.

[book title deleted for privacy]. If you really want to learn about evolution pick up my book at Amazon. That is, if you know how to read.

Hi M--,

I have a copy of a book with a title similar to yours but about the other end of time's arrow. I use it sometimes as a good example of how much we "know" about evolution. It has about two or three pages of evolutionary blarney and how we evolved over millions of years, then about 200 pages of actual, real history that started about 6000 years ago. No, I'm not going to get a copy of your book, because if we don't even know what really happened a few thousand or "million" years ago, how in the world can you know what's going to be a million years hence? I could re-write your book with a different story line and be just as "right" as you are.

As for how BLIND humans can be, you're certainly right about that! Jesus proved it more than anyone. Did miracles right in front of our eyes for the EXPRESS PURPOSE of showing us just how blind we are!


December 26, 2010

Hello, thank you for making this site. I am so frustrated by the people who consider evolution a reality.

--A. G.

Thank you for your input!


January 6, 2011

Dear Mr. Verderame

There were a few things that stuck out to me when I read your book. I won't criticize the points you make about evolution, which I find can't be criticized, but let me go with something simple.

Rocks. Radiometric dating methods make use of the half-lives of certain radioactive elements, believe it or not. The half-life of an element is estimated and used to determine the ages of different geological formations. The number of radioactive atoms can be written as a function of time. I did it in an eighth grade physical sciences worksheet.

Instead of confusing you with how exactly this formula was discovered and why it works, I'll just say that yes, rocks can be older than 6000 years. In fact, a lot of them are. Yes fossils exist, and regardless of how they came to be, it is not a GUESS when scientists say how old they are. It is an estimate. There is a difference.

--D. W.
P.S. some of Earth's oldest rock formations are around 3 Ga.

Hello D--,

You're right about radiometric dating and half lives. I know plenty about it. Let me tell you where you are wrong now:

  1. 1. The amount of parent material is based on assumptions.
  2. 2. The amount of daughter product is based on assumptions.
  3. 3. The rate of decay is based on assumptions.
  4. 4. The "age" of the rock is based on assumptions.
  5. 5. The status of the rock is based on false assumptions.

The assumptions are as follows:

The amount of initial (parent) material is assumed to be 100%. This is a false and wrong assumption, and has been shown to be so in recently formed rocks (from volcanic ejecta) that contain both parent and daughter product and are dated to millions of years old.

The amount of initial daughter product (for instance lead from uranium decay) is assumed to be zero. As stated above, this is demonstrably false. Recently formed rocks have been shown to contain both parent and daughter products.

The rate of decay of radioactive minerals has been shown to be affected by chemical and other environmental factors.

The "age" of a rock is ASSUMED initially, before testing is even done.

Finally, what I feel is the biggest and worst assumption, is that the status of the rock and its internals have not been affected for - say WHAT? - MILLIIONS OR BILLIONS of YEARS? I am amazed that more scientists don't just look at that and say, "You gotta be kidding." As an amateur geologist, I think this assumption is the most laughable. I can see rocks being affected by weathering, by infiltration, etc., right before my eyes! But these magical rocks that supposedly support long ages have remained stable for eons! Amazing the tricks the evolutionists come up with!

There are a number of articles online that deal with the fallacies of radiometric dating and how scientists "fudge" to get the results they want. He who seeks, finds.


January 7, 2011

Well said. Couldn't agree with you more. I have studied evolution and cosmology for some time now, and have come to all the same conclusions. Far from being uneducated or an ignorant moron, I am a member of Mensa, and a bit of a Renaissance man with interests in many fields of study.

The few times I have actually spoken with an evolutionist (mostly online), I have always met with ridicule, insults, ad hominems, questioning of my religious beliefs, mockery, etc. A fact that reminds me of the words of Christ, when he said a rotten tree cannot produce fine fruit. But never has any real factual proof been given, despite my sincere efforts to be convinced. My favorite line of discussion has always been to jump right to the point - where did it all come from? And my favorite Scriptures on the subject are Isaiah 44:24 and Hebrews 3:4. At Isaiah, God asks - who was with me, when I made the earth and the heavens. In other words, were you there? Did you see how it happened? Did someone video tape a molecule becoming a man over 3.5 billion years? A question evolutionists cannot answer in the affirmative. But for some reason, they always say I am being dishonest somehow when I ask them these things. And Hebrews 3:4 is just good reasoning - Every house has a builder, but he who constructed all things is God.

As for Noah's flood, a favorite line of attack by Darwinists, I am pleased to learn about the flood on Mars you mention. I had no idea they now believed this. And it is ludicrous that they can believe something like that happened on a dead world with no liquid water, but not believe it happened here. That is pure bias against anything the Bible says happened, and nothing scientific about that.

I'd like to say though, in answer to the infamous "where did all the water go?" question:

It's still here! The earth is covered in some 327 million trillion gallons of H2O! That's 327 followed by 18 zeroes! If you flattened the surface of the earth out, so that the mountains and trenches were even, but the same land mass remained, the earth would be covered in some 8,000 feet of water. Eureka! We have found the missing flood waters of Noah's day!

--M. D.

Hello M--,

Man, thanks for an intelligent response. What a breath of fresh air after just being called a f---ing idiot by someone else who THINKS he's intelligent (the converstation between me and Mr. Genius went downhill from there. He was incapable of coming up with anything worthwhile to say, as usual). Yes, I'm quite familiar with ad hominems (the evolutionists probably think that's yet another missing link). That's one of their only lines of defense. Can't attack the facts, so attack the fact giver.

I like to hold up my hand and ask, "Why can the evolutionist look at something made by human hands and see right away that it had a creator, but the very hand that made it they believe is the product of random events? How stupid is that? Not to mention the fact of the hand being connected up to a brain that could conceive of the created thing, conceive a plan to create it, then bring the thing into actual existence and be able to put it to use!

There is no doubt in my mind that evolutionists see intelligence and design in living things just like creationists do [atheist pope Richard Dawkins even admits it when he said that things may have the “apperance” of design, but he’s sure they’re not designed]. They are just being disingenuous and are unwilling to admit it because of the ramifications, not that that's going to change the outcome one bit, if you know what I mean.

By the way, I've not checked your website, but if you're an artist, you certainly can appreciate what it would feel like if you created something and put it in front of the public, and instead of giving you the credit, they just said it was the product of chance and time. Hmmm.

Thanks again,

January 10, 2011

John. Almost laughed myself into another species while reading your piece and some of the feedback. Neat. Have you read Dave Hunt's Cosmos, Creator, and Human Destiny? Keep well. God bless.

S—(South Africa)

Hi S--,

Well, I'm glad to see someone got the humor as I intended it! I do think evolution is laughable, and actually might do more writing on that line. I think we take it all too seriously. Did you see the recent TOOTH that was found in Israel that's going to (once again.... yawn, yawn) change the story of evolution? I loved the fact that the scientist who found it was named Gopher. Anyhow, I really do think this stuff is comical, and even more so that people believe it! Comical yet sad.

I've not read Hunt's book, though I've read countless others on BOTH sides of the question. Actually my wife and I have a book business, so there's no lack of reading material here (about 3000 books in our personal collection, and over 7000 for sale), and the creation/evolution debate is my favorite topic.

Have a good week,

January 17, 2011

Hi John! I really enjoyed your book/article... it's so sad that people think that in order to mantain intellectual integrity they have to reject God, nothing can be more further from the truth and you have proved that with your excelent questioning of the evolution theory. I laughed so much with the whale (MAMAS) argument...never thought of that, it's sooo stupid!! I wish to contribute with something i didn't see in your ebook and it's a response i give to evolutionists when they throw the "vestigial organs" as proof of evolution:

Evolution teaches our coccyx is the remnant of a fully functional tail of one of our ancestors. I always replay to this with:

- "when exactly a tail stopped being useful for us?"

- Well, it provided balance and equilibrium when we lived in the trees, but then we didn't need it anymore because we came down to the ground.

SUURE, so if you come to the ground and a predator such as a lion was after you, wouldn't it be nice to climb again to that tree, swinging hands free from a branch while looking for a weapon or waiting for the lion to go? of course NOT! we EVOLVED so we stayed on the ground and convinced the lion out of eating us! even in the ground it should be very useful at multitasking.

Same argument can be made for the suposedly vestigial muscles that are attached to our ear and don't do nothing (although some less evolved people can still move their ears with these muscles). Pretty sure it ceased to be useful to direct our ears to better hear the source of our predators or possible threats RIGHT?

love your work, blessings to you and your family!

--J. C. (Chile)

Hi J--,

One of the biggest blessings (most of the time!) of the Internet is being able to connect with people all over the world, so thanks for writing! And especially for the examples you gave. Yes, the "vestigial" organs argument is yet another evolutionary failure, and should be considered vestigial at this point! ;-) . It is well known that there were numerous organs that at one time were considered "vestigial" because of evolutionary stupidity, and that now have been demonstrated to have a useful function - the appendix being perhaps the most familiar.

As for the "tail tale" that's exactly what it is. See, the evolutionists can add or subtract organs or appendages according to what story they want to tell. So, see, we needed to get rid of the tail when we came out of the trees because then we could run faster, perhaps. It's all about survival, right? No, it's not. It's all about inventing stories to try to explain why things are the way they are. We just never learn. When has the Kingdom of Science NOT thought it was right about things, only to turn around and find out some new information that completely overturns some current scientific view.

One of those views that I believe will be overturned in the not too distant future is that the starlight we observe is not anywhere near as old as evolutionists would have us believe. There are already theories about that - the speed of light not being a constant, and space being able to be warped in such a way that something that "appears" to be distant is not so distant after all. I can hardly believe, in a universe of entropy, that a beam of light that was emitted 3 billion years ago is able to reach my eye, or instrument without having simply worn down way before being able to travel across the universe. I believe that's part of the reason we see redshift - because light loses energy as it travels across space, and not just because of expansion.

I'm reading yet another book on Galileo, whose story has been mis-represented over and over by anti-relgious evolutionists. Galileo's real fight was not against the church at first, but against his fellow academics, who had accepted the systems of Aristotle and Ptolemy. The church only got involved because Galileo threatened their authority, not because they believed the heliocentric theory to be wrong.

Now it's the other way around. The evolutionists are cock sure about their theory, and those of us who know it is wrong are ostracized.

Keep on thinking!


January 19. 2011

Hi John,

Thanks for the response. Although I won't go into why scientists don't 'fudge' their results, I am quite sure that dinosaur bones are legitimate. I am positive that the grand canyon took many millions of years to form, as observed in each layer of sediment. When we perform scientific experiments, the assumptions involved are things like "assuming friction is negligible". Generally, assumptions are made to ignore things that won't have a great effect on our results, but if we don't ignore it the problem would become much more difficult to solve. The amount of initial radioactive substance is in no way assumed to be 100 percent; otherwise we would be analyzing clumps of carbon, not rocks. The scale we use is based on what a newer rock's carbon 14 composition is.

Articles read online aren't really academic journals; I can write an article in a few minutes and publish it easily. And there are plenty of academic journals about geological formations. I assure you that there ARE caves around the world that contain rock formations and dripstones that are older than just a few thousand years. The concept is simple enough to be put in educational schoolbooks for children such as the Magic Schoolbus. But while you say "that is just a schoolbook", you must also take into account the academic credibility of a published and edited book versus that of an online article.

Putting that aside, how old do YOU think the earth is, if rocks are never older than a few hundred, few thousand years?


Hello D--,

You've missed the boat here. If you really don't think scientists fudge their results, you're either deliberately blind, or naive. Scientists are human like the rest of us - and fallible - especially when money, or reputation, etc., are involved. In fact stories are always coming out about how scientists do just that, and evolutionary history is filled with them - Piltdown man, Nebraska man, the peppered moth - do some research. Or read Icons of Evolution, by Jonathan Wells.

Nobody doubts that dinosaur bones are legitimate. It's where they came from that we're after, and evolutionary science finds bones, then invents stories about how they got there. Has anyone actually seen a bone evolve, and get placed just where it belongs in the body, and isn't it something how all the bones evolve just right? Eye sockets right where they need to be. Joints right where they need to be. And so on and on. And now you need to fill in all the gaps that led to those "final" stages of bone evolution, and you can't, unless you invent just-so stories about how it all came to be.

The layers in the Grand Canyon could not have been laid down over millions of years. They were laid down roughly in the same time period. You've just accepted the evolutionary myth's explanation, which is wanting on all fronts. The layers contain marine deposits, for one. They have clear delineations between them, showing simultaneous deposition - a one-time event - not slow, gradual deposition which would result in homogeneous transitions from layer to layer. Some layers are out of place. Others don't even exist - supposed time gaps of millions of years, that are called "unconformities." If you do a little research on the Mount Saint Helens eruption, you'll find that within a matter of days strata were laid down that, had we not known it was a current event, would have been "interpreted" by evolutionists to be millions of years old. Do the research and you'll find that there is a major argument about how long it took to lay the Grand Canyon strata even among evolutionists. Here's an article with some food for thought. One of many:

You misunderstand the argument about the initial amount of radioactive product IN THE ROCK. I did not say the initial ROCK was 100 percent parent product. The amounts of parent and daughter product IN THE ROCK are the issue, not that the whole rock is parent material that decays into daughter. And rocks do not contain carbon-14. That is contained in organic material. That is, unless there is organic material enclosed in the rock.

The formations you mention in caves are another example of your own "interpretation" of the facts. You have accepted a priori that the cave formations are millions of years old, despite the facts. Stalactites and stalagmites are known to form very rapidly in the right conditions. You're assuming that the current conditions have not changed at all. I assume a lot of water with dissolved minerals, etc., in a little time. You assume a little water in a lot of time. But it's a known fact that a lot of time is not needed to make those formations. I myself was in a cave once where a guide told us how quickly a stalagmite was forming, while at the same time telling us it was millions of years old. He was so brainwashed by his evolutionary beliefs that he hadn't even done the calculations which would have shown him that the stalagmite had only needed a few hundred years to form at most.

As far as "academic credibility," I do not consider anyone credible who professes evolution. It's obvious they have not really thought it through and done the research, or else that they're afraid to come out of the closet on the issue. I've met plenty of people like that.

I do not think the earth is more than about 6,000 years old, which is about when man shows up and written history begins. If you want to believe man was sitting around twiddling his fingers for a few million years and then suddenly around 6000 years ago he suddenly evolved the ability to cultivate plants, build cities, write, communicate, and on and on, feel free to believe it.


Addendum from John: I recently saw a huge book entitled Chronicle of the World, which is a history of our world. It has 1,294 pages total. Of those...

The rest is, well, actual HISTORY.

January 23, 2011

Hi again D--,

Well I did know that a light-year is a measure of distance, not time. But when we see the stars billions of light-years away, do you mean to say that the light was traveling at a faster rate when it was emitted from those stars? By the way, I never said that starlight and evolution are connected; I don't understand how the rate at white photos travel can compare to biological species changing over time.

JV: Again. the measure of billions of light years is based on assumptions - mainly the brightness of "standard candle" stars like Cepheid variables. These great ages and distances are all based on assumptions. Scientists don't seem to have learned the lessons of history that turning assumptions into dogma gets them into trouble. Every age of "scientists" or "naturalists" or "philosophers" or whatever has thought that their "wise ones" had the right answers, only to turn around and find out they were completely wrong. Even evolutionists must postulate an original expansion of the universe that was much greater than the speed of light. So that would give something the appearance of being billions of light years away, when the light actually traveled that distance much more quickly in the beginning so the light is not that old. Or there may be some other mechanism by which light traverses the universe more rapidly than we think. I repeat, the galaxies we see at the so-called edge of the universe are GALAXIES. Fully formed. It's like the evolutionary book I just read about the fabulous fossil finds at Riversleigh in Australia. The writers go on and on about all the various species that were found, and how they "might" have evolved, but the FACT is they are all FULLY FORMED and FULLY FUNCTIONAL animals. They're not part-animals, or deformed animal monsters that are turning into kangaroos, platypuses, etc. They are fully recognizable - many appear to be the same as currently living species, showing to me and those like me that they are NOT millions of years old. The point is, they are FULLY FORMED. Not evolving into or from anything. Find the ancestor of the platypus!

Geologists and biologists DO agree that the earth is much older than a few hundred million years old. Any published academic journal will say so. I think. As will any textbook today.

JV: They're wrong. As I said, just because a few scientists are dogmatic about something doesn't mean it's true. They've been wrong before, and they're wrong now. Their dates are all based on false assumptions and a NEED for time to support the evolution myth.

Yet I feel defeated in this debate. I don't know enough to counter your arguments and you really got me thinking. I'm not convinced that the Earth is so... young. Maybe everything I grew up learning was wrong, with magic school bus and educational videos. Being a freshman in college, I guess there is much more to learn.

JV: When I was a freshman in college in the early 70s that's when I too began to question this stuff. It's when I came to the realization that evolution could not possibly be true. I was a biology major and almost all my courses were steeped in evolution. It was the very evolutionary textbooks that I was using that convinced me they were lying. For example, they spoke of the sudden explosion of complex life in the Cambrian period. They told of a lack of transitional species, for instance from non-flowering to flowering plants. We know so much more about the complexity of just a single cell now than we did then that it boggles the mind that anyone could still think of a cell as "simple" and that it arose on its own with no direction or purpose. That is just STUPID, and for the non-thinking person who wants to be told what to think instead of thinking for himself.

But there is something I don't understand: God. I assume that you are indeed a YEC right? But there are so many questions that faith in God failed to answer for me, and I stopped believing in high school. Now I am an atheist. So can you answer me this: what are the rules to get into heaven or be damned to hell? No two Dhristians seem to agree on this.

JV: Though that is an important part of my life, it is not my purpose here or with this website to get into this sort of discussion. I would highly recommend you go to the website and look at some of the topics there. They touch on about everything you can imagine, from God, to evolution and the fossil record, to Noah's flood, to UFOs, and on and on, and are a reputable group with a number of reputable scientists on their staff.

Hope this helps,


January 25, 2011

(From D--)
>Hmm. Ok, but I don't see why this hasn't been brought to light before if it IS true. I'm not saying you are wrong, because you really did bring some interesting, logical points into play. But why is it that geologists and biologists all agree that the 1862 estimate of of earth's age (100 million years) was too short to be plausible?

Geologists and biologists don't agree on anything. Just like all branches of science, you have agreement between some and disagreement between others. So there are numerous scientists who believe in billions of years and look for "evidence" to support it, and there are numerous scientists who DON'T buy the story line and look for "evidence" to support it. Funny thing is, we all have the same evidence. It's all in the interpretation. And think about your question. Do you realize how many times the supposed age of the earth has changed over the past 150 years or so? It's gone from thousands to millions to billions. Why? Because time is supposedly the evolutionist's only ally. Their reasoning is that any miracle (they won't use the word, but that's exactly what it is) can happen if you just have enough time. Now on to your next item, because it ties in....

Also, if you are also a biblical scholar (I don't know, you've been very secular so far, but 6000 is about how old the Earth is according to most YEC's), why is it that stars are so old when God made the Earth before the stars?

I don't think by now it's any secret where I stand. However, that's still irrelevant as far as the evolution question goes. The plain fact is, evolution does not happen, never did, and never will. The "age" of the stars is an age old question (dumb pun intended), and I've touched on it already, but let's hit on some important points again:

First, a light year is a measure of DISTANCE, not time. This is important, because it's the distance light travels in one year. So the variable here is the speed of light. And that so-called "constant" has been seriously called into question as experiments of late have shown the speed of light can vary. Why everything else in the universe should change (and I don't mean evolve - the evidence and scientific laws demonstrate that the universe is in a state of decay) except the speed of light makes no sense. An Australian named Barry Setterfield has attempted to demonstrate a principle called cdk (c being the speed of light, and dk meaning decay), namely that the speed of light has decreased with time. So, at the beginning, perhaps the speed of light was near infinite, so that light was able to traverse enormous distances almost in an instant. In fact, evolutionists have come up with the idea. Alan Guth proposed the inflationary theory, in which the universe, in the beginning, expanded way faster than the speed of light.

Second, and this always gets my blood running hot - there is a philosophical DISCONNECT between distant starlight and evolution. Here's the problem. You're saying the following: Starlight takes billions of years to reach us. Therefore, life evolved over billions of years. See the problem there? There is no connection whatsoever. If something can't happen in one year, it's not going to happen no matter how much time you add to it. A nickel won't change into a paper dollar in a year or a billion years. So if life did not, and cannot, evolve, it's not going to do so no matter how much time you add. But the evolutionists NEED time, because it's their smokescreen behind which to hide. They KNOW evolution can't be true, but sure enough if you say it needed millions of years, nobody can test or prove it, so your case is closed.

Third, there are other possibilities regarding distant starlight in a young universe. Have you ever looked at a Hubble telescope deep space image, where they say there are galaxies almost from the beginning of the universe? Did you notice those galaxies are FULLY FORMED. They're not "becoming" galaxies. They ARE galaxies. We should expect rather to see blobs of gas turning into galaxies if indeed we're looking at the beginning of time and matter. But we don't. Nor do we see star formation. That's another evolutionary fantasy. We hear about areas of "star formation," but has anyone actually seen a new star come into existence? No. We do see plenty of stellar decay, though. So I believe the light we're seeing is either not as distant as we think (it's not possible to measure it directly - the distances are based on assumptions, too), or there is some warp to space or space/time that allows distant light to reach us more quickly than it is assumed.

Regardless, no matter how much time you add, evolution didn't happen, doesn't happen, and will not be happening any time in the future.


February 3, 2011

I recently watched a program on PBS ( Nova, I think, but could be wrong ) about the excavation of a T-Rex from some remote cite in North America. It was necessary for them to saw some of the bones in half to facilitate removal and shipping. Back in the lab, they scooped some of the material from inside the bone out and placed it in a dish. They then applied a solution which dissolved away the mineralization, and the remaining biological tissue was to their amazement still pliable and elastic. They were astonished that it was still in such a state after tens of millions of years!!!!!!! It never ONCE occurred to these HIGHLY educated Einsteins that this was far more obviously proof that these remains were nowhere near as old as they believe. It never ceases to amaze me that the more "educated" people are, the more blind they become. I would like very much to hear your thoughts about the flaws in carbon dating techniques.

S—H— (Arizona, USA)

Hi S--,

Thanks much for writing. Yes, I'm familiar with the T-rex bones. Blood cells were also found in them. I, as others, have commented, like you did, that these folks are so blinded by their a priori commitment to evolutionism and millions of years that they won't even consider the possibility that the bones are YOUNGER than their mythology requires them to be. Their reasoning is this: Wow! How could blood cells and soft tissue have lasted MILLIONS OF YEARS!? Instead it should be: Wow! Maybe these bones really AREN'T that old! But since that might mean having to question their cherished fanatical evolutionary religious belief, they won't go that route. You'll notice that the hullabaloo around that discovery (which I believe was originally published in Discovery magazine) quickly died out.

Anyhow, not only carbon dating, but all dating systems are flawed. Carbon dating, for one, is only supposed to be accurate to around 50,000 years. Oh, on a side note, carbon-14 has actually been found in fossils that are supposedly "millions of years old" but it's always attributed to contamination or some other factor - anything BUT the fact that the fossil is NOT millions of years old.

All dating is based on the following assumptions:

  1. 1. The original amount of radioactive parent product is known. However, it can't possibly be known. It's assumed.
  2. 2. There was no daughter product (like lead from uranium decay) present in the sample originally. This too is an assumption and a wrong one.
  3. 3. The rate of decay has always been a constant. As every evolutionist knows, nothing in this universe is totally constant, except for when the evolutionist needs it to be so. Various factors are known to affect radioactive decay rates.
  4. 4. Often, the "age" of a rock is assumed before the rock is even dated. If the rock came from a particular formation or stratum, it is assumed to be a certain number of millions of years old to begin with. So the dating folks conveniently end up with dates that more or less "match" what was expected. It's also well known that fossils are dated by the rock milieu in which they're found, and rocks are often dated by the "index" fossils found in them. Sound like circular reasoning? That's because it is.

In any event, all estimates of age are just that - estimates. And further proof of that is the margin of error that dates are usually given. Suppose I went to my banker and asked how much I had in my account, and he said $1 million plus or minus $100,000. Only evolutionary paleontologists can get away with such numeric legerdemain.

Have a good day!


February 8, 2011

Hello again, J--,

First let me tell you how much I would love to visit some of the observatories you have in Chile! I've seen photos of them and the beautiful sky above them!

Hi John! Thanks for answering so quickly! Regarding your cosmological theories i must say they are definetly possible and sound very reasonable. I would just like to say two things about this:

1) First, it is possible that God, when he created earth and all the planets and stars he did so putting the stars really really far away from us, maybe millions of light years away but with the light ALREADY reaching earth. If we take a scientist to the garden of eden and introduce him to adam and eve, he would conclude that this both humans must be in their mid-twenties when in reality they may have been only a few days old. I believe something like this might be happening regarding the enormous distances to stars.

JV: Yes, I'm familiar with that argument, and believe it has some merit. Let's put the evolution question aside a moment. Yes, if God created everything, then it was already "mature" and fully functional. Otherwise He's not much of a God if He has to sit around for billions of years waiting for things to happen and hoping they turn out all right, or making adjustments here and there as things evolved. That is the sort of god the evolutionists like, because that sort of god is really not necessary. The stars would also have been created at that time and were already shining in the heavens, and visible from Earth, so it would not have taken billions of years for their light to reach us. One of the problems that creationists have raised, however, is that we see very distant objects in a state of decay. Let's use a supernova explosion, for example. Even if we believe the object is no more than 10,000 years old, we would not believe it was created in a state of explosion and decay. So let's say the supernova is a million light years distant. That means the light of the explosion took about a million years to reach us, or else the light of the explosion was created on the way already and only took a few thousand years to reach us. That would be rather deceptive of the Creator, would it not? So we do not believe that is true. We would take the position that either light traveled much faster in the past, and the light from the explosion took much less than a million years to reach us, or else there is some other explanation of how the light from the explosion got here quickly and we have not discovered how that could happen - yet. Here is an article that helps explain it perhaps a bit better:

2) I think you should wait a little before saying this theories, while it is very possible that light wears off his energy and everything you said, sadly i think you would lose credibility among scientists and that would be terrible because you have destroyed the biological theories of evolution and they would use this ideas you present about the cosmos and discredit you in other areas. Unless you have some evidence like scientific papers or something else , i recommend you don't release this theory yet. I am really thankful that you shared it with me though and i am very interested in reading some material about this if you have some to share or maybe you can recomend a book about the subject.

JV: Actually the idea of red shift being due to light losing energy over time is not my own idea and is considered plausible. See this article, for example:

Thanks again for writing!