The irony is palpable.

It is has been vigoursouly tested over and over again. Predictions (call them prophecies), have all come true. (For example, that is evolution is true, we should find half-fish, half-amphibians in 375 million year old rock. This was the prediction, tiktaalik the half-fish another of the many transitional fossils was found).

etc.etc.etc.etc.etc. Read thousands of papers on evolution, read one every day until you are 150 years old.

Could you please keep the comments down to the size of, say a small book? I will respond to your questions but you need to be a bit more concise in the comments. If you want to publish massive missives you might consider starting your own blog.

Thanks (and I will be responding to your first set of questions shortly).

This is not true. Many Creationists readily accept the explanation for genetic “mistakes”. Sure, there are those empassioned zealots who feel they understand what they believe well enough to parrot what they’ve heard, but not everyone you people tend to group together and label “Creationists” are “half-baked” as you say. We just don’t accept the idea that life has its origins in random chance, or that genetic mutation creates viable new species.

Some “Creationists” may argue that man has not existed for the geologic scales of time that Earth Sciences postulate (emphasis on guessing for both sides of the argument here). Some “Creationists” don’t accept that genetic mutation is a plausible explanation for one species evolving into a different one. And indeed, for Evolutionists, this is a difficult theory to prove having no evidence of the period of time in which rapid mutation and evolution into different species has taken place. “Evolutionists” merely have a “belief” that their theory will some day be proven, which they hold to with ardor and “faith”. Yes, Evolution relies heavily on “faith” and “belief”. It’s a religion…don’t fool yourselves. But I don’t say that religion is a bad thing…that’s a stigma most of your participants attach.

Radio carbon-dating isn’t even reliable enough to accept as proof of the amount of time we have existed. And if it does turn out that we have existed for eons, what has been proven? Intelligent Design theory would accept this as fact – if proven beyond a doubt. It simply would mean that we were Created in a manner different from what we thought. You allow yourselves the freedom to modify theoretical models, why don’t you allow others the same freedom? Why is it that we are hypocrits for doing the same thing you do and you aren’t hypocritical? Answer: we’re all hypocrits…we’re human and prone to mistake and misunderstanding.

Some mechanisms of evolution are apparent. Survival of the fittest for example, is obvious to anyone who observes. These common sense forms of evolution are easily accepted. We only butt heads on evolution theories when these things are used as proof of inter-species evolution or offered as proof that creation theory is wrong.

If by “Creationists” you actually mean “The Religious”, your statement is still incorrect. The Judeo-Christian Scriptures, for example, include a story of a people called “Nephalem”. These people were reportedly the progeny of sexual intercourse between humans and fallen angels. For those atheists (who are agnostics that just don’t know it), and those agnostics out there who haven’t really looked into it, angels are beings that exist in different dimensions with the Creator,(called “Heaven” in Judeo-Christian writings). Some of them have wings, and some of them are considered “fallen” or evil angels which have grotesque body features. In at least one written account the grotesque feature is a tail (e.g., satan). These would have been the angels that procreated with humans. The progeny of such an encounter would have had some human features and some fallen angel features. One possible explanation for humans born with tails could be the residual genetic coding from the two different beings. Or maybe not…maybe it is explained by the introduction of sin and its results in the physical body. Can you disprove it? Even “the religious” do not reject every scientific idea about life. Again, with respect to Evolution Theory, we reject the idea that our origins are random chance, and accept that life has to have intelligent design behind it.

If by “Creationists” you mean those who accept “Intelligent Design” as a more plausible theory for the origins of life, there is no dispute against genetic mutations such as a tail-like appendage. (BTW, your image evidence of humans born with tails could easily have been Photoshopped, but we’ll just say it is a real picture, since it can easily be proved or disproved…I just want your readers to acknowledge here that just because it says so on this site, doesn’t make it true. Read everything and examine all illustrations with discretion because subtle points are passed over as trivial but make all the difference. Case in point – notice how fuzzy the picture of the alledged human embryo is in comparison to the very clear image of the alledged cat embryo. Aside from the fact that there is a long tail in the cat embryo picture, it is hard to tell how much of the spine is exposed as a tail in the human embryo. Also, the author tries to trivialize the importance of embryo development stage just as Haeckel did in his drawings and then used it against the guy who tried to make a point about Haeckel’s drawings.)

I don’t claim that this guy had his facts straight when he made his argument, just that you use the fact it is your forum to victimize people you don’t agree with and paint them in an unnecessarily bad light. Anyone can set themselves up as superior in that way. It takes guts to stand up to someone knowing they can do that. It also takes guts to admit wrong and pursue pure truth. We are all supposedly in support of that. It takes audacity and insolence to steamroll someone instead of trying to understand their point…like misbehaving children left alone with no supervision. Polished and seeming calm, methodical explanations that demean people may fool some, but not all…the immaturity is still visible.

The item in dispute here is simply that genetic mutation is a plausible explanation for inter-species evolution. Some “Creationists” currently reject that explanation, chosing instead to believe that the Creator made each distinct species separately and in harmonic co-existence with one another.

So you see, it is explained in ways other than evolution as you’ve suggested it can’t be “easily explained”. I know your readers are supposed to draw the conclusion that your explanations are reasonable, heady, and correct; that they contrast well and expose falsity against the rest of the world, which you lump into the category “Creationists”, but it just isn’t so.

I hope you see my point that you have demonstrated bigotry and hypocracy by grouping everyone who isn’t an evolutionist into one group and labeled us ignorant “Creationists”…without exercising due dilligence in research to learn the truth.

If you want to believe in Evolution and refuse to look around at other plausible explanations go ahead. The choice is entirely up to you…nobody is forcing you to think a certain way.

Just don’t spit in the face of those who have enough compassion on mankind to try to bring enlightenment just because you don’t like the way they present it.

One of your bloggers commented that they hadn’t seen an intelligent argument since the internet “got big”. Could it be they have simply stopped “casting pearls before swine”? If one compassionately tries to share a treasure with someone and they constantly get demeaned instead of being thanked for their thoughtful act, they tend to simply stop sharing their treasures.

If you want to discuss it like reasonable adults and show some respect for your opposition, I’ll discuss this further, but otherwise you’ve gotten all the treasure out of me you’ll get.

The problem with Haeckel’s “comparison” of anatomical similarities is that these are supposed to represent the earliest stages of embryos, and they are actually later stages of the embryos represented. I defy you to check it out for yourselves. You won’t like what you find if you’re objective because it blasphemes the sacred tenets your faith.

Also, Haeckel fudged the drawings to make them look alike when they don’t actually look the same at all. It has been widespread knowledge for some time that these drawings are invalid. Even the director of the National Center for Science Education admitted this. I have video proof. AND along with this admission, she also states that she sees no reason for not keeping the illustrations in text books because they serve a purpose for education. What purpose? To mislead people? Inter-species evolution theory…at least in part…is being taught based on a deception. So the NCSE perpetuates deception rather than teaching the truth. There are other examples I won’t go into here, but they serve to undermine and crumble away at a well established institution that is proving to be wrong. Yep! The one you all harold here at this website.

This NCSE response, when confronted with a truth about Haeckle’s drawings, turns the Scopes Monkey Trial on its head. Now, instead of religious zelots mindlessly demanding the law be followed and evolution be taken out of the schools in ignorant disregard of what was then thought to be truth…now it’s evolutionist zelots mindlessly demanding the law be followed and the religious be persecuted in ignorant disregard of what is now thought to be truth. And it isn’t even the religous who are disputing some of the icons of evolution. But that is the avowed enemy of people like the designers of this website and many of its contributors and so there is a knee-jerk, ears-plugged response in addressing the religious whom you wish were the people you are arguing with.

The establishment is being challenged by a growing number of scientists who are questioning misinformation and trying to get truth promoted.

What I would like to point out here is two things…the first, what do we get if Big-Bang theory is proven correct? At the end of the rainbow there is still a persistent, glaring, and pesky question for Evolutionists: “Where did the matter that became life come from, and why does it appear to have intelligent design behind it?” There’s no escaping this question, and it bugs you. Why else would you be so fervent in arguing down “Creationists”?

It takes a great deal of belief and faith to accept that this all occurred by chance and that matter, in what ever form, “just happened”. I think it takes a great deal more faith to believe this is all happenstance than it does to believe an intelligence is behind all life and things. Instead of blindly following your god Charles Darwin, maybe you should open your eyes and look into Intelligent Design theory.

The other thing is this: We all have a system of beliefs we hold to with ardor and faith…in other words we all have a “Religion”. There is nothing that makes your system of beliefs any better than those of people you describe as “Creationists”. Why? Because none of us were there to witness the origins of life and nobody can know with certainty. So let’s stop all the hypocricy right here OK? Stop persecuting people for having a religion, and not acknowledging you have one too!

Do you really need to have someone to fight in order to have validity? Do you really need to demean people to make your views appear more important or right? Are you so afraid you really aren’t so superior and intelligent as you think you are, that you have to put down your opposition? Are you so sure of yourselves that you can afford to egotistically argue people down without regard to what they’re trying to say? I think you’re really just scared you’re wrong. And rightly so because there is a lot at stake if you are.

It takes truth people…truth brings validity. I don’t see truth in your remarks.

You know, String-Theory postulates and the science of physics has proven, that other dimensions exist. If other dimensions exist, than life in those dimensions probably exists too. String Theory scientists agree that understanding these dimensions is too complex for the human brain and human 3D senses.

So what if a Creator lives in these dimensions? By religiously taking a stand for evolution you miss that fact. You confine your exploration to what you can perceive with your senses, or build devices to detect, or mathematical models to understand. That isn’t everything there is to understand and the truth is NOBODY is smart enough to get their minds around all there is to know. You can only claim…at best…that you are smarter than other people. And what does it prove?

If you really want to prove your smarts have value, put them to work in industry. If you’re already doing that great! Thanks for your contribution to our economy. If not, you need to.

So far all I’ve seen this group do is pick at people they can easily argue down. Whether or not the people you choose to represent Creation Theorists have their facts right or not, there is MUCH room for exploration into the possibility of Intelligent Design and Creation theories being real, correct, and a valid explanation for our origins. The fact that life could exist in these other dimensions is a possible explanation for why the Creator is invisible to us. It may also explain why so many of the “Religious” claim to have interaction with the Creator too. Ignorance isn’t the only explanation for people’s behavior…unless you assume it to be the case. Assumptions aren’t facts, and it ain’t good science either.

Did it ever occur to you people who so smugly proclaim that we who believe in a Creator are ignorant, superstitious, and blind, that if there is a Creator and that person wants to interact with us that they would provide a practical method for that interaction, regardless of a person’s intelligence level? Why assume that a Creator would expect us to strive to get to interaction with them? Maybe he/she/it doesn’t want to be measured scientifically. Maybe they know we can’t get there by science and interaction is more important than measured process and scientific study.

You need to think outside your own box. Irrationally grouping everyone who believes Intelligent Design and Creation Theory into the same group with other, more superstitious religious people is to ignore Critical Thinking and to deliberately not explore territory that may hold truth.

In the behavior of people who engage in this website’s intent we see all of the same nomenclature of other religions…faith, belief, blind acceptance of the tenets of the faith, and blind, deliberate ignorance of things that dispute those tenets. Get your act together brothers and sisters, because it’s obvious you don’t have it together.

We just don’t know everything people, and to throw the baby out with the bath water isn’t good science and it isn’t smart either.

Here’s a better direction to go…Explain “why” creation theory is invalid instead of picking at what people have to say about it. You’re the (self professed) intelligent and enlightened ones…so go at it! (If you can).

Locate the DVD titled “Icons of Evolution” from Coldwater Media. It might enlighten you in things you have chosen to deliberately be ignorant in.

Yours Truly,

Just a Pigeon…you’re move, (and I’ll bet if you publish this, there will be more mindless, childish, demeaning, warring rethoric aimed at “those ignorant Creationists”).