Oh well. It’s pretty well a dead issue now. I won’t stop searching those resources that you guys gave because I am very interested, true or false. I mean, step outside of the argument with me a little. How fascinating it is to see what mankind does with the issues of creationism and evolution. If creationism is true, (use your imagination) it is very surreal to think of the theory of evolution and how it has been blown out of proportion. On the other hand, what if evolution was right? Holy Cow! Right? Well you have already been thinking like that. Me too, but not as consistently.

Hey, thanks for taking the time and laying out your argument in your own style. I am not new to it but I have never seen it taken that far.

Anyway, I know you couldn’t care less but this was good. I couldn’t restrain myself from responding. There was always a glint of hope that drove me to read your response and a hint of frustration when you kept leading me to more questions that I feel were beside the point that I was trying to get you or someone to make. (There’s that run-on sentence thing you were referring to)

Anyway, I’ll go away now.

Bye, cheerleader.

I directed you to a website that asked you to read a book. You did not read the site. If you had, you would have encountered this passage:

“there have been many such sequences put forward by various researchers, this challenge focusses upon one case at a time. The first such case is found in:

Now, it is up to you to show why the fossil sequence described therein fails to show transitional fossils.”

Had you done the search for “Transitional Fossils Challenge” as I told you to do, you would have found a couple sites with specific fossils imaged on the site, and a challenge for you to show why the fail as transitional forms.

So aside from ignorant and arrogant, we can now add dishonest to the list of descriptors that apply well to you.

Go away little boy. You’re annoying the grown ups.

When you asked me for evidence, I knew that I was not educated through any formal schooling, but that I had heard enough from the religious leaders themselves to be comfortable with calling it just another faith needing to be weighed accordingly. I can see why an evolutionist would claim that no other proof was needed, but why the leaders of such a hard nose group would say that it is just as religious as creationism, that I can’t see. If they wanted evolution to be true and still hold to it, you would think that they would be as dogmatic as the rest. After hearing their evidences, it didn’t take long to figure out that it is the congregation of believers in evolution who have perpetuated the parts they want to believe with bold statements. You are just that sort of believer. I laid out “assertions” made by your leaders, who themselves are the educated ones, and you shot all of them down with authority, not having any education yourself. Even the Homologous structures not being coded or specified by homologous genes in other species and you “clearly” knew that I didn’t know what I was talking about. Guess what Leroy, nothing I have said so far can’t be found in the mouth of those who have made evolution a religion. You have played chess with some of your own leaders.

You shot them down with nothing more than philosophy and dogma. You asked me. I never said I need anyone to approve or deny. I did think that you might offer up some new evidences that I might be unaware of, but instead you showed me that evolutionist have changed the way they argue. Same information but now I have to be smarter than the scientists to say anything damaging to evolution. If I play you against your leaders I don’t have to be educated in the least on the subject. So after you responded with absolutely nothing but long sentences I realized that I can’t have an argument on a level of physical evidences with someone who makes “assertions” about evolution contrary to their leaders, based on philosophy and dogma.

The hardest thing of all is trying to get a serious answer from you. You keep giving websites that supposedly have answers and when all I find there is philosophy and side stepping, you tell me I didn’t read it. The last site is a smoke-and-mirrors trick to take the focus off the man behind the curtain. If you are going to give answers then now would be a good time. If I said the Bible is true, you would laugh because there is no substance to the statement. Yet, you have made the same types of claims expecting different results. You’re pretending to offer a library of information and giving me circumstantial evidence with a philosophical statement with an ignorance ad hominem implication, be it implied or stated. If you don’t understand “ad hominem” it means “toward me” (literally: to the man, or something like that) which is not toward the debate or to the “assertions”.

And now I have to be an English major to tell you your faith is misplaced? You clearly are a cheerleader to a losing team now. Can you produce for me, not the authority of a religious evolutionist with an agenda, but the authority of truth which can be shown and observed with the eyes and hands, any evidences for your position? I can’t ask in any other way than that. You have not given anything that is unambiguous yet. It is almost convincing me that none exists because you have approached it so scandalously. Assertions will not work for me, though if you were as well read as you like to think of yourself, you would know where my assertions come from and would not be so dogmatic. I bet that the next post and any others after that, you will not give anything other than the same philosophy and dogma. There; I’ve said those words so many times now that you might probably ask yourself, “Does the evidence say what I say it is saying, or is it circumstantial or philosophical?” Think before you type. I’m betting you still don’t get it. Cheerleaders are pretty thick headed.

And don’t try to use the Bible to “shame” me. If you believe that your understanding of the Bible is true, then you have only heard others quote it and that’s probably why you never got very far with it. There are many places where we are instructed to speak the truth with all authority and not to let anyone disregard you, this by Paul who spoke against the high priest to his face and even wish that the Judaisers would have slipped when circumcising themselves. They like you were perpetuating a very misleading lie. If your approach is for the sake of misleading, I have no gentleness for that. I was gentle with you at first (Karen was right, I’ll grant her that) but you responded with an obvious nasty behavior bent towards a lie. If you are only interested in how the Bible can control others’ responses to your malicious intent, then you have expected more than even Christ allowed. I’m not trying to evangelize here, I’m trying to bring out the scandalous approaches of those who claim to know the truth so that others can see the guts of it all. You have already heard what your itching ear longs to hear; others need to hear the vile-ness now. The blood be on your head as well.

If I can’t see it and hold it in my hand, it is not evidence. Think objectively.

From an earlier response of yours, in regards to links Karen provided:
My eyes were bugging out because I was reading more than was necessary to get the answer. The answers could be stated in shorter sentences.

You complain that folks don’t get real science compacted down to a bumper sticker for you, and yet you want us to take you seriously in an intellectual vein???? Do you think people get degrees, or learn how to do science, or learn much of anything by wanting the answers “in shorter sentences”?
Maybe you do. If you can’t grasp anything longer than a bumper sticker, how could it be meaningful?

Regarding your “response” to the link I gave you about transitional fossils. You did not read it or even attempt to begin doing what it said. Not surprising. Elsberry expects you to read and analyze a book. Those are far larger than bumper stickers.
And still you want to be taken seriously in an intellectual frame?

I just gave some evidences that kill the theory from the outset and you responded with a very scandalous approach that shifts the burden of proof over to me. The burden of proof rests on the one who claims it exists, then I have something to work with. Because no proof exists,

Sir, you have provided only assertions. Not one iota of evidence. You’ve trotted out “no transitional fossils” and “all phyla are in the Cambrian” no less than three times each. But not once have you provided anything more than those bald assertions.
We, by contrast, have pointed you to numerous links that show the evidence for evolution, and most of those links refer you to all manner of further evidence, including books, articles, museums, excavation sites, and so forth.
You have got to learn the difference between ‘assertion’ and ‘evidence’. You seem to have them backwards.
But, yes, how very scandalous of us to place any burden on your clearly overtaxed resources.

Here, have a few pointers:
1- Read the stuff we provide you with. I mean actually read it. All of it. I’ve read bucket loads of creationist stuff. Even whole books. Heck child, I’d bet I’ve read more creationist literature than you have.
2- Learn the difference between ‘evidence’ and ‘assertion’.
3- Stop trying to use the term ‘ad hominem’. You simply don’t grasp the term.
4- Learn to write in something other than run on sentences. Learn to use better syntax. Take a class in formal logic. All these may help you to communicate clearly. As it is you have a bad tendency to ramble. It’s not easy to figure out what someone is saying in the midst of jumbled syntax and flow-of-consciousness rambling.
5- Go get a Bible and read the parts about how you are supposed to behave. While you’re at it, think about the apostles being ridiculed, beaten, jailed, and so on. And about the many saints and martyrs who were reviled, and mistreated. And think that all those people – the great cloud of witnesses you’re supposed to follow – responded to the people who did all those nasty things to them.
Then reflect on how you respond when you are oh-so-beset by a bunch of people on the internet. People who can’t physically touch you. On a site you are free to come to or not. On a site you chose to come to and issue challenges.
Just think how those burned in oil must weep at your trials. How they must cheer you on as you attempt to stem our evil responses with snideness, and obtuseness, and rudeness.
Just think of the Internet Crown of Reward, set with diodes, that surely awaits you when finally you join that happy throng who bore up, with the aid of Jesus, under unspeakable torment.

I’m wondering where in your bible it says, “The outworkings of the Holy Spirit in you are a snide attitude, arrogance, condescension, short-temper, insults, and the like. Against these there is no defense.”

Point is that as you claim to be Christian, you are hoist on your own petard a bit. You have, by your own choice, subscribed to a higher standard. A higher standard of regard for others, of attitude, of humility, of putting up with abuse, of response to others (be they abusive or not).

Recall your bible? It says something about providing answers with gentleness.

So far you’ve been a fine example of a Christian to all. I know I speak for many hereabouts when i say, “Boy! I really wanna be a Christian like Sam. I can be rude, obtuse, arrogant, snide, … in fact I can be any damn way I please. What a great religion Sam has. Just be any asinine way you want and claim a free ticket to heaven.”

It’s arrogant, snide, condescending, bad-mouthed, bad attitude “Christians” like you that fill churches around the world and make people like me say, “If that’s what having the Holy Spirit in you does, then to hell (literally) with that faith.”

I’ll address you comments in light of science and logic in a bit. Just wanted you to know what an “ambassador for Christ” you’ve been to everyone.

I know that sounds stupid, so imagine my surprise that you would try that approach. The site you referred to is doing the same thing. I don’t have to know why a Guy is not a Girl if I can see he has an Adam’s apple. Likewise, I don’t have to know why there are no transitional forms between the supposed evolution of cold blooded reptiles to warm blooded birds. That guy has set up a straw man as a smoke screen so people who know big words can gloat and smirk. This hardly proves anything and is just the sort of approach that I expect from an atheist. You bought into it so you must be just as stupid and prideful.

You said: You are telling us all about the failures of evolutionary theory. You’d better be pretty well educated in “the matters of evolution” if you’re going to do that. Otherwise you’re condemning a large area of learning and research from a standpoint of ignorance.

Sure. But what I’m saying can be found in the mouths of many of your scientists. I said that I’m not being original. I thought that you would at least assume that I’m not presenting original questions. I have not presented anything that cannot be stated by an atheistic scientist (i.e. My quote of Stephen J Gould). And if we’re speaking of ignorance, I just gave some evidences that kill the theory from the outset and you responded with a very scandalous approach that shifts the burden of proof over to me. The burden of proof rests on the one who claims it exists, then I have something to work with. Because no proof exists, I have no need to disprove it. Evolutionists claim first that it is possible and did in fact occur. Without evidence of the fact, I went ahead and ended the theory by pointing out the lack of any evidence from the outset of the theory. Can you build a case on anything more barren than that.

This is why I find it hard to believe that people can be taken in by atheistic approaches to argument. Ad hominem, and elitism perpetuate an otherwise dead theory. Look, if you think that I have to be a doctor and to fully understand the human anatomy to identify a Man from a Woman, then your are being ignorant in the most literal interpretation of the word. I can understand why you would require that though. Probably because there is no other argument to lean on.

You also said: There are species on the planet today that were not on it 150,000,000 years ago. They came from older species. These more recent species, though derived from a common, ancestral species, can not interbreed.
(It’s all one thing. It just needs 3 statements to say it.)

The exact perpetual dogma without evidence I can expect from any one atheist. You have paid attention to the many who have come before you. You can probably publish your works now. The site you offered is a joke and your presentation is hardly convincing. I noticed you are still making statements into the air that cannot be proven. With nothing to work with how can I prove it wrong. No sister: no murder: no murderer: case closed.

lastly you said: You clearly have no idea what you are even saying here.

Right. Now that every atheist is convinced by your last sentence, simply because it was authoritative and spoken by an atheist, you should be sure that I don’t know what I’m talking about before you perpetuate your own dogmatic statements. I’m glad to see that not all hypocrites are in the church.

You have wasted your time because none of my evidences have been addressed, and hopefully your scandalous approach is recognized by all who read everything that you have said, because I know you’re proud of your statements and have no reason to think that you are wrong. Maybe others won’t be as stupid.

Nice objective evidence, BTW. You show yourself to be a comprehensive reader.

Now does anyone else want to take a stab at the evidences I have presented as being nonexistent? Maybe this time you can exhaust the Internet and other sources for physical proof, instead of your atheist book, “How to perpetuate a lie when called on the carpet” By LeoPardus. I don’t know, maybe some of you are into that sort of thing. Save it then.

signing off….

Genetics has not been as kind to the theory either. There aren’t any Homologous structures that are specified by homologous genes.

You clearly have no idea what you are even saying here.

I have not made any bold claims as to present myself to you as educated in the matters of evolution.

You are telling us all about the failures of evolutionary theory. You’d better be pretty well educated in “the matters of evolution” if you’re going to do that. Otherwise you’re condemning a large area of learning and research from a standpoint of ignorance.

I have represented the facts as your scientist have represented them

How can you do that If you’re not educated in “matters of evolution”?

And if answers that sufficiently explain the phenomenon of missing intermediate fossils and the presence of the majority of all known phyla in the Cambrian strata were presented,

First go look for the “Transitional Fossils Challenge” [Here's a link: http://austringer.net/wp/?p=84 ] So much for “there are no transitional forms.

Unfortunately I don’t know a site as tightly done for the Cambrian explosion. I’ll do a little myself.
-Evidence from molecular and genetic research indicates that some phylogenetic diversity occurred in the Pre-Cambrian era.
-The Pre-Cambrian layers contain almost nothing. Whatever life was around back then, we have almost no record of it. Partly because pre-Cambrian rock is usually very deep down. Partly because much of it is metamorphic (which would wipe out anything that was in it). The upshot is that pre-Cambrian life was probably fairly diverse, but the record of it simply no longer exists, and there’s nothing we can do about that.
-In the latest taxonomic scheme there are about 40-50 phyla. Older schemes had fewer. Not all of even the older phyla are present in the Cambrian layers. You’re looking at a few dozen phyla, not thousands of lower taxonomic divisions.
-The diversity of the Cambrian did NOT include canines, felines, cetacea, teleosts, and so on. Rather it consisted of arthropods, brachiopods, chordates, echinoderms, and such. In other words, broad body types, not specific special features.

*Note that I just compacted books of info into a few lines. You’re going to have to study a fair bit to understand all the peripherals and depths within the outline I just made.*

I don’t know why my science background would be in question if I’m right.

A- It wouldn’t if you were right.
B- You don’t have a science background to question.

I would have to believe in evolution if the evidence could show it.

I said that a long time ago. Then I actually spent years (yes, I said ‘years’) learning just what evidence there was. That pretty much forced me to believe in evolution.

These are true statements that offend for reasons I can’t explain.

They are false statements. They offend because you make them from a standpoint of ignorance, and insist that they are informed and true, then you insist that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant, or a willful liar.

Can you tell me one thing that is true about evolution?

There are species on the planet today that were not on it 150,000,000 years ago. They came from older species. These more recent species, though derived from a common, ancestral species, can not interbreed.
(It’s all one thing. It just needs 3 statements to say it.)

I think with the publish or parish mentality in the scientific world that money would be a huge drawing factor for the masses and a warning to those who defect. Many have defected and have been blasted by the community of believers in evolution. But there are a lot of scientists who are not Christians or evolutionists but can establish by the evidences known to all, that creationism is a better explanation (There words not exactly mine, but close).

That’s just an extra thought. It is serious enough to stand as an explanation though.

Thanks again.

What I meant by that is that it seemed as though they are trying to lose you so that they don’t really have to explain. My eyes were bugging out because I was reading more than was necessary to get the answer. The answers could be stated in shorter sentences. I don’t have any problems following it though.

I don’t know why so many are accepting it. A lot of them are also finding the same problems that I am and not for the purposes of choice or religion (i.e. Michael Denton). Genetics has not been as kind to the theory either. There aren’t any Homologous structures that are specified by homologous genes. This is another problem that I didn’t get into because of the basic history being so far off that it is not necessary to start explaining why this may or may not be. Genetics has become a circumstantial evidence that is explained by the mechanisms of the theory of evolution but can also be explained by creationism as well.

I think that if people are willing to move on past the problems of the fossil record, straight into believing it anyway, then there is no telling what people will believe and why. Your argument, taken to the extreme, would lend to religions like evolution being equally as true because people are joining them in numbers as well. But I’m not here to argue with you. I thought I would just point that out.

I’ll look at the site though. Thanks.