Creationists E-mail Messages

From time to time I receive disparaging comments from creationists. They are reproduced below as received, without editing. They provide no scientific evidence to refute evolution. They reveal a zeal to impose fundamentalist religious beliefs onto science education.

My comments and/or e-mail replies are in italics.



As a former YEC (young-earth creationist), I read with interest your contribution to the Talk Origins FAQ regarding thermodynamics. While thermodynamics was mentioned somewhat infrequently when I was growing up, I still recall a few times as a teen how it was deemed by creationists as fatal to evolution. Now as a former YEC, (although I've never posted) and the Talk Origins archive has been among my top places to visit the last two years or so.

If I overlooked this, my fault, but you might consider mentioning in the Talk Origins FAQ that even some *creationists* rejected the idea of thermodynamics against evolution (like Walter Lammerts, A.E. Wilder Smith, etc). They were of course against evolution, but felt thermodynamics was a terrible argument to use. Ronald Number mentions this in his book "The Creationists" and there's also brief mention of this in the early 80s version of "Scientists Confront Creationism" by Laurie Godfrey.

Thought you might have some interest in how I left YEC. I was raised in a (looking back) somewhat cloistered but still very loving family in Tennessee. Up through high school, I went to mostly fundamentalist parochial schools. YEC was a central theme that I absorbed (I learned among other things a worldwide flood laid down most of earth's rock layers and all life "kinds" were created at pretty much the same time only a few thousand years ago).

I never really thought to question my YEC beliefs until I went away to college. While family wanted me to consider conservative Christian schools, I ended up at a secular university where I recently graduated. Although not a science major, I still had gen ed requirements and I chose geology. I knew that mainstream geology contradicted YEC and flood geology, but I kind of took for granted that I would pretend to act the part to get a good grade, then go back to my YEC beliefs afterwards. Thus, I was not putting on a big bravado stance, but wasn't fearful, either.

However, to my surprise I started to crave this info about geology that I had never been widely exposed to before, and the geology professor remains one of my favorite instructors. The prof related geology well to laypeople that are not all that science minded, even covered the basics of the scientific method at start of course, how the terms fact, theory, etc, are used in science, what science is and is not, etc; I found this new and refreshing. I ended up getting an A in the five week summer geology course.

However, I paid a price in that I went through emotional and spiritual pain once I discovered how scientifically hollow YEC really is. Even after my geology class, it took me close to two years to get the courage to fully accept that YEC was based on terrible science (and bad theology). To add salt to the wound, some church members and even some family and friends somewhat ostracized me for questioning YEC, although I mostly remain close to family. It's no big wonder that many former YECs today are agnostic with the trauma they went through; I may be on the path towards being an agnostic myself.

Anyway, thanks for your time and your contributions to

Liam O'Mahony



I’m Liam O’Mahony and I do not believe evolution (as expounded by evolutionists / Darwinists) to be true for several reasons:

1. Evolution is merely a theory, ie it is unproven since it relies solely on circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence on its own proves nothing; it needs to be corroborated by hard evidence.

These statements are simply untrue creationist propaganda. Have you actually looked up the meaning of the word "theory" in any standard collegiate dictionary?

2. Evolutionary theory can produce no missing links, eg giraffe-like creatures with semi-long necks that are “related” (the okapi was supposed to be it but it isn’t even related!) The eohippus was supposed to be the missing link for the horse but it turned out to be another creature altogether. Surely we must have one, single missing link out of all the millions of creature types out there. No; it seems they are (until we see concrete, empirical evidence to support the theory) all different species after all.

Mr. Mahoney does not understand that evolution is a branching process

3. Evolutionists / Darwinists believe evolution to be design-free. This is implausible. It clearly has design lying behind its apparently random development. If I come across a well constructed, even primitive dwelling on a never-inhabited (except by me alone) island with say rough-cut logs stuck in the sand forming a (roughly) rectangular wall, with openings for door and windows and a more-or-less rain-proof roof of fronds etc. I’m supposed to believe that over time, the winds etc. formed this cosy dwelling. I couldn’t bring myself to do it. If it was a sophisticated building or several of them, even more so. If it looked a bit like NYC only a crazy man would believe it happened randomly. But a single human cell is even more complex that that but I’m to believe the 100,000,000,000.000 cells all working in harmony to form me happened randomly? No design involved? Pure chance? Not a hope in hell. Not if we had a squillion, xillion eons could it even happen without design.

This is standard creationist boiler plate propaganda that has been dealt with repeatedly on my web page and others.

4. The complexity of even a single living cell is mind-bending let alone a complex living, thinking organism such as ourselves. To imagine a great designer used evolution to achieve this might make a plausible theory (it does) but to assume it happened randomly in a non-benign environment where species kill off their own / other species just for being different is impossible to swallow.

Evolution does not rule out the possibility of a designer. It merely describes a process.

5. Am I wrong in thinking that 90% of species are wiped out by extinction events? Surely if you’re wiped out you cannot continue to evolve! So most of the creatures we now see around us have evolved in the last 65m years, not 600m years. I mean we had dinosaurs and tiny shrew-like mammals, so all the mammals of today used to be shrew-like only 100m years ago. If we can get from shrew to giraffe in 100m years surely we can observe some tiny evolutionary event over the past 333 years (since scientific observation began). 333 is 1/200,000 of 65,000,000 so surely the steps from shrew to giraffe must have been so many that we should be able to see some tiny change. But sadly, we don’t. Sure we humans (with design in mind) can breed Chihuahuas from wolf-like wild dogs in no time but if left to nature, far from developing them further, nature will simply “breed” them back into wolves again.

So if your great grandparents were wiped out in the great flu pandemic of 1918, does that mean you could not exist?

6. Genetic “modification” in nature invariably produces deleterious (less efficient) results or so we have observed. Evolutionists really don’t like observations since none prove their case. We bred dogs into all sorts of shapes and sizes but it seems we couldn’t improve on “nature” as regards survival at least, whatever about appearance.

Not true. You have been misinformed by creationist propaganda.

7. We are asked (by Richard Dawkins) to believe in a “selfish gene” but put all the genes together to form an organism and it isn’t capable of abstract thinking at all (eg I wonder what my offspring will be). How is a gene capable of anything even remotely like thinking at all? Sorry, I don’t buy into it.

Genes are not brains. What is your point?

8. In my garden I’m watching several birds feeding. Some are large with fearsome beaks while others are tiny with tiny beaks. They feed in harmony. No killing. Not even fighting over the food which is finite. They’re not even scaring each other away. What the hell are their selfish genes doing? Surely they must be telling the big guys to frighten away the little guys. They’re fattening up for winter. They might not all survive. Darwin, O Darwin where are you now?

The fact that different birds in your garden are not fighting over food does not disprove evolution. Now you are going off the deep end as far as logic is concerned.

Any ideas to convert me? By the way I’M NOT A CREATIONIST – I SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW HOW ALL THE CREATURES CAME ABOUT. If someone has a good idea, eg evolution with a designer included I’ll buy that (as a theory only, until proven) but evolution with no design. Forget it!

I am not going to try to convert you. There is exhaustive information on my web page and its links to others. You simply ignore it. It is obvious that your mind is already made up.

Jim Chapman


I am appalled at your inability to explain the conflict between the 2nd law and evolution, if this is the best you have, quit. You do more damage to yourself than I think you are aware of, what a joke ? You are trying to be funny, right? Even Dawkins has the courage to concede his mistakes..................closed systems and open systems and mechanical triggers????????????? I hope you are not serious, in a few short yrs. from now, it will be solved, and you wont be close, your views are way off....................redshift???? Universe expanding or contracting???? Speed of light slowing down????? Do you have any real knowledge of biology????? chemistry?????? You show your ignorance.

My background in science is a B. S. degree in chemistry from the University of California, Berkeley. It includes courses in thermodynamics.

Ryan Daniels

The following e-mail is reproduced without editing. A careful reading reveals that Mr. Daniels is merely repeating what he believes and is not presenting any credible evidence to refute the statements in my web page.

Refuting your refutation on Walt Brown

Hello. I am not claiming to be an expert on anything. You very well could could be right about your claims against the Center for Scientific Creation and Walt Brown. I just wanted to address some things you wrote on your website. Again, I am not debating, just bringing up some points. I do not believe in Evolution and not sure about an Old or Young Earth, but do feel that your wrong on some things you have said on your site. I have already read your blogspot and believe you really didn't explain natural selection the best possible way. Anyways, here is my answers to your rebuttals: Debunking CSC Web Page

You: Brown admits that small evolutionary changes ("microevolution") can occur but states that large evolutionary changes ("macroevolution") can not because evolution can not produce "increased complexity." He rejects the possibility that a series of small changes over a period of time could produce a large change. However, he provides no documentation to substantiate his opinion.

Me: Not true. Scientists admit that small changes to not add up to large changes. The "Micro" (or speciation) that we see does not add up to large scales changes. It takes more than speciation to accomplish the molecules to man theory. That is why the mechanism of benefical mutations has been proposed. About documentation, you are also wrong. On every page Dr. Brown has reference numbers in blue link type that you can click and takes you to that reference page with the corresponding text. Anyways, here is the quote with the link:

"In 1980, the "Macroevolution Conference" was held in Chicago. Roger Lewin, writing for Science, described it as a "turning point in the history of evolutionary theory." He went on to say: The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No. Roger Lewin, "Evolution Theory under Fire," Science, Vol. 210, 21 November 1980, p. 883." Website linked

You: 1. The Law of Biogenesis

Brown states that the emergence of life from non-living matter has never been observed, and that evolution claims that life came from non-living matter through "natural" processes (ie, by mere chance).

There is nothing, repeat, nothing in evolution that requires creation by mere chance. The basic premise of evolution is merely that present day species have evolved from primitive ancestors. How these primitive single-celled ancestors came into existence, whether by chance or by divine miracle makes no difference as far as the geological and biological evidence for evolutionary change is concerned. Creationists arbitrarily reject the possibility that God created living things through a process of evolution because it is contrary to their religious beliefs.

Me: I agree that the theory does start from the first living self duplicating cell. The problem is that if you open up any textbook they do not begin there. They explain how the first (of course, what they believe) living cell came into existence. The explanation is the common held belief of abiogenesis. Evolutionists always back off on this one, but Walt Brown is addressing it because the origin of life is almost always mentioned in every biology textbook kids will study. The Evolutionary story when told, does begin with the "primordial soup" that formed proteins in living cells. Sorry, but he addresses it because evolutionists constantly throw out this nonsense. When pressed, the origin of life is generally admitted by most to be a mystery.

You: 2. Acquired Characteristics Brown states that acquired characteristics can not be inherited, misleading the reader into believing that evolution teaches otherwise. (An example of an acquired characteristic would be unusual strength resulting from heavy exercise.) Evolution does not and never did postulate that acquired characteristics could be inherited by offspring.

Me: Wrong again. I will also quote from Dr. Brown's website.

"This hypothesis [which Darwin called pangenesis] maintained the idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics." A. M. Winchester, Genetics, 5th edition (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1977), p. 24." Website linked

You: 3. Mendel's Laws Brown states that breeding experiments and "common observation" confirm that Mendel's laws do not permit more than a limited variation in gene combinations, and therefore "macroevolution" can not occur. The possibility of mutations is not mentioned. He refers to the "dog family," but says nothing about the possibility that dogs could be related to foxes and wolves. His statements are not backed up with any specific information and/or data.

Me: You are putting up a straw man. He is showing how Mendel's Laws postulate that breeding and speciation has limitations. As argued from above, the observed speciation we see in nature has limitations. So the "Micro" that we see needs a new mechanism, beneficial mutations. We do not observe these mutations producing greater complexity, and the examples that are given (which I have read only 1) are very debatable.

The rest of the web page has problems as well. The mentioning of the Radiocarbon Dating can be refuted as well. You start how by mentioning that he assumes the flood happened. Of course he does, he is a creationist. Then you go into tree rings and other things, which Dr. Walt Brown actually talks about in his book. If you actually read the entire book, he addresses many of the arguments you put up. It sounds like you have not read the entire book, and have taken little pieces or copied information from somebody else. I am not saying you haven't, just mentioning that he talks about somethings in the reference notes that you are mentioning. It would pay to give the entire book a read, before you start critiquing the topic.

I personally think that your website is very entertaining, and you seem to have lots of information and knowledge on many subjects. I just happen to disagree on this one. I am a Christian and a Creationists. It is a believe I hold and one that has carried a "dunce cap" in the perception of the "educated" people of academia. I do look at things through a Christian worldview and can see how the Creation and flood story explain how the world came about. Like it or not, Walt Brown does go into great detail to explain (with evidence) how the flood began and ended. Some things may be far fetched, but in reality, if we observed the flood, we might see some things that happened that are amazing. I have read nothing in his book that would be deemed impossible. He is using the evidence and explaining his story. It is no different than any scientists who is looking through an old earth evolutionary lens. He takes the available evidence today, and writes a story.

God bless,



September 24, 2007

This e-mail comments on my response to Kent Hovind's "26 Questions for Evolutionists."

It is noteable [sic] that you do not offer scientific proofs to refute Kent Hovind's questions. You merely rant and rave. In fact, you don't even try to answer all the questions. Here are some typical responses from your website:

7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

If I say I don't know the answer to any of the above, then how does that disprove the idea that present species are descended from primitive ancestors? The answer is: it doesn't. These questions are based on the biased, untrue, and unproven idea that evolution must have occurred by mere chance alone. The above also represents the creationist deception of raising issues for which no clear answer exists while ignoring issues which are strongly supported by factual data..

If so strongly supported by "factual data" then answer the question and stop engaging in rhetoric! The above is no answer. The question is when, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself? An excellent question. Where is your actual answer (assuming you actually have one) and why is it not published here?

8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

This question is a typical creationist attack, based on the idea that unless detailed answers to each and every question are forthcoming, then creationism wins by default. Furthermore, the question itself is unclear. Creationists dogmatically refuse to accept the fact that evolution merely states that present species are descended from a primitive ancestor. Just how that primitive ancestor came into existence is a separate issue.

Science is based on facts which are readily observable and which lead to certain conclusions. It is therefore completely logical and correct that when evolutionists bring forth their pet theories, we ask for some facts to support them.

Evolution is supported by a great deal of factual information. Creationists provide no factual information to support creationism.

4. Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?

Evolution is supported by an overwhelming amount of factual evidence. Creationism has no scientific support. It exists only as spurious attacks on science. It would be unwise and unfair to include these spurious attacks in public school science curricula.

Uh huh. In yer mind, bud. There is a large and ever growing body of scientists who are realizing evolution for what it really is -- bogus science at best, based on a theory which was repudiated by its author on his deathbed.

It is neither large nor ever growing.

Really, are you that dense that you don't understand the relationship between religion and science? It's really quite simple. If evolution is true, then man answers to no one else in the universe but himself, since there is no Creator Who is the ultimate authority over His Creation. On the other hand, if Creation is true, then it means that a superior and more power intelligence than I has created all things. This puts me in the uncomfortable position (if one is an atheist) of acknowledging that someone else other than I has the right to determine the morality of my life, the destination of my being after death, and how I live on earth. The whole issue boils down to one of autonomy -- WHO is "god" over my life? Me? Or the Creator Who made all things? The overwhelming sensus of mankind is that people do not wish nor like other people to be rulers over them -- especially a Creator.

I hope some day you start being a little more honest with yourself than the sorry excuse for a "response" which you put on the website.

And I am supposed to believe YOU? Give me a break!!

O. Thinking

November 11, 2008

You complain about others and their theories and then you present an idiotic theory. You’re an idiot. Post that to the web:) Maybe the unintelligent nitwits in your group will get a kick out of how you’re being persecuted. That is so Jesus.

I usually wouldn't bother but I came across your site and I can’t help letting you pompous asses know how ridiculous you sound to the critically thinking public. Hopefully, you will have a stroke so maybe your IQ will increase.

O. Thinking

Bernard Lessing

July 23 2006

Mr. Steiger,

Strange how so many creationists want to change your point of view when it is in fact humanly impossible to do so. Perched on your seemingly superiorly elevated vantage point you claim all your observations as fact. You're merely one of Carl Sagans' flatlanders like the rest of us, unable to comprehend higher dimensions. Your indomitable reliance on these observations may be to your demise. You have given new meaning to the word obstinacy. Why not be honest and admit your efforts to convert others to your religion.

This was my reply: When was the last time an evolutionist demanded that evolution be taught in your Sunday School, or any private school, for that matter? Creationists, on the other hand, have an agenda to prevent evolution from being taught in the public schools.

Joseph Pecora

you evolution beleivers always leave out one thing. what came first and how did it get there. i guess your answer would be dunno. if not your lying. if you say anything other than dunno, your lying. if i said i know it was god or some superior being i'd be lying. my anwer is dunno. but this doesn't give you the right to discount anyones theory because quite frankly no one truly knows. you should stop trying to say you know something that you are just guessing at. if you look back at the facts science has been wrong more than not over the last 500 years.

The belief that present species are descended from primitive ancestors is overwhelmingly supported by the factual evidence. Just how the original primitive ancestor(s) came into existence is a separate matter unrelated to evolution.

Joe Comunale

hi Mr. Steiger,

First I want to tell you that I am a Bible believing Christian.

Second is that I really don't care how God created us - by His Holy Spirit (Creationism) or by animals (so-called science). It doesn't matter since there is only one thing that counts - obeying God's word (1 Corinthians 7:19).

So here is why I am emailing you. I want to say that the disciplines of anthropology and archeology are indeed sciences. Of this there is no doubt. But what I question is their conclusions based on the evidence at hand. They do a lot of extrapolating to say that a bone is our ancestor. That part - the conclusion - is what I am skeptical [sic] about.

E.g. in order to date a fossil they must have tissue from a living animal of the same species in order to know what the initial amount of C14 is present in the fossilized animal when it was alive. However, since no T-Rex is alive today the scientists must approximate this number by using some other animal that they think closely resembles the T-Rex in this aspect.

That is similar to the extrapolation they use when stating that a skull of some humanoid creature is our ancestor. The gaps between ancestors is so large as to make me wonder if their conclusions, while indeed based on the evidence, are without some imagination. It's the difference between facts and conclusions.

Well that's it.

May God richly bless you and yours, in Jesus' name, amen.

Sincerely, -joe

Mr. Comunle is completely mistaken with respect to carbon dating. Click here for an explanation of the procedure.

Jonathan Sparks

Dear sir,

Allow me first to introduce myself. I am a 30 y/o Christian that wholeheartedly believes that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, infallible word of God. I am also a proud veteran of the United States Navy. I am a patriot that loves my country, and all that it stands for. The first reason for my letter today is the popular opinion that you share with so many others (sadly including the U.S. Supreme Court) that do not understand our First Amendment says " Congress shall make no LAW respecting an establishment of religion.." First, lets look at the word respect. Merriam-Webster defines it as 1 a : to consider worthy of high regard : ESTEEM. If we look closely, we see that congress is prohibited from creating laws that give any religion a place of high esteem. No where does it state that government entities cannot ask or suggest that God be included into their affairs. No where does it say that a judge cannot have the Ten Commandments in his courthouse. Separation of church and state is to protect us from LAWS that make us subscribe to a religion, not to keep God out of the public arena. The founding fathers of our great nation knew how corrupt the Church Of England had become because of the King's endorsements. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The founders wanted a FREE nation, and thanks to them, and God, that is what we least until the liberalists continue their path to deny our right to be or not be religious. The other reason for my letter is to address what you called the Creationists "real agenda." You are correct, almost. that we have an agenda. But it is no different than that of any other God-fearing Christian: To spread the Gospel as far and wide as possible, and to win over as many people for the Lord Jesus Christ as possible. Jesus came and died for YOUR sins. He died and became YOUR blood sacrifice. He LOVES you and as a Christian, so do I. I don't want eternal suffering for you or anyone else. Please use some clear logic and analytical reasoning and review the material on your site. You will see that YOU are destroying the faith of many that are uneducated and gullible. Even worse it the thought that some child may see the things on your site. To that, as well as in closing, I leave you these scriptures to think about. Also this thought. If I'm wrong about God, I've still led a good life; If you're wrong about God.....get the picture?!

Mark 9:42 (New International Version) 42"And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck.

John 3:16 (New International Version) 16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Romans 8:28 (New International Version) 28And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose

Ephesians 4:29 (New International Version) 29Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.

Jonathan M. Sparks, NMEMT-I Board Member Otero County EMS Council

Mr. Sparks should go back to his dictionary. Like many other words, the word "respect" has more than one meaning. "With respect to" also means to relate to or refer to. Congress is prohibited from passing any law relating to religion.


Paul D. Carl

Greeting Mr. Steiger,

You keep saying that transitional evidence in the fossil record exists. In fact, you keep claiming that transitional fossils are "very common" in the fossil record. OK, if it's so common give me one. Let stop messing around here. Please give me your best evidence of transitional fossils in the fossil record. I'm not asking for many, just one. The best one in the animal kingdom that shows a transition from kind of animal to another. That's what evolutionist always do, they claim that there is just lots and lots of evidence. Libraries and books are just full of them. But they can never produce one, or give there best example. So here is your opportunity, just give me one.

There are, of course, many examples in readily obtainable literature, including Australopithecus to Homo, land animals to whales. See my web page. Creationists simply refuse to accept the facts!

Mr. Steiger wrote: "Fossiliation is extremely rare. How many fossils of American Bison have ever been found."

The petrification process is not rare, it just takes the right set of circumstances, water and/or rapid burial. The kind that takes place during a natural catastrophe, like that of a flood, an earthquake or a volcanic eruption. The bison were killed and remained on top of the surface of the earth. They were not buried, so there carcass would begin to decay and rot, or be eaten on the surface. This is why we don't find much fossilized human remains as well. Humans are smart enough to go to higher surfaces and/or use their reasoning to avoid natural catastrophes. Their bodies would remain on the surface and eventually rot, get eaten and decay on the surface.

Thousands of persons were killed by the recent tsunami in Southeast Asia.

I can give you photographic evidence of a petrified shipping pallet rapidly buried during a mud slide and redug up 20 years later, a petrified boot, a petrified hat, a petrified fish turned to stone while in the process of giving birth, a petrified piece of wood with chop marks still in it, a petrified man turned to stone 14 years after his burial, a 62 year old woman who's x-ray reveal a petrified skeleton of a fetus in her abdominal cavity. Petrification is not rare, it just takes the right set of circumstances, water and/or rapid burial.

It's still a Barnum and Baily world!

Mr. Steiger wrote: "So let's let Jerry Fallwell, James Dobson, and Pat Robertson dictate the science curricula in our universities? None of the scientists in the world's great universities agree with imposing religious dogma in to science instruction. Reminds me of Stalin's imposed dogma restrictions on biology instruction." So, if evolution is wrong we should believe it anyway just because the alternative is unthinkable? Funny you should mention Stalin, Stalin was a confirmed evolutionist, as were almost all the 20th century monsters, Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung, Pol Pot, Mussolini.

“At a very early age, while still a pupil at the ecclesiastical school, Comrade Stalin developed a critical mind and revolutionary sentiments. He began to read Darwin and became an atheist.”--Impact #172 ICR 619-448-0900

Impact is a creationist publication. Stalin suppressed biological evolution.

Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin is reported to have killed 60 -100 million of his own people. See, Stalin believed in the evolution theory of the "survival of the fittest" and he, like Hitler, was trying to become the fittest. He was also trying to purge the weaker, inferior human breeds from the gene pool. This is how things "evolve" into higher stages. The weaker must die off to make way for the stronger to "evolve" into something "greater".

Hitler believed the Germans were the superior race that deserved to rule the world.

Below is Hitler's "Hit List" and an example of how he distinguished between different races. Notice his evolutionary progression from ape to human.

Hitler’s Hit List Species Blood Mixture

Nordic (blond, blue eyed…...…. Close to Pure Aryan
Germanic ………………….… Predominantly Aryan (brown hair, blue-eyed or, less desirable brown-eyed
Mediterranean ………………………… Slightly Aryan
Slavic …………………..Close to half-Aryan, half-Ape
Oriental ………………… Slight Ape preponderance
Black African ……...….……….… Predominantly Ape
Jewish (fiendish skull) ..…………. Close to pure Ape

The Hitler Movement p. 107

When Jessy Owens won in the 1936 Olympics in Munich, Germany, Hitler stormed out stating that "It is unfair to make my athletes compete against these animals".

“The German Fuhrer … has consistently sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.”--Evolution and Ethics 1947, Sir Arthur Keith p, 230

When the Communists took over China in 1949 they began executing Christians at the rate of 15,000 each month. Mao Tse-Tung murdered about 60 million people. Mao listed Darwin and Huxley as his two favorite authors. (source:Creation vol. 18 no. 1 p. 9)

Pol Pot, communist dictator in Cambodia, executed about 3 million of his own people. From 1975-1979 the Khmer Rouge under the leadership of Pol Pot executed more that a third of the entire Cambodian population. (Source: Guinness Book of World Records 1994 p. 460) Pol Pot credited Charles Darwin and his book "Origin of Species" as his great influence.

Mussolini the Italian Dictator was influenced by evolution philosophy. He thought the Italians were the superior race.

Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood on October 16, 1916 in order to eliminate what she thought were “inferior races like Orientals, Jews and Blacks.” She referred to them as “human weeds.” Her father was the “village atheist”. She died an alcoholic and drug addict.--Passport Magazine, July 1988 p. 6

So, Mr Steiger, please don't try to blame creationists for the evils perpetrated on humanity by evolutionists! (emphasis mine)

Even Darwin's "Origin of species" was an attempt to justify racism and slavery, which was going on at the time he wrote the book. The whole complete title of Darwin's book "Origin of Species" is "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of FAVOURED RACES in the Struggle for Life"

Darwin thought women were inferior. He said, “A married man is a poor slave, worse than a Negro.”--Charles Darwin, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin p. 234, Impact #249 from ICR 619-448-0900 ICR (Institute for Creation Research) is a creationist organization.

And this is what one survivor stated after surviving the horrors of the NAZI concentration camps:

“There is a difference between those who look upon their fellow human beings as common creatures of a common creator and those who look upon them as a conglomerate of biologicals and chemicals.”--Jewish Dr. Leo Alexander in “It can’t Happen Here”, A survivor of Hitler's Nazi concentration camps, p. 12

Quote mining is not science, it is merely quoting opinions. Blaming evolution for the evils of the world is an outrageous lie based on nothing more than the bigotry of anti evolutionists.

Mr. Steiger wrote:

"How did the writers of the Old Testament even know that the continents of North and South America even existed. The idea that the Grand Canyon and the monuments of Utah could have been created in a single catastrophic event is pure delusion."

The writers of the Old Testament didn't have to know. It was good enough to them that God said that there was a worldwide flood. They just took Him at his word and the buried fossil remains give evidence to that fact. Plus the story was passed down from Noah's family thru the generations. It's interesting to find out that there are over 200 separate worldwide flood legends among completely different faiths, races and religions, complete with 8 people surviving and getting off a giant boat.

Does not support a worldwide catastrophic flood.

As for Grand Canyon, ever seen the canyon created after the Mount St. Helen explosion? If you allow me to send some photos I can demonstrate. When the mountain erupted mud slid down the side of the mountain and dammed up a small Toutle River, at it's base. The river backed up and eventually breeched the dam. It carved out a miniature Grand Canyon, 1000 ft. wide and 140 ft. deep, in 15 minutes, leaving the tiny Toutle River running through the base of the canyon, just like the Colorado River at the base of Grand Canyon. Mount St. Helen is considered a small eruption as far as volcanic eruptions go. How much more damage would be created by a worldwide flood that lasted 13 months?

Hydrologic sorting caused the sediment at Mount St. Helen to separated based on density and stratified in layers consistent with the geological column. I can just see a professor taking his class to view this canyon 20 years from now and telling them "Look what evolution accomplished over millions of years."

The idea that "hyrologic sorting" could result in more than a dozen layers of different kinds of hard rock each with its own distinctive fossils and extending for hundreds of square miles is absolutely preposterous.

NO professor, this was done in a matter of minutes! It was caused by a catastrophe, not millions of years of accumulated evolution. Grand Canyon was formed in a matter of hours or days once the dam was breeched during the flood. Like Mt. St. Helen, a catastrophe caused Grand Canyon, not millions and millions of years.

Almost a thousand cubic miles of solid rock washed out to sea along a meandering path in a single catastrophic event? What can he be thinking?

By the way, the Colorado River enters Grand Canyon 4,100 feet below the top of the canyon. The top elevation of Grand Canyon is 6,900 ft +. The Colorado river enters the canyon at the 2,800 foot elevation level and flows downhill, exiting the canyon at the 1,800 foot elevation level. Rivers don't flow up hill for millions of years! I explained how the river gradually cut into the much older rock as the plateau rose, while still following its original path created when it existed in a low elevation flatland. There is more on the Grand Canyon formation in this web site. It is really disturbing that creationists can not deal with the facts.

There are also no erosion marks between the layers at Grand Canyon. Don't you think after sitting there for millions of years waiting for the next sedimentary layer to accumulate that weather (rain, snow, sleet, wind, etc.,...) would have left erosion marks between the multiple layers?

The visible walls of the Grand Canyon were created as a result of continuing erosion. Mr. Carl is totally confused. The visible surfaces of the canyon walls are basically only a few hundred years old. The rock strata themselves are hundreds of millions of years old.

Grand Canyon is a breeched dam created within a few days after the flood waters receded. A giant catastrophe, like the one described in the biblical model (Noah's), caused Grand Canyon.

Subject: Re: Grand Canyon

You haven't debunked anything yet, in fact, to the contrary. Now I understand when the bible states;
"And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth,..." (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12).

I've asked for your best evidence of beneficial mutations and transitional fossils. I've got ZILCH!! Of course you claim there is just tons of it. OK, show me some!

There is a mountain of evidence in my web page.

What you did is dodge the evidence. I sent you photographic evidence of a natural catastrophe creating the Mount St. Helen canyon, a miniature Grand Canyon formed in 15 minutes. You said a natural catastrophe couldn't form a giant canyon. I showed recent example of how a small volcanic eruption can form a canyon, 1000 ft. wide and 140 ft. deep, in 15 minutes. Complete with sediment separated based on density and stratified in layers consistent with the geological column. Just imagine what a large eruption or natural catastrophe could do.

There is no connection whatever between the mechanism of the erosion of the side of Mount St. Helen and the formation of the Grand Canyon. The notion that a single catastrophic flood could create the Grand Canyon is totally bizarre! According to Mr. Carl, a firehose could cut through the rock of the Grand Canyon like a hot knife through butter. Anyone with the brains of a chicken should realize that it just ain't so! The only explanation that makes sense is the gradual erosion of the Canyon walls.

That's a great question, where is all the sediment in the gulf of Mexico if the Colorado river is bringing it down, hmm?

Well, if the Grand Canyon were carved out by a single catastrophic event, where is all the sediment, hmm? The Colorado River does not empty into the Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf of Mexico is on the other side of the continent.

Same with the Mississippi Delta? There isn't enough sediment at the base of the river for the earth to be billions of years old. You are absolutely right, if the earth is billions of years old there should be.

The sediment has formed the Mississippi Delta. Mr. Carl, in complete ignorance and unwilling to research the matter, simply makes up his "facts" to suite his biblical beliefs.

If Grand Canyon is really "millions" of years old there should be sedimentary evidence in the Gulf of Mexico to show it. To bad for your theory that it isn't there!

The Grand Canyon does not empty into the Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf of Mexico is on the other side of the continent. Mr. Carl is completely wrong in assuming that there is no sedimentary evidence. In fact, the sediment deposits correspond to the eroded rock formations of the Grand Canyon!

Funny, you unintentionally just gave GREAT evidence for why the evolution theory is a bunch of hogwash.

Did you know 80,000 tons of mud every hour comes down the Mississippi and dumps off in New Orleans? The Delta is growing larger and larger and larger. Nobody argues about that. But, they have studied the Delta because they drill through it all the time looking for oil down there; they know the thickness of the mud. Based on the amount of mud that comes down every year, they calculate that the Delta probably formed in less than 30,000 years. That is pretty old, but I have a question. If the earth is millions of years old, why isn’t the whole Gulf of Mexico full of mud by now?

This is another example of creationist convoluted thinking. There is no connection whatever between the age of the earth and the age of the Mississippi delta. The Gulf of Mexico is far too large to be filled with mud from the Mississippi River.

I know, it doesn't fit the biblical 6,000 - 10,000 year time line either. Well, unless one accounts for the flood. As the Flood water was running off, about half that mud washed down there the first 10 minutes. There was lots of water moving over soft sediment with no grass and trees to protect it yet. Now today it is only 80,000 tons an hour, but boy in that first 10 minutes it was a whole lot more than that. The Delta was formed from the Flood mostly, followed by erosion the past 4,400 years. Not millions of years.

At the current rate of erosion the continents would erode flat in 14 million years. How can we have rocks 300 times older than that still above sea level?

Uplift, as recorded in Geological measurements like, for example, the uplift after the Alaskan earthquake,

Only a few thousand years of sediment erosion are on the ocean floor. Where is all the erosion sediment if the earth is billions of years old? –See, In the Beginning, Walt Brown p. 26 A few thousand years of sediment erosion sure fits the young earth scenario.

I guess your "Stalin" critique wasn't the best example, was it?

Stalin controlled scientific thought. Creationists try to control scientific thought.

Grand Canyon was formed in a matter of hours or days once the dam was preached during the flood. Like Mt. St. Helen, a catastrophe caused Grand Canyon, not millions and millions of years.

Millions of years ago, the river meandered through a low elevation flatland. As the geological area gradually uplifted, the river continued its course, cutting into much older rock. I explained this before, but you simply ignore anything counter to your mindset. You are saying that a giant dam released enough water to create a meandering canyon over a hundred miles long, with many side canyons and U turns in a high altitude plateau and that this flood carried more than a hundred cubic miles of solid rock into the Gulf of Mexico. Where is the evidence that this enormous cam could have existed or ever existed? It's not there! By the way, the visible sides of the Grand Canyon were never claimed to be millions of years old. They are continually eroding into the river itself, which acts as a conveyor belt to carry the sediment downstream. There is ample evidence that the river is carrying the detritus eroded from the walls. The Spanish explorers named it "Colorado," Spanish for "red" because of the muddy color of the water. The "Red Wall Limestone" layers are so named because, although limestone is white, it is stained from the erosion of ferrite rock formations washing down from above.

I have patiently debunked all of your make believe pseudo science notions, but it is obvious that you are unable to listen to reason.

Hey Mr. Stieger,

You might want to correct something written in your "secular humanism" section. In it you write "God is not mentioned in the Constitution."

Apparently, you've never read Article Seven of the U.S.Constitution which reads,

"Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty-seven and of the Independence of the United States of America, the Twelfth."

Yes, the writers and framers of the U.S. Constitution referred to Jesus Christ as "our Lord." Jesus Christ is "their Lord". They certainly were not referring to Mohammed or Confucius, were they?

Beyond that, Article 1, Section 7, Paragraph, 2, exempts Sundays from legal work days. It was Sunday, the Christian day of worship, that was set aside from legal work days. It was not Friday, the Muslim worship day, or Saturday, the Jewish worship. It was Sunday, the Christian worship day that was given preferential consideration in the U.S. Constitution.

Please don't tell me that the Constitution does not recognize God or Christianity! It plainly does.

I'll await your amendment to your "Secular Humanism" section.

Paul D. Carl

As I stated before, and as you conveniently forgot, that is NOT part of article 7. It is NOT part of the Constitution. It is merely a formal statement that the Convention had approved the Constitution to be submitted to the States for ratification. This was completed by 1789. Your conclusion that "...returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted)..." is typical creationist distortion. The Constitution clearly states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Congressional grants to faith based charities violates the Constitution. You are not correcting me. You are advocating replacing the Constitution with a Bible-based tyranny.

Part 1: My best argument for American's Christian Heritage

I have been wanting to do a piece about this for a while, so I finally got to it. Below is the best arguments I can come up with for America's Christian Heritage. Most of it came from quotes I have collected over the years, and from David Barton's book "America's Godly Heritage", as well as other sources.

It should be noted that I understood the Founders' intent well before I became a Christian. Just because a person is not a Christian and is personally "offended", does not mean the heritage of this nation is not Christian. For instance, I wouldn't move to Israel and be "offended" by it's Jewish traditions and history just because I am Christian. One can not change history. My intent for writing this isn't to get people all worked up, but rather to show that I am not crazy when I make the statement that America's historic roots are firmly rooted in the Christian philosophy. For what it is worth, I hope people will recognize this as lesson in history. Well here goes..........

I agree, Congress is not allowed to establish a religion(s). "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;......."---Amendment I, Bill of Rights, Constitution of the United States of America.

This amendment clearly restricts "Congress", but it does not restrict ALL government. The Constitution outlines the powers of the three separate, but equal, branches of government, the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch. It sets which branch is responsible for what, as well as what their respective strengths and limitations will be.

The first amendment is directed at "Congress" ONLY. It states that shall make "no law". Clearly, controlling what the federal, state, local government and/or schools can say with regard to religion IS creating law, which they are restricted from doing by the 1st Amendment. Congress is restricted from making any "law", either for or against religion. It is prevented by the first amendment from having an opinion on the subject.....PERIOD! It is also "prohibited" from interfering in the "free exercise thereof;.." Stopping children from praying in school would be an example of government violating the first amendment, or a group or individual's "free exercise thereof;.." With regard to ANY position on the subject of religion, it is left up to the states by the 10 Amendment, which states that;

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."-Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution.

In addition, the Fourteenth Amendment states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law." The states do not have the authority to change or ignore laws passed by Congress. The Supreme Court can find a law unconstitutional. In that case, Congress and the States have the authority to amend the Constitution. By design, this is not an easy process.

We must also recognize that our rights are endowed by "Our Creator" in the Declaration of Independence. Rights given to us by God and that can not be taken away by any man. Take away the "Creator" and the 10 Amendments in the Bill of "Rights" are actually privileges, granted by men. Privileges that can be taken away by men.

Of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, all but two, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, were affiliated with Christian denominations. And even they subscribed to a Christian world view.

The following long list of selected quotations merely shows that the persons quoted were men of faith. It does not establish any Constitutional connection between government and religion.

When reading the discussions---recorded in the Congressional Records of 1789--- one recognizes the intent of the First Amendment. They did not want in America what they had in Great Britain. They did not want one denomination of Christianity running the nation. They wanted God's principles, but they did not want one denomination running America.

The court of 1799 reaffirms this when it stated:

"By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing."---Runkel v. Winemiller; 4 Harris and McHenry 276,288 (Sup.Ct.Md. 1799)

This demonstrates that America is a Christian nation, but it doesn't hold to one particular denomination.

No, it does not. The opinion quoted was not by the Supreme Court, and it was way back in 1799!

This was reiterated by Noah Webster and John Adams:

"Almost all the civil liberty now enjoyed in the world owes its origin to the principles of the Christian religion."-- Noah Webster

Noah Webster wrote/edited the dictionary. Daniel Webster was the politician.

What follows is a long list of selected quotations which present a distorted view of the complex history of discussions and interactions of early America's political leaders. The Americans United Christian Nation information web site provides historical background information. In addition the book "The Separation of Church and State" edited by Forrest Church (Beacon Press) provides exhaustive documentation to reveal the thoughts and actions of the founding fathers. Additional information can be found "Why the Religious Right is Wrong" by Robert Boston (Prometheus Books) and "James Madison on Religious Liberty" edited by Robert S. Alley (Prometheus Books).

Mr. Carl would have us believe that there was a unanimous feeling that the United States was to be a Christian nation. It is true that some held that belief. Most did not, although most were men of faith. The "Founding Fathers" were definitely not in total agreement regarding church-state separation. In the 1800 Presidential election between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, Adams supported church establishment, whereas Jefferson opposed it. Jefferson's entire political career was devoted to the separation of church and state. This was a major issue in the 1800 campaign, with Jefferson claiming that Adam's re-election would jeopardize religious liberty. The voters rejected Adams and Jefferson was elected the third President of the United States.

The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity. -- John Quincy Adams, According to John Wingate Thornton's book "The Pulpit of the American Revolution", Published 15 years after Adams death, 1860

Adam's statement gives further proof that the American Revolution was fought, not for all religions, but for Christian principles.

Some quotes from John Adams:

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were.....the general principles of Christianity.....I will avow that I then believed and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God"--John Adams, In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 28, 1813

In a fourth of July speech, Adams went on to link the birth of our nation to the birthday of, as he put it, our Savior, Jesus Christ. Then he goes on to state that "human government is laid at the cornerstone of Christianity".

"Why is it that next to the birthday of the Savior of the world our most joyous and most venerated festival occurs on this day?" "Why is it that in America the Fourth of July is celebrated second only to Christmas?" "Is it not that in the chain of human events the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior that it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission on earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government on the first precepts of Christianity?"---John Adams, America's 61st birthday, July 4, 1837

The founding fathers relying very heavily on the bible in creating this Constitutional Republic. For example, the concept for three branches of government can be found in Isaiah 33:22; the logic for the separation of powers was based on Jeremiah 17:9; the basis for tax exemptions for churches can be found in Ezra 7:24; and there are many more other examples.

During the formation period of the Constitution, there was a great deal of discussion and argument. The Constitution represents a compromise among men of various beliefs and opinions: government will neither repress nor support religion. Mr. Carl's quote mining presents a distorted and misleading account of what actually took place.

How did students learn in the days of the Founding Fathers?

The first textbook ever printed was "The New England Primer". Introduced in Boston in 1690, and for two centuries many in America learned from this book. Today it would be known as a first grade textbook.

It began with an alphabet to demonstrate syllables. Each letter had a phrase attached to it. The child was required to read the phrase and memorize it. For nearly two hundred years the phrases used in school textbooks were all, everyone of them, Biblical phrases. Below is a few phrases:

A -- A wise son makes a glad father, but a foolish son is the heaviness of his mother.

B -- Better is little with fear of the Lord than great treasure and trouble therewith.

C -- Come unto Christ all ye that labor and are heavy laden and He will give you rest.

D -- Do not the abominable thing which I hate saith the Lord.

E -- Except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God.

In the back of the book were several questions, again this is for first grade "PUBLIC" school. "What's the fifth commandment?" "What's forbidden in the fifth commandment?" "What's required in the sixth commandment?" "What's forbidden in the sixth commandment?" This was the foundation of American schools for almost 200 years.

From what sources did the Founding Fathers' choose their ideas?

This question was asked by the University of Houston. They felt that they could determine the source of the Founders' ideas if they could collect writings from the Founding Era and see whom the Founders were quoting.

The researchers discovered that Baron Charles de Montesquieu was the man most quoted by the Founding Fathers , at 8.3 percent. Blackstone was second, with 7.9 percent. John Locke was third, 2.9 percent. Surprisingly, the researchers found that the Founders quoted directly from the Bible 34 percent of the time. The Founders quoted directly from the Bible four times more often then from Montesquieu and Blackstone, and they quoted from the Bible 12 times more often then form John Locke.

What was even more impressive was where the source of the ideas for Montesquieu, Blackstone and Locke came from. Consider this, Charles Finney was known as a famous revivalist Minister in the 1800s. Finney describes how he received his call for the ministry. While studying Blackstone to become a lawyer, he studied Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Law". Finney discovered that Blackstone not only provided the law, but also provided the Biblical concepts on which the laws were based. Finney explained that in the process of studying Blackstone, he read so much of the Bible he became a Christian and received his call to Ministry.

So while 34 percent of the Founders' quotes came directly out of the bible, many of their other quotes were taken from men like Blackstone, who used the Bible to arrive at their own conclusions.

Early examples of Supreme Court decisions give evidence to our Christian Heritage. Our Christian Heritage was so well understood in early America -- and our founding father's writings so well known -- that in later years the Supreme Court ruled according to the intention of the founding fathers, keeping Biblical principles as the basis.

"These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation." ---The U.S. Supreme Court, Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States; 143 U. S. 457, 471 (1892).

What led this Court to conclude that America is a Christian nation? The Court provided 87 different historical precedents to support it's conclusions. The Court quoted the Founding Fathers , the acts of the Founding Fathers, the acts of the Congresses, the acts of the state, etc.. At the end of the 87 precedents the Court explained that it could have continued to cite many additional precedents, but that certainly 87 were sufficient to conclude that America is a Christian nation.

Why is the precedents important? Because Courts base their decisions on precedents. In the 1962 "Engel" case, the case that removed school prayer, the Supreme Court cited 0 precedents --- the Court cited "zero" previous legal cases. The first case in Court history to cite zero legal precedents. Without any historical or legal base, the Court or 1962 simply ruled school prayer to be unconstitutional.

The decision did not "remove" school prayer. Students can still pray any time it does not disrupt class instruction. This Court decision protected the right of students not to be subjected to organized, instructor led, group prayer. Religious belief and instruction should be left to the parents. Many parents bitterly resent school prayer intrusion of sectarian evangelism into the lives of their children.

This is quite a stance considering the original Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Jay, and also one of the three men most responsible for the Constitution -- declared:

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty -- as well as the privilege and interest --- of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." --John Jay, original Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, "The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay", 1794-1826, Vol. IV, p.393, October 12, 1816

Prior to 1962 courts ruled:

In 1844, a school in Philadelphia announced that it would teach it's students morality, but not religion. The school believe that it could teach morality without the bible or Christianity. This policy -- among others -- caused the case to come before the U. S. Supreme Court. Some of the Justices had been appointed by James Madison. The U. S. Supreme Court told the school:

"Why may not the Bible, and especially the New Testament.... be read and taught as a divine revelation in the [school] -- its general precepts expounded...and its glorious principles of morality inculcated? ...Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament?" --- United States Supreme Court, Vidal v. Girard's Executors; 43 U.S. 126,205-206 (1844)

The Court went on to rule that the school would teach Christianity and the Bible as the source of morality.

In 1811 a court made a ruling that was cited in the U. S. Supreme Court:

"Whatever strikes at the root of Christianity tends manifestly to the dissolution of civil government"--People v. Ruggles; 8 Johns 545,547 (1811)

The above case dealt with a man who went into profanity fits. The problem wasn't the profanity, it was the fact that he took the time to write it out and distribute it. In the writing he maliciously attacked Jesus Christ. "Jesus Christ is..... X#@X", "God is.....X#@X", "The Bible is.....X#@X", continuing throughout the document.

The court ruled that "....his writings: "An attack on Jesus Christ was an attack on Christianity; and an attack on Christianity was an attack on the foundation of the country; therefore, an attack on Jesus Christ was equivalent to an attack on the country!" This man was sentenced to three months in prison and a $400.00 fine for attacking Jesus. Notice the date: 1811 -- two decades after the First Amendment was written.

Mr. Carl believes Court decisions made almost two hundred years ago are the "right" decisions, but Court decisions made in the latter half of the twentieth century are the "wrong" decisions? Well that's his opinion, and I disagree.

Separation of Church and State:

As you already know, there is no "Separation of Church and State" clause in the Constitution. The words "Separation", "Church", and "State" is not even mentioned in the First Amendment. The words originate from a letter to a Connecticut Baptist Minister sent by Thomas Jefferson. The Minister's concern was with the guarantee of the "free exercise of religion" section in the First Amendment. The concern was, that it was a government-granted right and not a God given right.

Jefferson understood their concerns and went on to say that freedom of religion was indeed an unalienable right and would not be meddled with by government. Jefferson pointed out to them that there was a "wall of separation between church and state" to insure that the government would never interfere with religious activities.

According to America's God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations, "Jefferson borrowed phraseology from the famous Baptist Minister Roger Williams when he wrote the saying "a wall of separation between Church and State" Minister Roger Williams said, '...the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world, God hath broke down the wall...."

Today, all that is heard of Jefferson's letter is the phrase, "a wall of separation between church and state, " without either the context, or the explanation given for the letter, or it's application in earlier courts. Clearly the First Amendment interpretation of the Court for a century and a half, prior to the 1962 ruling citing "zero" precedents, was that it prohibited the establishment of a single national denomination. National policies and rulings in that century and a half always reflected that interpretation.

If Jefferson's letter to the Baptist Minister was to be interpreted the way today's courts interpret it, why did he say in a letter to Benjamin Rush that he committed himself as President to not allowing the Episcopalians, the Congregationalists, or any other denomination, to achieve what Jefferson called the "establishment of a particular form of Christianity"?

What does "establishment" mean? If it means government support, as I suspect it does, then it is consistent with Jefferson's documented position regarding the separation of church and state. Mr. Carl is conveniently vague on this point.

Again, Mr. Carl provides us with a long list of quotations, all of which are based on the assumption that men of faith must necessarily advocate government support of Christianity. In the main, these statements do not support that claim.

To add even more evidence that supports the earlier court's interpretation of the First Amendment, at the time Jefferson wrote that letter in 1802, he was attending a Christian church being held in the House of Representatives on Sundays, and as head of Education, he had commanded that the Bible be required reading in public schools.

Jefferson also made the following quote:

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis - a conviction in the minds of people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever." --- President Thomas Jefferson

If the Founder's intended for there to be a "separation of church and state," would George Washington have said this in his farewell address?

"Of all the dispositions which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who would labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness.... The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them." -- President George Washington, Farewell address

"Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds.....reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles."-- President George Washington, Farewell address

He also stated:

"It is impossible to account for the creation of the universe without the agency of a Supreme Being. It is impossible to govern the universe without the aid of a Supreme Being.." --- President George Washington, James K. Paulding, A Life of Washington (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1835), Vol. II, p. 209.

(It should be noted that Jefferson was not a signer of the Constitution, nor was he present at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Neither was he present when the First Amendment and religious freedom were debated in the first session of Congress in 1789, as he was out of the country in France as a U.S. Minister. Due to his not being present to hear all the comments of the Founding Fathers regarding the First Amendment, Thomas Jefferson had to rely on second-hand information to learn what had transpired in that first session of Congress. This personal letter to the Danbury Baptists was written 13 years after the First Amendment.)

In 1833 a group petitioned Congress to separate Christian principles from government. They desired a "separation of Church and State". Their petition was referred to the House and the Senate Judiciary Committees, which investigated for almost a year to see if it would be possible to separate Christian principles from government. The following excerpts are from the House report delivered March 27, 1854 (The Senate report was very similar).

"Had the people [the Founding Fathers], during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, but not any one sect [denomination].....In this age, there is no substitute for Christianity....That was the religion of the founders of the republic and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants".--The Reports of Committees of the Senate of the United States for the Second Session of the Thirty-Second Congress, 1852-53 (Washington: A. O. P. Nicholson, 1854), pp. 1-9

Two months later the Judiciary Committee made this strong declaration:

"The great, vital, and conservative element in our system [the thing that holds our system together] is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ."--B. F. Morris, "The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States (Philadelphia: George W. Childs, 1864), p. 328

It wasn't until 1947 when the Court began to seriously talk about the "separation of church and state." The Courts continued on this track so steadily that in 1958 one of the judges was tired of hearing the phrase. He wrote that:

"If the court did not stop talking about the "separation of church and state," people were going to start thinking it was part of the Constitution."-- U. S. Supreme Court, Baer v. Kolmorgen, dissenting opinion, 1958

In 1962, the court ruled that prayer in public school was unconstitutional, citing ZERO precedences. This was a total departure from Court rulings prior to 1962. This caused a whole new change in rulings. From then on Courts contuned to rule against religion in government.

This is a distortion. Go to school prayer for factual information on the decision.

Since that ruling in 1962 to remove prayer from school and later from all forms of government, pregnancies for school girls age 10 - 15 are up 553 percent, as are all high-school pregnancies; single parent families are up 140 percent; unmarried coupled living together are now up 536 percent. While prior to 1962 all these statistics remained relatively constant and were even declining.

Prior to 1962, there were never 2 consecutive years in which SAT scores declined. Beginning in 1963, scores plummeted for 18 consecutive years -- unprecedented!

Scores are now so low that the Department of Education stated that "This is the first time in American history that we are graduating out a generation of students who academically know less then their parents did".--"National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative of Educational Reform" (Washington D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983) p. 11

The SAT test is the same test their parents used. It hasn't changed since it was created in 1926; yet there is nearly an 80-point difference between the two generations. While in private and Christian schools, students score nearly 80-points higher then their public school counterparts. It is as if nothing ever changed.

Many claim the reason is money. Sure, private and Christian schools have more money, so of course education would be better. Fact is, the average public education costs $5,400 dollars per student, while the average private/Christian school cost $2,200 dollars per student. Private schools, with 2/5th the funds, are turning out children three times higher then public schools.

My daughter Melinda's home-education cost $150 dollars for the year (both new and used books). She scored 35 percentage points higher on the California Achievement Test, then her counterparts in public school and 10 to 15 percentage points higher then her counterparts in private and religious schools (depending on which category looked at: math or English)

In completion, as with the Declaration of Independence, all signers of the Constitution, with the exception of one, Benjamin Franklin, were affiliated with Christian Denominations. Again, even he subscribed to a Christian worldview.

Below are the signers of the Constitution. The plus sign in front of a name indicates that the person participated in the Constitutional Convention but did not sign the document. Some changed denominational affiliation during their lifetimes and in that event both are listed.

Connecticut William Johnson- Anglican, Presbyterian Robert Sherman- Congregationalist +Oliver Ellsworth- Congregationalist

Delaware Richard Bassett- Methodist Gunning Bedford, Jr.- Presbyterian Jacob Broom- Lutheran John Dickinson- Quaker, Episcopalian George Read- Episcopalian

Georgia Abraham Baldwin- Congregationalist, Presbyterian William Few- Methodist +William Houston- Episcopalian +William Leigh Pierce- Episcopalian

Maryland Daniel Carroll- Roman Catholic Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer-Episcopalian +Luther Martin- Episcopalian James McHenry- Presbyterian +John F. Mercer- Episcopalian

Massachusetts +Elbridge Gerry- Episcopalian Nathaniel Gorham- Congregationalist Rufus King- Episcopalian +Caleb Strong- Congregationalist

New Hampshire Nicholas Gilman- Congregationalist John Langdon- Congregationalist

New Jersey David Brearly- Episcopalian Jonathan Dayton- Presbyterian, Episcopalian +William C. Houston- Presbyterian William Livingston- Presbyterian William Paterson- Presbyterian

New York

Alexander Hamilton- Presbyterian, Episcopalian +John Lansing, Jr.- Dutch Reformed +Robert Yates- Dutch Reformed

North Carolina

William Blount- Episcopalian, Presbyterian +William R. Davie- Presbyterian +Alexander Martin- Presbyterian Richard D. Spaight, Sr.- Episcopalian Hugh Williamson- Presbyterian


George Clymer- Quaker, Episcopalian Thomas Fitzsimons- Roman Catholic Benjamin Franklin- No religious affiliation Jared Ingersoll- Presbyterian Thomas Mifflin- Quaker, Lutheran Gouverneur Morris- Episcopalian Robert Morris- Episcopalian James Wilson- Episcopalian, Presbyterian

Rhode Island No Delegates

South Carolina Pierce Butler- Episcopalian Charles Pinckney- Episcopalian Charles C. Pinckney- Episcopalian John Rutledge- Episcopalian

Virginia John Blair- Presbyterian, Episcopalian James Madison- Episcopalian +George Mason- Episcopalian +James McClurg- Presbyterian +Edmund J. Randolph- Episcopalian George Washington- Episcopalian +John Wythe- Episcopalian

Other religious quotes from the Founding Fathers: (Obviously, not all of them. They quoted form the Bible 34 percent of the time)

"The Bible is the Rock on which this Republic rests" --- President Andrew Jackson

“Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure, than they have it now, they may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty.” --John Adams, June 21, 1776; 23 days before signing the Declaration of Independence.

"Lastly, our ancestors established their system of government on morality and religious sentiment. Moral habits, they believed, cannot safely be on any other foundation than religious principle, nor any government be secure which is not supported by moral habits."–Daniel Webster

"It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor." --- George Washington

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion...Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --- President John Adams, Barton, Original Intent, p. 182, quoting John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, ed. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God, I know not what course others may take, but give me liberty or give me death!" -- Patrick Henry"

"It is impossible to govern the world without God. He must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligation." --George Washington

"Let it simply be asked, 'Where is the security for prosperity, for reputation, for life; if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in the Courts of Justice?'"--George Washington

Those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord." --- Abraham Lincoln

"The thing that sets the American Christian apart from all other people in the world is, he will die on his feet before he'll live on his knees..." ---President George Washington

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." --- George Washington

"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people." --- John Adams

"The belief in a God All Powerful, wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the world and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources."--James Madison

"We have staked the whole future of America's civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions ...upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." --- James Madison

"I have lived, Sir, a long time; and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men." --- Daniel Webster

"If we will not be governed by God, we must be governed by tyrants." --- William Penn

"Whatever makes men good Christians, makes them good citizens." --- Benjamin Franklin

"The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and law... All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible." --- Noah Webster

"I have alternatively been called an Aristocrat or a Democrat. I am neither. I am a Christocrat!" --- Benjamin Rush

"The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His Apostles.... This is genuine Christianity and to this we owe our free constitutions of government." --- Noah Webster, History of the United States, 1832, public school textbook

"Don't you believe, Mr. President, that the Lord is always on the side of the right?"

"I am not concerned about that," was Lincoln's answer, "for we know that the Lord is always on the side of the right. My concern is that I and this nation should be on the Lord's side.”--Taken from: "The Wit and Wisdom of Abraham Lincoln," edited by Alex Ayres Paul D. Carl E-mail:


Andy Koegelenberg

Subject: Kent Hovind's $250,000 offer to prove evolution.

If you have the proofs why don't you claim the l25,000 he is offering? Or is he right that Evo-Devo is a religion, and you are defending your faith as much as he is defending his?

I am looking forward to your answer.

Actually, claims have been submitted in the past. They were all rejected by a committee of creationists. Did you actually think about what I had to say in my web page? I don't think so!

Hi Frank,

I don't care one way or the other what Hovind believes but in every debate or seminar I have heard the same challenge "PROVE IT OR TAKE IT OUT OF THE SCHOOL BOOKS". I think it is a resonable [sic] statement. You were brave enough to put your name on the web site now please prove you faith or lobby to get the SH.1.T out of the school book.

Please send me one example of how a star is formed without breaking the natural laws?

Please send me one example of life being created?

Please send me one example of life that has become better and who it bread with to maintain the improvement



Star formation does not break any natural law. It does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. This is creationist propaganda with no factual basis. Life is created when a seed becomes a tree. Life does not have to become "better" (whatever that means) to prove evolution.


Billy Forsee

You are an idiot. Next time you attempt proving a theory, try using using phrases other than " we can assume..." or "....that's irrevelant - the fact is that evolution is fact." Answer the questions posed to you - do not beat around the bush by giving people hogwash answers that completely avoid the question asked of you. Evolution is a farce - and you know it. So does Darwin! He never even believed in it fully himself. There were more assumptions in his book "On the origin of Life" than there were facts. And please, don't try telling me that you evolutionists believe that God created the evolution cycle - it's just your way of covering up the facts that you don't understand! Quite trying to prove everything - have some faith that maybe, just maybe, there is a higher existence than us - his name is God. He designed things with a purpose and form. None of this chance crap. Read the bible - don't pick it apart for scientific validity; there has been more events from the bible that were proven fact than there are from your theory of evolution. Quite making assumptions about your dumb theory. You know what it does - it makes an ass out of you.....

James Hatt

You are WRONG. Science has many great discoveries and deserves a place in our society for the overall good it does for everyone. However, everything you attempt to disprove about creationism uses weak, faulty, irrational thinking and cannot be substantiated with any sort of proof whatsoever. Science has tried for years to find evidence that the world just came into existence by accident, even though it has been proven time and time again to be a mathematical impossibility. Evolutionism is nothing more than pure science fiction and has no rightful place in our public schools. You mention that Creationists believe that their views about the origin of the universe are being censored because teachers and school administrators fear for their jobs if it is taught. You say that fundamentalist parents will be outraged by this teaching. On this point, you are also wrong. The small minded public at large has no idea what fundamentalism is and probably doesn't fit into this category at all. Anyone who as you say "has a scientific background" and does not believe that evolutionism is nothing more that a giant hoax should go back to school and question their educational background. This country is full of atheists, that is why the theory of evolution dominates the public school system. That is right, atheism, not fundamentalism rules this country, anyone who would not allow the truth of creationism to be taught in schools is an atheist, or worse, someone who believes in God yet refuses to believe his word. Either way, they will all receive their just reward in the end. Keep on trying to prove what you know your scientific background and weak or non-existent evidence cannot. I find the denial of what will never be disproved to be very entertaining.

Mr. Steiger,

All the evidence anyone needs to believe that God created the Earth is in the book of Gneiss. The burden of proof to the contrary rests with science. From looking at your website, it is easy to tell that you are knowledgeable about all the scientific theories I would use to refute the theory of evolution, so I didn't see the point of using them. I was not condemning you or your opinion as you suggested from your reply. I was merely expressing my disagreement with your beliefs. I am not the judge of man and you are free to believe whatever you want. In doing so however, you must be willing to accept that you will be questioned by others who do not share your beliefs. My disagreeing with your belief in the theory of relativity is no excuse to use a biblical reference against me. How can you quote scripture as if you believe in it while at the same time defending your belief that there is no God? Is it up to man to pick and choose what they want to believe out of the Bible and refute the rest?

It should be noted that all I said in my reply was to suggest that he read Matthew, Chapter 7. Nowhere in this web site do I state that there is no God.


J. Bussard

I was just recently browsing through your website when I found some information that you have obviously been misled by. First, is the "fact" that evolution is true. Evolution is, always will be, and always was a theory, that's it. Darwin himself said that he never really believed it, and I'm sure today that it would surprise him how gullible humans are to accept anything except for the existence of an all powerful God.

Second, I am only eighteen years old and I can honestly answer those ten questions that creationists "can't answer".

1. The water came from the water canopy that surrounded the earth at that time, and from pockets of water geysers inside the earth at that time. The Bible clearly states this in Genesis. Where the water went is a mystery to me too. From all of the erosion that took place, I'm sure some of it drained into the ground, more evaporated in the air, and the rest was up to supernatural intervention, possibly.

2. If you've ever seen the results of what fast flowing water can do to anything, by way of erosion, you would understand perfectly. Consider this, if a little trickle of water did start the Grand Canyon, the Canyon would in no way be as wide as it is today, but very narrow and deep.

3. Radioactive decay makes these tests unpredictable and unreliable.

4. At the rate of decay in the ocean floor, the floor of the ocean should be kilometers deep (according to your theory), in reality, it is only meters deep. Also, people are finding biblical evidence everyday that proves the Bible right. Check out . They have just discovered where the Red Sea was parted, and they have already found cities that prove the Bible to be more than a book. God says that he will perserve his Word, so all of the Bible is right, not just a little bit or parts.

5. Is there really evidence, like in your meteor cloud theory?

6. I have no mathematical proof. I do have faith, though, and I believe the words of a being that is infinitely more intellegent than I.

7. We are miraculous structures in ourselves. I can not explain the development process myself, as I am not a scientest or such.

8. The book of Genesis is a reference and part of the basis of Christian belief. God is the ultimate authority over all.

9. He could have if He chose to do so, but the Bible says that he did not.

10. How do you explain the placing of fossils on top of mountains and the finding of human footprints inside of dinosaurs. Yes, there is scientific evidence of this.

I do not say these words out of hate, maybe pity. The bible says that we must become as little children to believe. This also means that in some things that we do not know, we have to just believe what the Bible says as a child believes their parents. I hope you are not deluded by knowledge or drawn away from the wrong path, my friend. These things are just tools by Satan to draw people further toward Hell, and you can see how effective a simple theory has been toward this. I hope you stay well and consider my words.

If young Mr. Bussard had taken the time to do more than merely "browse" through this web site, he would have discovered that none of his statements is supported by scientific evidence. "Explanations" like the "vapor canopy" THEORY are simply impossible, based on well known, and repeatedly verified, physical constants. Others, like the Paluxy "footprints," are merely outright falsehoods.



How I managed to get your site once again, searching for revelations is beyond be - Yet here I am. So I wicked through several more areas of your site and got astounded twice in the same year.

My my my. I see you are still proud of your credentials as well. Sometimes I believe one of the problems with Science and Space nowadays, is the Scientist. Yes, he/she/it believe that unless you have an eLiTe education to post or banter about, and have been published several times...That your ideas are wrong by default. That is why the space program is going nowhere...NASA wishes everyone to believe only THEY can deal with space. Tsk Tsk, perchance to dream as well.

Anywho, the kid who you posted on your site(18yrs old), you replied at the bottom saying had he read your entire site, he would've known that the "footprints" are fakes. Hmm, why? You negate to mention that a lot of evolutionary garble has been proven fraudulent as well, upto and including the recent half-bird-half-dinosaur from China. I believe Evolution is like belief in an Alien :) Neither exist in the real world. But that's why you want comments :) From us stupid religious folk, to post and attempt to look witty.

Bottom Line Baby:

If evolution is fact, there'd be no argument. Sky is up? Correct, no argument. Tornados kill? Correct, no argument. Bill Gates worth 97B dollars? Correct, no argument.

Nothing...Explosions.....Matter created from nothing...Process of heat generation from nothing... Primordial pool....Aminos...Life? With no help? Pisha...Not correct, plenty of arguments.

Is this is a pro-evolution site? Or An anti-christian site? There is no argument :) You are intelligent, well spoken and educated. Problem is, you believe like Darwin did...You believe you are too smart for God. You also believe that as a Christian, I cannot judge you...On both counts, you are erroneous. I cannot judge your SOUL...But man CAN judge mans actions in any way shape or form. I judge Evolution to be a trivial joke played against Christians by science thumpers who hate the fact that they have to answer to someone for their actions. Which is cool by me, cept don't tell me I gotta pay for it. And don't tell me, my kids have to believe in it.

Believe as you will...After all, you have nothing to fear from a God that evolutionists claim does not exist...Nothing at all. I mean, miracles, plagues, etc...That can all be explained, can't it? Evolution can be proven 100% beyond a resonable doubt, right? Science is king right? Eternal damnation is hokie and so gothic, right? Beast out of water...Sillyness, right?

[The writer should be aware that sarcasm and personal attacks don't prove his point. With respect to the "half bird-half dinosaur," AS SOON AS legitimate scientists had a chance to examine it, it was pronounced a fake. Creationist leaders know that to be the case, but why spoil a propaganda opportunity with the truth?]


John Lopez

hello, my name is john. i was just looking up sites pertaining to the debate between evolution and creationism, when i happened to come upon your site with a cartoon comparing the two methods of thought. now many people today believe the ones proclaiming the genesis account for the creation of life to be bias. and ya know what, they are. but, honestly, who isn't. can you honestly say that you are not bias. what came first atheist/agnostic belief -or- the theory of evolution? the philosophy or the theory? and yes i believe the theory of evolution is the product of a philosophy or religious belief. why? because in order to accept it one must have tremendous faith in the lack of the fossil record that would say otherwise. faith not very scientific sounding is it. the theory of evolution is today accepted by the general public, which unfortunately includes the writers of the high school and college text books. this, if i'm allowed to have my own opinion, is not right. i believe that kids maybe should learn about the theory but it should not be taught like it was the law of gravity. THAT would not be scientific. science, when boiled down to it, is the accumulation of knowledge and application there of. acquiring this knowledge is done through tests and experiments, with measurable quantities, that can be done many many many times over again all with the same conclusion, thus ending in an observable fact or law. that has yet to be done with the theory in question. again one has the right to have their own bias opinion of the origins of life but just because biased experts cling to the theory and try to prove it AFTER believing it still does not not make it scientific in its true sense.

a science teacher was asked by one of his student once if the process of evolution happens today. the teacher said, "yes but the process is so slow that we can't see it but it's happening." see the problem? the science teacher stepped out of the boundaries of science by saying that despite the lack of a measurable quantity (not being able to see the process) and thus a testing of the theory it can still be accepted. this is not science rather it is opinion. up until God saved me, one and a half years ago, i loved the idea of the theory of evolution. i had completely put my faith into this idea why? i now know why it made God go away. it served my needs. personal preference and convenience dictated my idea of truth. "science" dismissed God in my mind and that settled knotted feeling of guilt. i was no longer accountable to a higher being and that empowered me.

Whenever I open my refrigerator there is a light burning inside. I have noticed that there is a button in the door opening, and when I press it the light goes out. I have a theory that when the door closes it presses the button and the light goes out. However, I have never seen the light go out, so it's only a theory, not a fact.

the theory of evolution and creationism are both in the same boat: neither can be scientifically proven. the genesis account of life, despite heated skepticism, has not been scientifically proven false. no evidence has been brought forward to satisfy the atheist view. can the same be said about the theory of evolution?

doctor huxley, one of the most ambitious and earliest propagators of the theory, was interviewed years after the introduction of this theory about why, despite the lack of any proof or fossil record, did the scientific community embrace it so? he was quoted as saying, "The reason why the theory of evolution took so well to the scientific community is because we didn't want God to interfere with our sexual mores.">

this is not hate mail nor was it written in the spirit of hate. if you wish to respond, i would love a healthy, mature, and honest response. thank you for your time and God bless.

respectfully in Christ, John Lopez

Mr. Lopez's comments are based on his religious beliefs, not on the observable facts. The facts of evolution (radioactive dating, fossil record, geological formations) are so well established that they can not honestly be refuted. Creationist leadership therefore resorts to dishonest methods, using distortions, half-truths, and outright falsehoods. This is well documented in my web site and in links to other sites. His last paragraph tells it all: any discussion regarding the facts of evolution has to be on his level, with the implied position that the scientific approach, as outlined in this web site, is dishonest!



I read your website about evolutionism vs creationism, and it is flawed. Your knowledge of it is not up to date. Do you know the bible has never benn proven wrong? I hope you accept jesus into your heart so you can be saved, and visit this site


James G. Miller

Dr. Kent Hovind has issued a challenge to anyone for the taking. He is offering $150,000 to anyone that can produce even one ounce of empirical evidence that evolution is real. To my understanding he has assemble an international panel to judge the evidence in a fair and objective manner. So far, NOT a single I'm sure you could use this money so if you are this confident in evolution, go for it!

The fact that he was able to send me this e-mail indicates that Mr. Miller had logged on to my web site. Too bad he did not take the trouble to check out the background information on "Doctor" Hovind's phony offer, as described in detail in the "other web pages" listing in my web site.


(name removed at requet of sender)

I thought these would be difficult, but I found them quite straightforward to give answers to. Incidentally, I am not a scientist, just an ordinary guy who used to believe in evolution and an old earth. Thinking these creationists were a bunch of nutters I decided to honestly try out some of their arguments so I could prove them wrong. Boy was I wrong, these guys are spot on in a lot of their thinking. True, some of their theories are hard to swallow, but on most of the majors they score 100%. I think you should come off your high horse a bit in your criticism of them. They deserve some respect as they are as genuine as you. And in any case if you are right and we all go to dust in the end, why get upset. On the other hand if you are wrong and they are right, you've got a major problem on your hands when you die. You will have to meet this creator guy they believe in and explain yourself. Like how you spent your life disbelieving and opposing Him.

1. Where did the water come from ? Obviously , the canopy. When earth was first formed " The Spirit moved over the deep" there was no dry ground. God then separated the waters from under the earth and over the earth thus creating a canopy, a vapour barrier between the earth itself and outer space. This barrier absorbed the harmful rays emitted by the cosmos and the sun. This was until the time of Noah. No wonder no one believed Noah when he said it would rain as there had not been any rain on earth up until that point. We are told that the whole earth was watered from "streams that came up from the earth and watered the ground" i.e. groundwater.

Where did the water go to ? After the flood, God's first action was to "send a great wind over the earth" this created the ice caps and polar regions thereby locking up huge quantities of water. Ice caps were not in existence at the time of Eden due to the influence of the canopy. This is why we find tropical plants buried in these regions and coal and oil under the permafrost. The earth's climate was uniform a bit like being in a conservatory on a winter's sunny day. Adam and Eve were, of course naked, as there was no need for warm clothing then. Another result of this was that plants and trees could grow to enormous heights and sizes, insects were of a much larger size than today because of the lack of high winds and extremes of climate. Both of these are well preserved in the fossil record and it has been admitted that they could not survive today in even the deepest Amazonian jungle due to the wind currents. More water was stored in the deep ocean trenches which were not present at the creation as God said everything was good and deep sterile waters do not produce abundantly. Scientists have found subsea river beds which defy explanation as no existing currents could have created them. But the draining waters of the flood would as they made their way to the deeps. Incidentally have you ever looked at the very long ages claimed for men before the flood and compared them with ages after the flood. These tie-in precisely with the collapse of the canopy, possibly caused by an asteroid, falling as rain on earth. All that cosmic radiation which had been stored up there in the canopy filter system suddenly coming down. Soaking into the rocks and earth giving the radiation readings you seem so fond of. The earth was no longer protected from the harmful effects of the sun's radiation and death started to occur much earlier than before.

2. Grand Canyon formation. If the Grand Canyon was eroded gradually where is all the material that was removed ? Why are rocks on the summit of the canyon older than those at the bottom ? Why are there no erosion layers between each strata ? Sectarian scientific opinion is now sharply divided as to how the canyon came into being, the majority view now is that a catastrophic flood caused it's creation. Guides there now give both explanations as the Colorado river never cut it's way through, even in million years.

3. Radioactive Dating Consistency. Do you realise that most rocks cannot be dated radiometrically ? As any geologist will tell you, we cannot date sedimentary rocks, only volcanic and similar materials. As fossils are buried, largely, in sedimentary rocks this means we do not know how old they are. As to other radioactive results they are certainly not consistent. A wide band of age ranges can be given, for any sample , and it is established practise to discard all except the one which fits your own particular theory. Take coal for instance, we are told that, if found in the Carboniferous period, it is around 300 million years old. So by testing we should find it is this age. Since carbon-14 should have decayed away by 100,000 years the coal should not have a carbon -14 age. But coal gives a carbon-14 age of about 30,000 years. This must mean that the surrounding rocks are the same age. Similarly, rocks formed within human history have been found to have radioactive dating of between 160 and 3,000 million years. There are many well documented cases showing the total unreliability of the use of radioactive dating for gaining any opinion into the age of the earth's rocks.

4. Scientifically Factual Information. Try magnetism. At current rates of decay of the earth's magnetic field will peter out in 8,000 years. Going backwards 100,000 years, the earth would have had the magnetism of a neutron star. Only 20,000 years ago life would have been impossible on earth due to the heat generated by the earth's core. Alternatively how about Helium. If the world is billions of years old where is it all, it's certainly not in the atmosphere. This lack of helium indicates a young earth. There are so many other measures which do not point to an old earth such as ;sea salt, erosion of continents, sediments in the sea etc.

5. Astronomical Evidence. Ever seen the star chart of the birth date of Jesus Christ ? Suggest you do. The Magi were not following any visible star as we know it, that is why King Herod and his merry men could not identify what these strange men from the east were guided by. Forget supernovas and satellites, astrology is in the Bible, ok it has been corrupted by charlatans but I know one person who became a believing Christian through searching for Jesus in the stars and was astonished by what she found.

6. As I said, before, I am not a scientist or a mathematician. But I do know this, order does not come out of explosions like the big bang.

7. Evolution ? I cannot answer this myself and am puzzled by your chicken problem. By the way, which came first, in your book, the chicken or the egg ? Perhaps you can help me believe in evolution. Can you name one new species which has evolved in the lifetime of man? Can you give one example of where information was added to the genepool during reproduction ? Can you give one example of where a mutation has improved upon the original design? Can you tell me where the missing- link fossils are?

8. Book of Genesis. You too easily dismiss this book. You should give it a try. One thing's for sure it wasn't written by wandering tribesmen in the desert. It could be the true history of earth , if you gave it a chance. I have some mathematical data on the Hebrew it was written in which demonstrates it was not possible for any human being to think it up. In fact all the computing power in the world would be needed to come up with what is written in it, and that might not be enough.

9. Evolution Why God Didn't Use It. "In the beginning everything was good, there was no death, God gave all living things green plants to eat". All creation was made perfect and mature, there was no upward struggle to survive by the fittest, involving the death of millions of animals and creatures. Hence , incidentally, the reason we haven't found the missing link fossils. Death came into the world through the sin of Adam who make God out to be a liar by choosing to believe satan instead, who said that Adam wouldn't die after eating of the forbidden fruit. At that moment death came into the world, not only for Adam but all creation. The earth was cursed and continues under this curse, as is evidenced all around us today. God only allowed the eating of meat after the flood and this was because earth's climate had been drastically altered by the loss of the canopy and the formation of the ice caps. It was also to accomplish the plan that God had to populate the ends of the earth.

10. The Standard Creationist Explanation. I think you are referring to the evolutionists Geologic Column here ? This is a hypothetical column of fossils, the ancient ones on the bottom, more recent ones on the top. This does not exist in a complete form in nature, except as a trend. As 95 % of all fossils are marine invertebrates, particularly shellfish, all living at the bottom of the sea , at the time of the flood, it is no surprise that they appear at the lowest levels, as they were already there. The fossil record is best understood as the result of a marine cataclysm that utterly annihilated the continents and land dwellers. Virtually all fossils are found in sedimentary rocks, these have to laid down by masses of water i.e. a flood. Scientific evidence is now available which shows that there is no such thing as the cretaceous, jurassic and triassic periods, that they were all formed at the same time. This can be demonstrated by studies of polonium halos in coal seams in each of these supposed periods. Every sample shows the same age, in fact possibly the same year of deposition. While we are on this subject could you explain how can it be that scientists have found unfossilied dinosaur bones containing blood traces recently, this demonstrates a young earth, not one where dinosaurs were supposedly wiped our 65 million years ago. Any scientists will tell you that it physically and chemically impossible for animal bones to have lasted, even for a fraction of this time. The population at the time of the flood was relatively small and concentrated around the Iran/Iraq area. The flood waters covered all the mountaintops then existent, this was before major mountain- building during the continental shifts. All the population drowned. Studies have been done on dinosaur tracks laid down in the coal measures which clearly show the paths the dinosaurs took whilst trying to get to higher and higher ground. Their footprints are fossilised into the coal seams made up of millions of floating tree and vegetation debris. Large animal objects when drowned, float, ever seem films of hippos and cows bloated by gas being moved downstream until trapped inrapids etc. Naturally they would be fossilised later than smaller organisms. Dead fish float and yet they are found in great numbers well preserved in the fossil record, some are in process of giving birth. This would indicate a sudden cataclysm, such as was created in a great flood.

Any more questions?


(name removed at request of sender)

Glasgow, Scotland

Although the information refuting the above statements is readily available in this web site and its links to other web sites, I will briefly comment on each response:

The atmosphere can hold only a limited amount of water. It would have to be a thousand times thicker and heavier to hold enough water to cover the earth with liquid water. Such a cloud cover would completely block out the sun, creating total darkness. The ice caps do not contain enough water to cover the earth. Do the math.

The idea that a surge of water would cut, into a solid rock plateau, a mile deep Grand Canyon channel that follows a meandering course for more than a hundred miles, is simply preposterous!. We are talking about hundreds of cubic miles of solid rock! The material was actually removed by continuous slow erosion over millions of years, and carried into the Gulf of California by the muddy Colorado. (named by the Spanish explorers as "colorado" meaning "red" because of its muddy appearance) The majority of scientists do NOT believe that the canyon was created by a catastrophic flood. The rock strata at the top is younger than that at the bottom.

Radioactive dating must be done carefully. Improper technique can result in gross errors. Before accepting creationist "evidence" I suggest Ian investigate the specific background of each creationist claim.

The creationist argument that the earth's magnetic field has undergone a continuous unidirectional decay is refuted by the magnetic bands of the Mid-Atlantic ridge magma that show at a periodic reversal. The periodic reversal is consistent with what is known about the earth's core; the creationist unidirectional magnetic decay theory is not.

The "Astronomical Evidence" argument is sectarian religious dogma. Ditto responses to questions 8 and 9. Whether true or not, they are nevertheless not scientific arguments..

No, you don't "know" that the "big bang" could not create order. . You only think you know. Study thermodynamics.

Question 10. Just about all the claims here are simply wrong, and there is no evidence to support them. When one examines the factual data, it simply does not support these creationist claims. Check out my web site and its links to other web sites. For example: the world petroleum production is 76 million barrels per DAY, day in and day out, year in and year out, with no end in sight. Creationists claim that a few dead animals that were trapped in a single universal flood could create this enormous reservoir of oil. Preposterous!


Aaron Essary


My name is Aaron. I will not call you an idiot or make fun of you in any way. I do in fact believe in creationism not just because of "religious" beliefs. I do know however that one cannot know the whole picture until you have studied all areas of science in great depth. One cannot fully understand biology without understanding chemistry, again not chemistry without physics, and the loop continues. A person has to know all areas in order to make a valid opinion. I do not know you, but if you do not already know all the areas of science, educate yourself and study BOTH sides of the debate. I suggest for the creation side you check out I also recommend attending a seminar with Dr. Grady McMurtry and spending some time after the session talking (not arguing) with him to find out what his years (21 years as an evolutionist) of learning have given him as evidence both ways. This man is a deep thinker and knows both sides of the debate and knows the evolution side better than even some evolutionists do as I seen at one of his seminars (when a professor tried to argue his point during the students question and answer time, the professor used 30 year old evidence and arguments that even the greatest of evolutionist scientists threw out a long time ago)Anyway, this woul be a great place to start. Really though, THE absolute best place to start is by doing the following: When you're all alone at night communicate with God and ask him to show you the answers. I know God answers prayer and if he does not respond to you then believe what you want. God will respond to a heart that seeks the truth. God Bless You. I will check out your site all the way through. Thanks for your time.


I did check out the above referenced web site and found it to be a promotion of sectarian religious dogma, with some standard creationist claims which have been repeatedly debunked in this web page and others. It is a shame that Aaron did not actually peruse my web site first before forming an opinion. Perhaps he should communicate with God and ask Him to explain why dogma claiming to be God's word should be so full of false information.


(this name removed at request of sender)

Hi- i just recently visited your web site and have some comments-

first of all, Christianity is a religion of faith, not facts. but i am sure you already have heard this line before, so i have a few facts to share- scientists have proved that there is a constant flow of space particles or "dust" building up on the moon. they have calculated the constant rate and if in fact the earth was formed many years ago then the layer of dust on the moon would be several feet deep. when the first lunar module was sent onto the moon the scientists found that in fact there was actually only a few inches to the rock surface and calculated the moon to be about 6000 years old.

The Moon Dust argument was refuted many years ago, yet it still crops up. Details are in the "Moon Dust" section of Other Creationist Arguments section in this web page.

personally i don't believe that the earth was created only 6000 years ago- the ancient hebrew word for day is the same as year, month, week ect.. it is just used to show time passed... so when it says the first day it could mean much much longer.

another thing- why are the insects found in amber the same as they are now? dinosaurs are found in full skeletons, how come scientists only find small fragments of so called primitive men?

Evolution is a branching process. Evolution states that modern species have branched off from some earlier pre-existing species. It does not require that earlier species be replaced by new species. There is no reason why some primitive insects could not have survived unchanged. Dinosaurs were around for 50 million years. Humans less than one million.

sorry this is so long- just a little more- you believe in the theory of evolution. in other words you believe in someone's educated guess. you don't believe in facts, you believe in factual guesses. they sound right, true, but are still only guesses. where were you when the earth was created? how do you KNOW what happened? i sure wasn't there. the bottom line is that there is no way to prove God exists. he wanted it that way, because it is all too easy to believe in something you can feel and see. you are obviously a smart man- open your eyes for just a squint- and look around for once in our eyes.

Where were you when the earth was created? How do you KNOW what happened? Evolution does not deal with the question of whether or not God exists. You are assuming that those who do not accept your sectarian religious dogma are atheists. This is unfair, unreasonable, and unscientific.


Jill Quillen

The "Gas Cloud" theory involves hydrogen and helium correct? If there is a beginning to everything may I ask where did the hydrogen come from? Scientists have also tried to create life in a laboratory. They designed a Pyrex apparatus containing methane, ( which the earth supposedly was made of when it was formed) ammonia, and water vapor, but no oxygen. Then they passed electric sparks to simulate lightning strikes. What was their result? NO life was was produced. And amino acids and simple chemicals is not the right mixture for producing life. ( amino acids and simple chemicals were produced from the experiment) Evolutionism has not yet produced a scientifically credible explanation for the orgin or such immense complexities as DNA, the human brain, etc.

It is very premature for materialists to claim that all living things evolved into exsistence, when science has yet to discover how even one protein molecule could actually have come into existence by a natural process. And since I am a Christian I believe that we are not to take nor add to the word of God. God says that I was created in his image, so therefore I did form out of single celled organism from, the ocean, in a little pool of water on the beach. I was created by the Almighty himself. I look like my Father in heaven.

I cover the results of the Miller spark experiment in a section of this web page. Evolution does not require an explanation of how the original life form came into existence. The evidence which supports evolution is the evidence that existing life forms are descended from primitive ancestors. Unless they can disprove that evidence, creationists have no case against evolution. They are not able to do that, so they resort to false reports and distortions like the above.


Brian M. Danford

Hi, I'm not going to go into any great depth to refute anything you've said in your site, although I do not share your beliefs in any way. It all comes down to this... none of us were here at the beginning of the world, whether it was 6-7,000 years ago or 5 billion years ago. All we have is the evidence left behind, which can be used to "scientifically prove" EITHER side of the coin if the right "facts" are included or left out.

Simply put, evolution is a matter of faith just as much as creation is. It seems you've chosen your belief, and nothing anyone says will change that. You have plenty of scientific evidence to prove what you believe in... more power to ya. I choose to have faith in creation because I choose to believe in God's Word, and I also believe that scientific evidence and history support His Word. I've read quite a bit of your site, as well as several books supporting evolution from many of the sources you've mentioned and recommended. I've also read a lot about creation, including the Bible cover to cover. Creation and a Creator makes more sense to me. You take great stock in your academic background... well academics have no place in matters of faith. I'm a fully qualified nuclear engineer, and well on my way to becoming a software engineer. I got a 1450 on my SAT's. So what? Am I an intelligent scholar or an ignorant zealot?

You can say radiation dating proves a rock to be a million years old. I say God can create a full-grown man with a mature body, why can't He create a full-grown earth showing signs of age? One statement has solid scientific proof... I don't have the specialized knowledge to prove carbon dating is wrong... the other statement has a simple irrefutable logic. The point's not worth arguing. I'll continue in my beliefs and I'll raise my two sons in the same beliefs. You go ahead and do the same. I'll pray that someday you find some shred of proof that will shed light on the truth.... and you can hope the same for me.

Best wishes and God bless

J. Levy

Dear Mr Steiger

I read with interest your articles about the problems with the global flood. You seem to have the opinion that only the Bible has a record of a global flood which is untrue. Not only do all Jewish records (eg the book of Josephus, the New Testament and jewish midrashim such as Sefer Hayashar) agree that this was a historical event but the legends of many other nations including the ancient Sumerians, Hindu Scriptures and tribal legends around the world mention this flood.

Many of these legends also mention associated disasters along with the flood. I suggest you read Graham Hancock's book Fingerprints of the Gods where flood legends are discussed.

The story of the Tower of Babel as well as long lifespans of early man are supported by many ancient legends eg the Sumerian, Egyptian, Greek and other writings.

You should also realise that Jewish tradition (the sources mentioned above) can trace human history back to Adam, and this history is more reliable than fragmentary Sumerian and Egyptian king lists and the writings of Manetho which present day academia uses to reconstruct ancient history.

I have yet to see any proper historical evidence that mankind has existed for more than 6,000 years.There is no know historical figure who existed more than 6,000 years ago. I am very sceptical of the current history which has mankind hunting and gathering for 200,000 years. This is based on a few fossils and various dating methods and there is no proof that these methods are accurate.

Therefore, historical records support the biblical account of the origins of human history rather than the evolutionary account.


Bradley Sadler

Good Day!

I have a very small question for you. Why would the omnipotent God need to take billions of years to get everything right when he creates things just by speaking? Not to mention if he knows everything, why should he take billions of years to get everything perfect when he knew we would mess it up by eating an apple?

Matthew chapter 7 is talking about how you shouldn't criticize people or try to take care of their sins before you take care of your own. Very good advice. But are you calling creationists false prophets who Jesus never knew?

Matthew 7:13 says enter through the narrow gate. I used to believe in evolution, but I thought very hard about it and thought "why would he take so long to make things perfect? He just says it and it happens" The US view is evolution, the wide gate. You think it makes sense, but are you sure your not just conforming?

Actually, evolution only makes sense if God is part of it, but God doesn't need it.

Thank you for your time.


Mark Landsbaum

RE: Creationism: The Political Connection

Dear Mr. Steiger,

As long as you are soliciting comments...

Your diatribe against Creationism is as short on facts as it is long on venom. Is it really the creation model you rant against, or the idea of God?

You repeatedly made statements such as accusing creationists of "preposterous falsehoods and distortions," yet never refuted anything. Instead, you offered a few generalities so vague as to be meaningless. You did, however, have no qualms about resorting many times to ad hominem and innuendo. Yours was entirely an emotional reaction. When facts failed you, you called names.

I am always amazed how those who do not believe the Bible are the first to misquote the Bible in their own defense: "...the religious hypocrisy that conceals the fact that the 10 Commandments . . . forbids work or other activities on the Sabbath!"

Even Christ worked on the Sabbath (Luke 13:14), performing miracles and criticizing the Pharisees for their legalistic interpretation (like yours) of the commandment. But you'd know that since you're such a Biblical scholar. Or perhaps not. At any rate, it's not work per se that's prohibited on the Sabbath, it's stuff like you have done on your website, work without good purpose and the spreading of misguided beliefs.

As for your ridiculous fear of a narrowing gap between church and state, allow me to point out to you the difference between God and church, and to refer you to the unalienable rights provided in our founding document, rights that incidentally are bestowed upon you and me by our "creator." Or perhaps you thought the founders meant by King George? Either way, the Constitution protects worship, it doesn't ban it.

You might read a bit more about the matters you critique before making yourself look foolish in print. I can recommend some very good books on young earth and ancient earth creationism that fully comport with science, which is considerably more than can be said of the unproven, indeed repeatedly disproven theory of evolution.

I'll pray that you see the light before it's all over and you find yourself in that other place, dark and very uncomfortable and estranged from your creator: "...the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men." Matthew 12:31

At your service...

Mark Landsbaum
Landsbaum Communications
Conservatively Speaking

As long as Mr. Landsbaum is quoting Matthew, here's what Jesus said in Matthew Chapter 7:

JUDGE not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Also, Mr. Landsbaum is evidently confusing the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776 by representatives from the 13 British colonies in north America stating that they would no longer be ruled by the British Crown. In the ensuing years it became obvious to the leaders of the 13 independent colonies that they would have to unite to form a single government. So in 1787 the Constitution was drafted and ratified in 1789 to create our country and the basis of its legal system. God is not mentioned in the Constitution. Christianity is not mentioned in the Constitution. The bible is not mentioned in the Constitution. The Creator is not mentioned in the Constitution. The Constitution mandates that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

The Constitution does not require a President elect to swear an oath on the bible. Here is what it says in Article II, section 1: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." One President elect (I don't remember which one) chose to use the word "affirm" instead of "swear."


Joel Askland

The following is Mr. Asklands's response to the statistics section in this web page, where I debunk creationist phony statistics.

First off There are two forms of evolution. Macro and Micro evolution. Creationist nor does the bible disagree with Micro evolution. But it is impossible for Macro evolution exist. It funny how you talk about statistics and know little you now about it relationship to evolution. It is simple.

The further we move from the days of Darwin, Even the simple Protozoa that Darwin thought was so simple, now we know that they are enormously complex. Molecular Biology now proves there is no such thing as "Primitive" cells. As James F. Coppedge ( Northrdige, CA: Probability Research in Molecular Biology) in his book Evolution: Possible or Impossible. puts it. Page 110. "The probability of a single protein molecule being arranged by changes is 1 in 10161, using all the atoms on earth and allowing all the time since the world began...for a minimum set of the required 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life, the probability is 1 in 10 119,879. It would take 10119,879 year on the average to get a set of such proteins. That is 10 119,831 times the assumed age of the earth and is a figure with 199, 831 zeroes."

Your card explanation doesn't even come close. Try coins! Label 10 quarters 1-10. Put them in metal can and draw one at a time place. Record each coin as you pull them trying to get the coins labeled number 1 followed in order by all the rest. Put them back in the metal can shake them and pull them again. It would take 1,500 years for chance if you recorded one coin every five seconds day and night.

Mr. Askland is simply ignoring the point. Evolution occurred one step at a time. My statistics page made it clear that if the number pulled is not the next number in order, you put it back.

A child can put them in order in just minutes. Chance does have a chance against Design! While a child can spell the Phrase, "The Theory of Evolution", while chance requires five million times the assumed age of the earth to just to accomplish the same feat!

Now consider 1 in 10119,879.

Your cartoon is ironic. Evolution and science starts with hypothesis and sets out to prove themselves right... and at all cost, even if they need use unethical means. Evolution say here is the facts, how can we manipulate this to prove God doesn't exist.

The creationist does not ignore the facts, we just don't believe the facts come by just by chance. It is cause and effect. Being that God is the First Cause without Cause; this where the evolutionist really have the problem in their feeble minds.

Well that it is merely Mr. Askland's opinion, based entirely on his religious beliefs.

For instance: Evolutionists have used fraud over the years to try to prove evolution to be correct . Still use these frauds in the class room as fact. I took Anthropology in college from a professor that did his studies in Johannesburg, Africa. He explained in his lectures that most of prehistoric fossils of man were nothing but frauds. He went through and listed many most of them.

Quoting another creationist is not evidence!

Nebraska Man, Which was formed from a single tooth Pithecanthropus Erectus(Java Man), discovered by Eugene Dubois was nothing more than a skull cap and a femur bone found fifty feet from each other; but he never disclosed for thirty years that he found human skulls (Wadjak Skull) in the same area. Pilton Man: The Jawbone of a an ape was stained to appear as it matched a human skull and even reshaped. File marks on the teeth of the lower jaw were clearly visible. Peking Man - Fantasy A tooth and some bashed in monkey skulls. The tools found around his remains, were not used by him, but on him.

Mr. Askland has been brainwashed into believing that scientists are not able to evaluate evidence and detect fraud. He hasn't kept up with the latest creationist propaganda, quoting arguments so soundly trounced they have become an embarrassment to the movement. See old debunked creationist arguments in this web page.