---

Hi Scott, thank you for your response. I have noticed that you referred to the word honest/dishonest 7 times with reference to me. You are obviously suggesting that I have been dishonest! These are strong and unnecessary words. There sure is nothing a like a brother in Christ attacking you! This is what mixing two religions does!

Brother Scott, I have a book that tells me to be honest and I follow it to the best of my ability (word for word). Apparently you follow the same book but distort its contents and mislead others. Perhaps you should get acquainted with Mark 9:42. The sentence for those misleading others used to be a capital punishment. If we had that today, you would be thinking twice about supporting a hypothesis that contradicts God's word.

By the way, have you decided which one of the following Christians you are yet?

• Pictorial day theory
• Gap theory
• Intermittent theory
• Day-age theory
• Literal day theory (you are obviously not this one)

The same book warns his people that in the end days even the elect will be deceived - if indeed it were possible - (Matthew 24:24). Do you consider yourself an elect, intellectual or a disciple? Would you stake your SOUL on this evolution hypothesis on basis that it's absolutely true and exactly as described?. In fact, let's put something less important on the line: Would you stake both your EYES on this hypothesis? Put it in writing and show God (and the rest of the world) that you mean business!!!!

It is bad enough having to deal with the lies that support the macroevolution hypothesis, we don't need "Christians" to join in supporting it and cause more damage!

Today, I was asked by a friend. Is there a single known fact that disputes the evolution theory (he means macroevolution, because he knows that I accept microevolution as a fact)? The answer is NO; because to the religious evolutionist NOTHING is acceptable (a serious condition of close-mindedness). No one really knows how exactly the world or life began except, of course, the evolutionists. They know everything! :) Because they were there when it happened! - lol

Ok, let's tackle your statements:

"how could an evolutionist tell the difference between right and wrong or have moral principles"

Individuals don’t evolve. Populations do. Populations where individuals trust each other and work together are more likely to survive than a population full of backstabbers fighting only for the individual. This implies and requires treating other people well. Evolution also explains how we developed into pair-bonded primates and how actions that favor only the individual can violate the trust and cooperation that goes into these bondings, thus explaining how evolution can account for moral codes against murder, lying and other sins. Additionally as a social primate, we evolved within-group amity and between-group enmity. By nature, then, we are cooperative and competitive, altruistic and selfish, greedy and generous, peaceful and bellicose; in short, good and evil… just as stated in Genesis.

"Individual's don't evolve. Populations do"? Does this same principle give a certain "population" the right to wipe out another certain "population" based on the fact that they have not evolved enough or other inferiorities (perhaps because they are less intelligent, less fit, less good looking, less....less...etc.)? Well, Hitler must have been right then to wipe out the less evolved Jews! As a nation, Germany was united (indeed well evolved!) but they certainly didn't approve of many other nations, did they? Is that your explanation for knowing absolute right from absolute wrong and having moral principles? Aren't you supposed to be a Christian? Why didn't YOU simply say "because the Bible says so"? Do you actually believe anything in the Bible?

"People have attempted to debate Walt Brown, but Brown refuses. oe Meert signed Brown's contract in 1996. He proposed (in accordance with the contract terms) that evidence regarding a global flood be a topic for discussion within the debate. Brown has steadfastly refused to debate Meer."

http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/walt_brown.htm

"I am not an evolutionist -- to the contrary, I am a Bible-believing, creationist Christian who has attended and enjoyed Dr. Brown's seminar, and who teaches a Bible class every week at my church. In addition, however, I am a Vanderbilt-educated, naturally skeptical lawyer who wants creation science claims to be backed up by evidence… …Dr. Brown has disappointed me, because his misinterpretation and/or hyper-elevation of the term "procedures" looks like evasion. Of course, I might be entirely wrong, and I would welcome correction."

There are some inconsistencies with the above statement and what Dr.Walt Brown claims. Dr Brown says that he is not a theologian yet apparently he taught Bible class every week at the author’s church. Interesting! Also, are you really aware of the letters/dialogs that took place between Dr Meert and Dr Brown? Why won't you check the "Summary of Joe Meert/Walt Brown Communications Concerning a Written Debate". May be trebob would like to reconsider? In fact, may be YOU want to debate him on your apparent knowledge that "...Brown leaves out the problems the hydroplate model creates and gets other facts wrong as well".

Btw, it is indeed odd that you provide html links to other sources but not trebobs blog. Why the bias?

Sorry, didn't mean to offend you or trebob. It is very apt of you to notice. The reason for the missing link was because of my lack of approval of his blog. It is biased, not neutrally presented and (in some places) dishonest. Also, generally my responses are not added until he finds a suitable "attack" to append to it. Similar to Carl, trebob is just interested in attacking the person who opposes the evolution hypothesis. All trebob needs to do is to list my posts along with any responses.

You are being dishonest again. A literal global flood would have jumbled up all these species, not laid them down with debunked hydrological sorting. There might also be other non-creationist and non-darwinian models that could account for a such a find

No brother Scott, I'm not being dishonest ("again"). In a literal global flood, bones (depending on their density) would float and appear higher up the layers. The bones appearing higher up the layers can also be accounted for by how long the animal survives and remains floating before it's buried etc.. Regarding other models that could account for such finds....sure, I am happy to explore these views. However, doesn't the mere suggestion of alternative models impose some doubt in your evolution theory/belief? Don't get me wrong, I'm ok with that. It's just that up till now, evolutionists have been saying that evolution is a fact!!!! So can there really be another non-darwinian model??? If you want to entertain another model, then you have to agree that the evolution theory is NOT a fact!

"However, much more interestingly, to falsify evolution he wants also to see a mermaid (half woman, half fish) or centaur (half man, half horse). Is this some kind of joke? How and why would that go against evolution?"

You are being dishonest again, and showing you have no idea how evolution works. The gene transfers that take place in evolution would not explain such creatures as evolution states they are not related by common descent. Therefore finding them would be evidence against the theory.

No brother Scott, I'm not being dishonest ("again"). The "common descent" idea was invented by good old Charlie. It is an evolutionary terminology invented to support the hypothesis. You must first believe in evolution before this statement becomes true. So no, the discovery of such a creature is not going to help you or trebob.

Finally trebob wants "a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating"? He should have a look at this http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/twin_sister_mechanism_prevents_formation_of_genetic_mutations."

You should have a look at it too. From the article: "Fortunately, nature has provided cells with two alternative, last-resort repair systems that can take command when the first rescue mechanism fails. One system is inaccurate ? it repairs genes while permitting the formation of a relatively small number of mutations. Though this poses a certain risk, it ensures the cell's continued existence. Equally important, it increases genetic diversity, allowing natural selection, the driving force of evolution, to come into play."

So your own source proposes no mechanism that would prevent accumulating mutations. Next time try reading the articles first.

No brother Scott, you are very mistaken. Firstly the point I was making with this article is that we DO have a self correcting system to prevent mutation. Secondly, natural selection only selects, it doesn't create. Thirdly, you need to read the next paragraph in that article:

The other last-resort repair system was hypothesized by scientists in the 1960s yet was never proved until the current study. This system, which relies on the help of "sister chromosomes," enables the cell to repair genetic damage without the risk of creating mutations. (During the process of cell division, each chromosome - the structure in the nucleus that contains DNA - gives rise to two identical "sister" chromosomes. These move on to the two separate cells created from the dividing cell.)

By the way, despite that, it is true that sometimes we may get corruption in our DNA code that may "appear" to be advantageous, but usually done at a cost (or detriment). We have never observed a mutation that generally provide a benefit to a specie or allow it to evolve from one kind to another.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down".

You have been called out on this one already so please give us the rest of the quote. Until then you are being dishonest again.

No brother Scott, I'm not being dishonest ("again"). If you wish I will include the rest of that page, but it won't help you. Perhaps you should point out the section that appears to satisfactorily answer/conclude the above statement for you.

Irreducible complexity has long since been debunked. This has all been covered already.

Ok, Scott, this is getting very tiring now. Firstly, this is not already covered. In relation to irreducible complexity, it was ME who mentioned the flagellum on September 14 2009 at 01:28:45. Now......just because we know how a protein is put together to have a functioning flagellum doesn't mean we know it has been evolved. The sequence of events that it would have taken to build a flagellum cannot be explained by mutation and natural selection because well before the flagellum functions as a good motor, it would have been a useless list of protein components. If you want to discuss this further, that's fine by me.

Macro and micro are the same process. Micro over short periods of time with small changes will become large changes over a large period of time. I don't see why this is so difficult for you to comprehend.

Perhaps the reason why this is so difficult to comprehend :) is because Macro evolution is the opposite of Micro. Micro is the process of natural selection, it only selects from the existing gene pool, whilst Macro adds to the gene pool.

Johns claims have been thoroughly destroyed. There is no way he can be honest and not realize this by now. The newest post from John Harris is just more of his trademark dishonesty.

I'm ok to be mistaken but to call a brother in Christ dishonest (if indeed you are saved) without proof is lying. Lying is a sin! Besides why do I want to be dishonest? The whole idea is to remove the dishonesty from the evolution hypothesis. You should be supporting me!

As for your comment regarding "29+ evidences for macro evolution", you are clearly under the impression that this is watertight/indesputable evidence for the evolution hypothesis. I can assure you that this is not true. Pick a subject you like the most from that list and let's tackle it.

Finally to Jim, why are you so passionately against Kent Hovind for his "attacks" against the Muslims? Do you have a Muslim backround or family etc.? What is the real reason?

---