Thursday, December 11, 2008

I recently got a comment on my blog and I would love to share it with you. I will leave the name of this individual anonymous but see if you can see what is missing in his comment. 

"I appreciate the spammed post on my blog. I deleted one and posted the other. No Darwin did not have an electron microscope, nor did he know about DNA. Had he, I predict that the would have really enjoyed the vast amount of evidence supporting his basic premise that one can find there". (Which this person commenting does not mention here!!!). " Are cells simple? Not really(not really, look at your  science not at all!!!). But simply arguing that they are so complex that could not have arisen by 'chance' and thus evolution is false thus biblical creationism is true is just wrong on so many levels." (yet he does not mention or give facts stating how it is wrong!!) "And I wouldn't be so quick to trust the claims by the folks at ICR in the first place (which he offers zero evidence why other than they disagree with his ideology).- they require al of those associated with them to take oaths that they will never cast doubt on creationism (simply not true), and have a pretty good tract record of having their, shall we say, less than honest antics exposed (Which again he fails to mention one single occurrence.)

Did you see what was missing throughout this man's whole entire argument?? Facts? Again where are the facts, he has been reduced to name calling and empty allegations. Offer me one proof of anything you say. Read my blog post simply not simple in which I quote Charles Darwin!! Yet he offers zero evidence on which his position stands. Then the evolutionist like this man have the audacity to claim that we are the ones who believe in blind faith, who have no evidence. DNA has the amount of info to fill 500 books with a 1000 pages each, an incredible amount of information on a molecular level. Where does this information come from?? How would Darwin be overjoyed if he had an electron microscope?? WHat is it within a cell supports organic evolution?? Darwin himself said the opposite, he said "if it can be demonstrated that any complex organ exited which could not have possibly been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down". (Origin of species) 1872, p.154 

So this man who commented said Darwin would be overjoyed, when he himself wrote the quote above which is exactly what we see in a cell. Darwin wouldn't be overjoyed, he would calling for the glory that is due to the Great Creator...


  1. Couldn't agree more. Darwinists are long on pronouncements and censorship and totally devoid on facts.

    Incidentally, I recently released an end-times novel which features a debate between a preacher and a lawyer on Darwinism vs. creationism. There's an abundance of research and FACTS in the debate. Fun reading. The web page for the book is

  2. First of all, there are no such things as Darwinists. That is a made up term to make scientific study sound like a religion. Devoid of facts? Apparently you have not taken even basic science courses and allow your religion to permeate your whole thinking. Your "facts" are made up according to how you choose them to be. Evolution is supported by an abundance of verifiable evidence, whereas the evidence for the existence of your supreme imaginary friend is zip. None.

    Check out and educate yourself. Most god believers can reconcile evolution and their religion, recognizing that things do change over time.

  3. Hi Chris,

    You can use my name if you'd like. In, fact, I'd like it if your readers checked out the actual exchanges so that they can see for themselves how your post here is a bit devoid of, um, truth.

    Let's hope you allow this to be published - wouldn't want any 'censorship' now would we?

    And by the way, I offered no 'facts' in my response to you since you presented no facts to reply to.

    I also think it is so cute how a minister like you can label anything I wrote "name calling". Where are the names? Can you point one out? Or is all you've got aspersion casting (let me guess - that is name calling, too)?

    I also found it cute how you simply did not refer to my follow up comment wherein I laid out a clear example of facts that show ICR to be unreliable.

    The ostrich effect.

  4. I found no namecalling.Idid,however, find the tired,familiar old quotemine of Charles Darwin, so popoular among creationists:

    "Darwin himself said the opposite, he said "if it can be demonstrated that any complex organ exited which could not have possibly been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down". (Origin of species) 1872, p.154"

    Predictably, like all creationist uses of this quote, it leaves out the sentence immediately following: "But I can find no such case". And no such case has been found to this day.

    I suggest,Chris, that you find an actual example of a cellular feature that could not have risen via Darwinian means. And forget about the bacterial flagellum-- Pallen and Matzke (2006),in their paper "From The Origin of Species to the origin of bacterial flagella", in the Journal Nature Reviews Microbiology, convincingly demosnstrated that the flagellum could have arisen via Darwinian means.

    The ball is still in your court.

    Dave Wisker