>You obviously believe in evolution with a passion and that is fine by me
Except that I obviously don't "believe in" anything, as I've already demonstrated to you so many times. If I could get any of you to agree to the debate I proposed, I could sufficiently evolution to any of you, no matter how you try to deny it. I think evolution is at least mostly true because I don't have to "believe" it. It remains immediately evident whether I want to believe it or not. I can try to prove it wrong, but it always survives whatever test or diligent scrutiny I (or you) can put to it.
>and I really don't want to spend hours in an angry debate which will not really lead us anywhere.
In the beginning I said I could prove this to you, if you would agree to debate me on this to conclusion, answering every direct question or challenge and properly addressing all points made. Of course that rule works both ways. If any of you showed integrity enough to give that an honest effort, then I can't be angry with you. Its dishonest tactics that rile me.
>However, I would like to address a few of points, but will not respond to future E-mails. You can take that as cowardice or inability to face thetruth, that is up to you.
>1. With respect to Joe Baker, if you have any issues with him please contact him, the same applies to Kent Hovind, Kylie and Craig.
Hovind is notorious for refusing to engage in written debates, as you are also, and with good reason. The things you both write on your sites are indefensible where they can be researched. Its also next to impossible to show evidence live since Hovind tends to demand whatever is outside his opponent's field of expertise. That's why he only debates live. I did see him with an Old-Earth creationist once (I forget who it was now) where he demanded evidence, and the OEC was prepared. He pulled out several papers from his briefcase and Hovind desperately dismissed them out-of-hand saying "Those are just papers. I asked for evidence. I have lots of paper. Paper doesn't mean anything." And he still had to interrupt twice more to shut the man up before he could reveal what was on those papers. Since Hovind is known for these kinds of devious tricks, its no wonder that no one who knows his kind will debate him under the restrictions of a live debate. Those unsuspecting patsies who do are expecting to meet an honest man.
Now I read that Joe was very proud of Hovind and the fact that no one wanted to be suckered into his high school circus debate. But no one on this site is willing to debate me in any arena where accuracy is assured, not even Kent Hovind. But I did cc this message to the others behind your site to let them prove that if they would. So why don't you try to convince him to take me on in this, the most appropriate forum: Published, reviewed and researched written debate, where no direct questions, challenges, points or evidence may be ignored or refused? I think we both already know that none of them will oblige me, much as I wish they would.
>2. I take your point about transitional fossils, but belief in them does rely on the assumption that one form changed to another.
No it doesn't. Acanthostega, elginerpeton, tulerpeton and a handful of others are both sarcopterygian fish and semi-amphibious tetrapods at the same time. One is the other. The same applies to Pezosiren portelli, the fully-quadrupedal sirenian. It was a sea cow except of course that it still had four legs that it could still walk on. Other fossil Sirenians have also been found that still had four external legs, but none of them that were capable of ambling about on land with them. These represent a clear fluidity of transition of different species within the same "kind", but turning into something that is visually much different. In each case, these animals are transitional all on their own no matter what you want to assume about them. Does a sea lion really look like a finished product to you?
There is a fairly fluid sequence of fossils showing the gradual progression of fish with legs and fins to amphibians with feet, fins and gills, but even if all that were inaccurate, Darwin called for transitional species in specific lineages, and that's exactly what Acanthostega, Caudipteryx, Archaeopteryx, Ambulocetus, Haasiophis, Postasuchus and cynognathus are, even according to the definition you give on your own website: "A transitional fossil is one that looks like it's from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage..." Each one represents something that falls exactly where Darwin predicted they would and how his Theory predicted they should. And you still claim that none of these have been found or that they are what they are.
>We have no living evidence of macro-evolution today, only micro-evolution.
You have a Ph.D. in biology and yet you don't know what macro- and micro-evolution are?! Let me help you with that: Microevolution is variation within species, such as with breeds of dogs that can and will still interbreed in a natural setting. Macroevolution is variation between species, where the daughter species either won't or can't interbreed with the parent population naturally, such as would be with dachshunds and wolves, or the mice of Madiera.
Both have been directly observed.
And not just the scientific sites recognize this, but Kyle's favorite "science resource" does too.
It seems to be an increasingly frequent occurrence as I've heard of several example instances in the course of my life. I wish I knew to get names and citations for each one all those years ago.
> Such so called intermediates could also be other species that existed long ago and became extinct.
Which is what happened to all the transitional species I'm talking about, (except sea lions). There aren't any moetheriums, plateoposaurs, utatsusaurs, mesonychids or Merychippus still wandering around. And many of their descendants aren't around anymore either.
And I really should mention that the sheer volume of ancient beasties going extinct isn't accounted for anywhere in Biblical tradition, but evolutionary theorists expected to find what we do.
>Additionally there is the problem of sometimes working with only a few bones and constructing a whole creature from a few bones. I enclose two quotes concerning the evolution of man and the examination of skeletons.
>"Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". (Henry Gee, Nature 2001).
We discussed this one remember? The problem with this quote is that there's nothing wrong with it. You just use it because you think it discredits evolution somehow. Apart from Dryopithecus and precious few others, there are no fossil chimps, nor should we expect to find many given the type of soil and scavengers found on forest floors and the way that tends to prohibit fossilizatition. Still we've managed to find Sahalanthropus, the Sivapithecines and several others, so I expect we will find some ancient Pan eventually. After all, since Archeaopteryx was found we went almost 150 years before we found another feathered dinosaur, but we finally did, and now we have lots of them.
>Professor G. von Koenigswald, an ardent supported of ape theory made the following statement (Baker, 1996):-
>"Working from skeleton alone, it is not so easy to define a man in comparison with an anthropoid ape. Actually, the anthropoid's skeleton differs only quantitatively from our own. The number of cranial bones and teeth is the same; the difference in the structure of the hands and feet is of degree only........ The only distinguishing character left therefore is
the size of the brain".
A rather strong argument for evolution that. Why did you show me that?
>I also add something about the Toumai skull, and I believe this can be applied to other finds from the reading I have done:-
>TOUMAI - "Skull turns the clock back on evolution" read a headline of the Times newspaper on July 11th 2002.
The press tends to be sensationalist. Good scientists are not. That's probably why half of America are creationists.
>This headline followed an article in the 10th of July 2002 issue of the prestigious science magazine "Nature" about a new species of archaic human being or hominid found in Chad in the form of a skull. The find comprised a near complete cranium, jawbone and teeth and was described in Nature magazine as belonging to the oldest human like creature yet discovered, dated at about 7 million years old (for details see links page, Toumai skull).
One small interjection. In the last few years, the term "Hominid" has been extended to include gorillas and chimpanzees as well as extinct humanoid species like the Australopithecines and Paranthropines, etc. But even before then, there couldn't have been a choice between being a human or being a hominid any more than something could be either a duck or a bird.
>However, this find provides good example of how speculative such discoveries are. By the 12th of July an article appeared in the Science / Nature section of BBC news on-line claiming the skull was not as it seems (for details see links page, Toumai skull). In this on-line article, Dr Brigitte Senut of the Natural History Museum in Paris said the skull looked to her like the skull of an ancient gorilla. She told Reuters news agency that the creature's short face and small canines merely pointed to it being female and were not conclusive evidence of it being hominid. She also said "Moreover, other characteristics such as the occipital crest (the back of the neck where the neck muscles attach) ... remind me much more of a gorilla". The fact that experts can disagree about such a find lends weight to the early quote on this page about the similarity between ape and human skeletons.
I read that article a year ago, and viewed images of the skull for myself. I'm inclined to believe it was an ancestral gorilla too. One thing that strikes me though is that since chimpanzee skulls are so much more similar to ours than they are to gorillas, then could we be viewing an ancestral chimp rather than a hominine? I don't know. That's why I want to earn my degree in paleontology. I think that too many people see only what they want to, and don't consider other less interesting but more likely possibilities.
>What was also interesting was how the skull was dated at 7 million years old. In the Times of 11th July 2002 the article stated that the skull could not be dated by radio-active dating techniques, as there were no layers of volcanic ash near the skull which would normally provide the necessary argon and potassium for radio-active dating. As such, the skull was dated on the basis of the fossils found near it, which included "primitive" versions of elephants, giraffes, horses, rodents and monkey's.
There are more genera in the fossil record than are still creeping around now. You'd be stunned to know how many. And all of them have more "primitive" versions than they. But you're right about the date. The Talk.Origins FAQ says that the Toumai skull was "Discovered by Ahounta Djimdoumalbaye in 2001 in Chad, in the southern Sahara desert (Brunet et al. 2002, Wood 2002). Based on faunal studies, it is estimated to be between 6 and 7 million years old, and more likely in the older part of that range. This is a mostly complete cranium with a small brain (between 320 and 380 cc) comparable to that of chimpanzees."
>However, such dating techniques are based on an assumption of certain layers in the geological column corresponding to certain time periods. Such an assumption is based on a circular argument that evolution is true. If
such dating techniques are wrong, then not only could the skull be a gorilla, rather than an early form of man, but it may also have come from a different time period.
Geology needn't assume anything about any field of biology. To prove that, (since we're on a quotes kick) let me refer you to geologist Glen Morton's article "Why I left Young-earth Creationism". Evolution had nothing to do with it.
"I published 20+ items in the Creation Research Society Quarterly. I would listen to ICR, have discussions with people like Slusher, Gish, Austin, Barnes and also discuss things with some of their graduates that I had hired.
In order to get closer to the data and know it better, with the hope of finding a solution, I changed subdivisions of my work in 1980. I left seismic processing and went into seismic interpretation where I would have to deal with more geologic data. My horror at what I was seeing only increased. There was a major problem; the data I was seeing at work, was not agreeing with what I had been taught as a Christian. Doubts about what I was writing and teaching began to grow. Unfortunately, my fellow young earth creationists were not willing to listen to the problems. No one could give me a model which allowed me to unite into one cloth what I believed on Sunday and what I was forced to believe by the data Monday through Friday. I was living the life of a double-minded man--believing two things."
>Something more on transitional fossils:-
>It's important that the reader understand up front that-in spite of such a clearly defined definition-there is much disagreement among the leaders in palaeontology concerning which specimens qualify as "transitional" and which
supposed "transitional forms" fit into which lineages, and where.
Can you give an example of that? And who are the "leaders" in paleontology? I've gotten some guidance from Cambridge professors, Richard Hammond and Jenny Clack when I did my artist's concept of elginerpeton,
and while both of them are top of this specialty in vertebrate paleontology, neither told me what I must do or how I should do it. Both simply gave me the reasons for their conclusions and I found them sound. For example, Hammond was strongly in favor of a temperate climate and brighter colors, (I disagreed, going with a more catfish coloration) while Clack simply said "I've looked at the reconstruction, and think it's pretty good. The only thing that strikes me is that the background looks a bit 'marine'. This animal probably lived in a large lake or river with lots of plants and stems of emergent vegetation around it." In this case, there was no discrepancy about its clade as its morphology has been more or less soundly established in peer-review with little or no revision necessary so far. And when I researched it myself, it turned out she was right, and my picture must be changed.
>What one authority defines as a "transitional form" between lineage A and lineage B can be (and often is) just as authoritatively declared not so when it is said to better fit between lineage X and lineage Y, or when a specimen is found in a position stratigraphically "older" than the first occurrence of lineage A or "younger" than B-and all of these are common occurrences.
Agreed. In any investigation, there is going to have be some initial guesswork, and those ideas will have to be tested in order to hone in on the real answer. But this doesn't present any problem with any of the transitional species I've already listed. Look at Eurypterids for example. Here is a whole taxonomic order that are as a whole transitional between xiphosurs (horseshoe crabs) and arachnids. No authority in chelicerate evolution contests that.
>Other experts in morphology further complicate matters when they point out differences in physical characteristics so significant that evolutionists are forced to scrap one or another theory in phylogeny (developmental history) in spite of any existing similarities
Now let me ask you this, (since that's exactly the challenge I expect to present to other taxonomists one day) when someone realizes they were wrong, and changes their ideas accordingly, are they more or less accurate afterwards? I know you won't answer this. But I cc'd your friends with this message too, and I know they won't answer it either. Here's another one none of you will dare answer; How accurate can you be if you can't even question how accurate you are? If you assume your "absolute truth" from the get-go and never allow yourselves to question that, then what if you were even just partly wrong? How would you ever figure that out? You wouldn't. You'd go through life deceived by obligate faith even if you were dead-wrong
>3. With regard to your comment about antibiotic resistance being evidence of evolution please see the paper:- Saunders J. R. (1984). Genetics and evolution of antibiotic resistance. British Medical Bulletin, vol. 40, pp 54-60. In this paper it states that antibiotic resistance genes were around before antibiotics were introduced, the use of antibiotics has just made them more common.
I already knew that. What's your point?
And here's a better question; where do diseases come from in creation science?
>Additionally, bacteria have mechanism of passing genes around akin to sexual reproduction (e.g. transfer of plasmids). Thus, the transfer of such mobile elements is micro-evolution, not macro-evolution.
Its still evolution. There is no evidence of magic or anything else supernatural, so no mechanisms of such can be described. But the mechanisms for evolution are known by observation. There is no need to imagine barriers against mere cumulative degrees of it other than to try and defend some weird old legend. "Evolution is a unified whole" according to the geneticist who wrote my University's textbook on the subject.
>There is historical information about bacteria for at least 4,000 years (e.g. leprosy) and despite the rapid replication of bacteria enabling one to study billions of bacteria in a short period of time there is no evidence of bacteria becoming
anything but bacteria.
In the last 4,000 years? No. In fact, if that ever happened, it seems only to have happened twice (that we know of) and that was closer to 4,000,000,000 years ago, with the divergence of Eubacteria, Eukaryotes (us) and Archea. And of course how similar to each other would these ancient variants have been? Certainly the modern versions are much more segregated with what are now fundamental structural differences.
But while we don't have that, or even proof that it happened, we do have proof for many other more recent developments, so I don't see why arguing eubacteria to eukaryotes in some ancient form are really relevant now. Let's prove evolution in the last few eons. Having done that, then we'll have reason to extrapolate backwards from there.
>Additionally, there is no evidence for increase in complexity from the genome of a bacteria to a genome of a human providing along the way every know species of plant and animal.
Yes there is. I'm sorry, but you're mistaken here. For one thing, you're using an uncharacteristically vague (for a biologist) usage of the word "complexity". And you're trying to evoke the YEC ploy of "molecules-to-man" misrepresentation, deliberately painting a picture of an impossible leap between organisms, while obfuscating all the evidence we do have for common ancestry of (1) humans among other human species (2) humans among other apes, (3) apes among other primates, (4) primates among other Eutherians, (5) Eutherians among other mammals, (6) mammals among other synapsids, (which gets tricky for creationists because mammals are the only synapsids left. All the others are extinct) (7) synapsids among tetrapods, (8) tetrapods among other vertebrates (9) vertebrates among other chordates, (10) chordates among other deuterostomes, (11) deuterostomes among
metazoans, including really simple non-bilateral animals, and (12) the continuing decrease in what I consider to be the structural complexity of choanoflagellates, slime-moulds, fungus and protists among Eukaryotes. This is just a snippet of the evidence you say doesn't exist. I could go on about that evidence indefinitely.
Once again, you need to take the argument to its furthest extreme for several reasons. You already admit microevolution, and apparently hairless apes from somewhat hairier ones are still the same "kind" and aren't much of a gap, especially given the considerable similarities you've already listed in this post. No geneticist yet has been able to determine any genetic limit between microevolution and macroevolution, (even when they once thought there should be one). Both have already been observed. And lest we forget, we're not trying to argue that man is not an animal with nucleic cells nor that he is neither a tetrapod nor a placental mammal. You're whole contention is that he should not be an evolved primate, but that's already been set in stone.
>With respect to chromosomal mutations in bacteria giving rise to resistance to antibiotics such as quinolones, there is plenty of evidence that such strains are less "fit" that strains without mutations and as such would be out competed in an environment without antibiotics.
And back again as the environment permits. They showed a nice laymen's explanation of that on the PBS Evolution special a year or two ago when they went on about AIDS treatment taking advantage of a fluctuating environment between one that favored certain mutant varieties and one that didn't allowing the basal, stronger organisms to take over. Just like they said in
that campy Evolution movie, the basal organism is usually the strongest.
>4. With respect to my background being microbiology, I did study general biology to degree level and this included study of genetics, biochemistry, botany, physiology etc. as well as microbiology. At this stage unsure of your Science credentials? However, as the generally accepted Theory of Evolution rests on Abiognenesis giving rise to so called simple cells (e.g. bacteria like)
DING! And there's your first mistake. This isn't the first time I've pointed this out either. It was one of the points you deleted from the guestbook posts. Abiogenesis could have happened, or not. It could have been alien seeding, panspermia or any number of gods dropping viral infectants onto the planet. However the first life began doesn't change the fact that it has all evolved since then.
Look at it this way, have you ever seen those Guiness Book of World Record domino competitions? Millions of dominoes all toppling in fabulous patterns? Well, evolution is like that, but of course its so slow that its hard to see so easily. Slow down your dominoes for the same effect. We can tell that some are falling now, and we can see how they've fallen before, and we can see how their trails of fallen pieces run together from a common line. Now does it matter what knocked the first one down? Was it God, Krsna, aliens, vibrations in the floor or a random breeze? Whatever the catalyst was doesn't change the fact that the dominoes in our example are falling and that real life is evolving. And its a bit silly to say that what we see happening can't really be happening because we don't know how it started. And its really silly to say that what we see happening can't really be happening because if it is happening, then my favorite book of fables is wrong. The way I see it is either the creation is correct or the Bible is, and men wrote the Bible.
This is really just basic logic that you should have known before you went to school but certainly after your initial classes. Then again maybe not. When I went to UTEP, none of this was even mentioned until I opted to take Evolutionary Theory, and that "introductory level" class was a fourth-year course.
>and these then giving rise to all other life forms, I think my microbiology background is of relevance, for without the ability of bacteria (or simple cells) to form by chance and without the ability of these bacteria to change from bacteria, we have no evolution. I have never heard of any proven Science supporting either abiognenesis or the changing of bacteria to more complex organisms although I have been a microbiologist for over 20 years. Is this refusing to hear the truth?
To be working as a biologist for 20 years and believe that a literal interpretation of the Bible can be supported by purely scientific means? Yes. In fact, I would define young-Earth creationism as "refusing to hear the truth" myself, regardless of your occupation.
And here again you use another tactical ploy in your argument; the word "chance". I don't care how the first cells formed. Dogs still came from wolves, whales and snakes still had legs once, sea cows were once more like land cows, and people are evolved primates. Where in any of those examples do you see any relevance to your argument about bacterial complexity enhanced by chance? I can go through the whole of taxonomy down to the first protochordates without evoking anything changing cellular structure in my arguments, and others far beyond me who write the texts I read, carry it from there. I really don't see what the problem is. It certainly can't be a theological one, because most Christians are evolutionists, and most "evolutionists" are Christians.
>I enclose again a quote, although for some reason anything I quote seems to be irrelevant to you (fingers in ears??)
Projection of one's own faults onto their opponent is the creationist's first and last resort.
My problem is this condition of open eyes and a mind unfettered by any priori reality that may reveal itself.
>"The development of the metabolic system, which, as the primordial soup thinned, must have "learned" to mobilize chemical potential and to synthesize the cellular components, poses Herculean problems. So also does the emergence of the selectively permeable membrane without which there can be no viable cell. But the major problem is the origin of the genetic code and of its translation mechanism. Indeed, instead of a problem it ought rather to be called a riddle. The code is meaningless unless translated. The modern cell's translating machinery consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in DNA: the code cannot be translated otherwise than by products of translation. It is the modern _expression of omne vivum ex ovo [everything that lives, (comes) from an egg]. When and how did this circle become closed? It is exceedingly difficult to imagine." Jacques Monod (Nobel prize for Medicine in 1965, biochemist, Director, Pasteur Institute, France. "Chance and Necessity: An Essay on the Natural Philosophy of Modern Biology", , Transl. Wainhouse A., Penguin Books: London, 1997, reprint, pp.142-143. Emphasis in original).
And still is a great mystery I grant you. But once again, evolutionary mechanisms are known and directly observed to occur as you know. Abiogenesis is just one of a few logical assumptions of how that may have begun. God is another even more popular one, but of course there's even less evidence for that hypothesis. Leakey said in an interview recently that he thinks Gaia may be real, so there's another one.
>5. I really don't believe I have my fingers in my ears, I just look at the data differently from you. Is that not permissible in Science?
I don't think you look at the data at all. From my experience with creationists, (virtually everyone I know) evidence is inconsequential to them. If it ain't what the Bible says, it ain't what the evidence will show. And don't go looking for it, because you're not going to like what you're going to find.
>You believe you are objective and we are dogmatic. It is a shame you can not accept that others with differing opinions may be just as objective as you claim to be, but interpret things differently.
By your own admission, you cannot be objective. Faith is subjective, and you believe what you do because it is not possible for you to question the Bible. You worship that even above God, for even if God exists, the Bible admits he didn't write a word of it. Your idolatry impedes your vision where I am not so encumbered. I've read around the Bible as well as in it, and I've read the Bhagavad Gita and the elder myths of Hebrew ancestry as well as well as a handful of others. (just started reading the Zend Avesta) I compared all that to archaeology and everything I could learn about relative mythologies and our cultural history to conclude that even if evolution somehow weren't true, the Bible certainly isn't as it fails on its own lack of merit. I similarly questioned every scientific postulation I've ever heard since I kid, and with good reason. When I was a boy, I knew birds were related to dinosaurs just by their legs, but the scientists of the day were saying they were cold-blooded reptiles. Hoyle's steady-state universe, notions of lunar origin and movement, etc. even the big bang, all challenged by an unbelieving mind that needs objective evidence, lots of it, and all of that consistent. (I still don't like the Big Bang but every time I try to argue against it, I get my ass handed back to me).
>At the end of the day I have no problem in you believing in evolution, but there are many well qualified Scientists who think the evidence for evolution is poor, and not all of them have any religious faith.
Name the ones without religious faith who think the evidence for evolution is poor. Because if you're saying there's "many well-qualified" people out there with no religious motivation who think there's a better explanation than evolution, then I don't believe you.
>If you choose to see all those people who question the theory of evolution as religious and dogmatic fanatics, that is up to you.
You describe yourself thus on your own website many times, saying that you cannot differentiate science from religion, and that you believe what you do for no other reason than you think that's what the Bible says. I question evolutionary theory, always have, and admire anyone else who can...if they can support their contentions with evidence as I do. Avoiding the subject,
blocking my posts, and refusing the discuss the issue to conclusion sans faith, is not questioning anything. That's just evading the subject.
And speaking of avoiding the subject, you're not really out to question evolution after all. That's not what this debate was to be about, (though I don't mind either way). You made a positive claim which none of you yet has tried to support. You claimed you had evidence that indicated Biblical creation, something I know you don't really have. You can't defend the Bible scientifically as you allege on your site. You can't even defend that theologically.
>Once again, I will not respond to future E-mails. How you take and represent that is up to you. However, as you will not take seriously any scientific quote I send you that disagrees with your viewpoint, there is honestly no point in both of us wasting a lot of time and energy in communicating.
As I've already told you, (why do I have to tell you everything twice?) I took them seriously, probably more seriously than they did when they said it. Bear in mind that at least most of these people (if not all) have considered evolution to be the best available explanation for the entirety of their careers and still do today. Do you take that seriously? I provided a recent quote from Dr. Richard Leakey, "top Nobel laureate" that you certainly didn't take seriously, and yet Kyle called me a hypocrite? I
read, contemplated and researched the quotes I wasn't already familiar with, and came back to explain each one, and why you should have been more careful in what nonsense you lob at me. The one I did find disturbing I researched the only way I could, by sending snail mail to Kenya and waiting what will be at least two weeks for Dr. Richard Leakey to get back to me. And you
think I didn't take it seriously. I don't think you actually read what I write.
>If you do put things on your site or elsewhere, please post all of this or none of it.
Don't worry. I won't do you like you did me. Besides, you're not only assuming some dishonesty on my part if you thought this condition was necessary, but you're also assuming your post had some real meat to it. It didn't.
And since this seems to be the conclusion of our conversation, I would like to remind anyone reading this that none of my questions were answered, none of my evidence was addressed, (except Ambulocetus, which I defended successfully) and several points were scored on my side as to the discovery of several expected transitional species and the proper usage of micro and macroevolution as well as Atomic Theory being taught as if it were a fact that things were made out of atoms or that nuclear submarines can move under their own power. I could have done much more if my repeated requests to debate weren't refused. If anyone ever sees the necessary corrections made to http://www.wasdarwinright.com be sure to let me know so that I can acknowledge honest integrity even from a creationist webmaster.