The Deck is Stacked !!!

by Forgivenbadboy

The Fossils found are always the same metaphorically for each Creature found !!!

Millions of~Trilobites

If I Had two decks of Cards & one was the Evolution Model
(a Normal Dack w/ even numbers of 1-10 & J/Q/K's
& one was the Creation model
(Stacked w/ 10's & the 10 card ONLY) nothing but 10's)
& a 10 represented the Fossils medamorphic stage we find
& 1-9 were gradual stages of evolution leading up to them
& J/Q/K were representive of More evolved

it is a Clear cut case
that the fossil record represents the Creation Model !!

at what point does drawing all 10's & only 10's
tell ya, "THE DECK IS STACKED" for the Creation Model

the odds of ONLY drawing 10's outta the Evolution model are staggering at the Draw of fossils that has been drawn in reality !

a few point to fossils that at best woulda been under a 5 (1-4)
(& are very few & not even close to water tight arguemnts it's even the same species)
but (in case of the T-Rex for example)if we have 25-10's,
we should easily have well over 25 at stages 6-9 that would easily be identified as a slightly lesser evolved creature of the same species, & we simply dont have ANY !!!

In Fact if ya look at a "5" as 50% evolved & a 6 as 60% & a 7 as 70% etc etc

I would say we should find an average of 25 at 71% & 25 at 72% & 73% & 74% etc, & in the 25 T-rex case for example.....
so if we have 25 T-Rexes at one particular time era
(one particular metamorphic stage)
IF evolution were true, we'd found 10x's each percentage point from a 5 card on though a 9 card even up to 9.9,
(even from the 5 card to the 9 card thats 40 stages)
so 40+ x 25 = 1,000 fossils(approx.) of the T-rex that would be Obvious obvious transitional forms of JUST that Creature/species alone is what SHOULD be found IF evolution were true...!!!!
(what are the odds of only drawing a 10 outta a deck of cards 1,000 times in a Row if the Deck isnt Stacked w/ only 10's)
Note; dont forget we have millions of trilobites

& to add impossible odds to impossible odds

You'd have to be a fool to bet your soul at this point that the the next cards or even the ONE of next 10 cards would be something other than a 10

Pick a card , any card
I bet it's a 10
are you willing to bet your soul its not ? after millions of 10's have been drawn in a row ????

Comments for The Deck is Stacked !!!

Click here to add your own comments

Sep 13, 2012
My head is stacked.
by: Philip Bruce Heywood

I attempted to read through some of the above and below, with mixed results. I am a geologist who was privileged to encounter some of the best and most decent palaeontologists (fossil experts) then in existence. They would have agreed in some measure with both sides of this 'discussion'. They had no answers. Science now has answers.

As I mention in my that entry the Webmaster graciously published recently; the Bible is jam packed with staged revelation. A word with a similar meaning to 'staged revelation', is, 'evolution'. In fact, the first two chapters of GENESIS can only be taken literally if one assumes something being enacted which equates to staged revelation and species pre-existence. Apply modern information tech. and the puzzle solves. Every species was a special creation. Of course there are no living creatures half-way between one species and another. To even suggest it is ludicrous. What there are are abundant individuals which superficially give that appearance, whilst, of course, remaining within the fold of their own species. It's called, 'The Species Problem'. People write books on it. It proves nothing except that species were conduits for the appearance of (pre-existing, specially created) other species and needed to have similarities to those other species, to be conduits. Genetic ancestors they were not. It is ludicrous to suggest it. People with limited literary and debating skills understandably became upset when 'science' talks absurdity. A species is just that -- a species (special, reproductively distinct unit). Charles Darwin wrote a book on them, which, if what he said was true (but he was dealing in conjecture, without information) means that the species of which he was writing, would not exist. You don't need to be able to write, to see that.

And Ken Ham doesn't need to be able to read if only he would listen to Bible Scholars, who would show him how ludicrous are his claims!

Someone in these comments wrote the following. Quote:
"Evolution (and most other scientific topics) is NOT a topic discussed in the Bible. Scripture tells us that God created everything. It does NOT tell us about the specific processes which God used to diversify living things over time and adapt them to new environments."

Sorry to be a wet blanket. 'If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature [Greek, loose translation,'species']. The Bible is jam packed with science -- best understood by experience.

Apr 29, 2012
request for definitions
by: Anonymous

Forgiven Bad Boy, what is an "intermediary" and what is a "stage found"?

Duane Gish tells us that all of the fossils are found "fully formed." Evolutionists have asked him to explain what a partly formed fossil would look like, but as far as I know, he has never responded.

Are you looking for a fossil with half an ear, half a leg, and half a tail? Sorry, I don't think there is such a thing. But then again, Evolutionary theory doesn't predict that there is such a thing.

I realize that Dr. Joseph uses the word "stasis," and I assume that that is more or less what you mean by a "stage found."
But do you realize that a stasis isn't so static either?
To find an animal with vestigial organs, you don't even need to go digging in the field. Rather, you can just look around at the animals living today. Whales carry tiny leg bones as remnants of their land-dwelling past. Some bird species, such as ostriches, carry claws on their wings as remnants of their reptilian past. You and I carry appendices so that we could digest tree bark.

For that matter, we see evidence of our transitory state right here on this Web page. Throughout our prehistoric past, our conflicts were mostly with enemies and predators. We didn't develop diplomatic skills because they wouldn't have done any good. There were no liberals and conservatives, no Catholics and Protestants, or Evolutionists and Creationists. Those schools of thought developed only after our neo-mammalian brains developed.

Yet when liberals and conservatives, Catholics and Protestants, or Evolutionists and Creationists meet, they confuse each other for enemies and predators. The neo-mammalian brain kicks off and the paleo-mammalian brain kicks on. Diplomacy is forgotten, so we treat each other like enemies.

Do you expect any Evolutionists to convert to Creationism after you called us "stupid," "closed minded," and "brainwashed"? Are you likely to convert to Evolutionism after Dr. Joseph's ad hominem attacks of September 14 and September 15? Of course not. But that is what happens when the paleo-mammalian brain reminds us of our prehistoric past.

Dec 03, 2011
Pictures, pictures, pictures....
by: Anonymous

Is Mr. F.'s understanding (of any subject) based solely on needing pictures for his proof? With that being said, the next question that comes to mind, is: Has Mr. F. read the Bible at all? I have searched all over my Bible, and could not find one picture or diagram to explain anything! I do believe that the Bible was written through divine inspiration from God, and it is the Holy Spirit that guides us to understanding.. MAYBE he is referencing the same Bible my 5-year-old uses.. (Sorry, I had to say it!)

I also find it humorous (or sad) that he continues to quote Romans 1:19-22, when in fact, he does not want to see "God's invisible qualities" by looking at "what has been made", thereby "becoming futile in" his "thoughts", thus "Professing to be wise," he has shown himself to be a "fool".

I find it so tragic that a man like Mr. F. needs to use insults like "stupid", "loser", and "dirtbag" in the same post as attesting to not be a "hater". This "self depreciating word fiasco" is fantastically ironic - A fine example of James 3:9-10: "With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this should not be."

It is clear that Mr. F. needs to pick on someone his own size... Dr. Joseph and Mr. Pavao have demonstrated clear and educated arguments for the evidence for evolution according to the Word of God. Good job sirs! And thank you!!

Mr. F., you are way (WAY!!) out of your league.

Sep 28, 2011
by: Paul Pavao (webmaster)

I'm glad you find it entertaining. There's an exchange in the Facebook comments at the bottom of as well. That one's a bit shorter, and it also has links to a page discussing the discussion :-D.

Sep 28, 2011
by: Superstitianity

All I can say is that I wish I had the time to read through this all in depth, because I find it very entertaining. Sad in some ways, but entertaining.

Sep 17, 2011
The Gish Gallop is succeeded by the Stacked Deck Shuffle.
by: DrJoseph

"The Gish Gallop" has become the standard term for a favorite debating strategy used by many Young Earth Creationist and "creation science" zealots. Named in honor of my former colleague, Dr. Duane Gish, it recalls his habit of cramming as many irrelevant claims as possible into an eight minute tirade on why he thinks the theory of evolution impossible. No matter how thorough the opponent, exposing the stupidity of every claim of the opening salvo takes more time than any debate format allows. So Gish could always close the evening by gloating over how many of his points were never rebutted. Knowing that explaining the foolishness of a falsehood always takes more time than the falsehood itself, The Gish Gallop has over 80,000 Google entries.

Original if not scintillating, Mr. F. deserves recognition for the most opposite anti-evolution strategy conceivable: Pick one fantasy argument, his "stacked deck", and pretend that it illustrates the fossil record. (But borrowing from Dr. Gish, don't worry about whether you understand the fossil record or how your card deck makes it easier to understand.) And no matter how many reasons are presented for why the "stacked deck" doesn't provide any helpful explanation of reality, just harp on irrelevant percentages and statistics which few readers can follow, and hope that random "hard numbers" add authority if not insight. Ignore the clarifications and solid arguments of opponents and just keep harping about the card deck illustration rather than the topic it is supposed to illustrate!

Of course, just to break the monotony, ask for a picture of a dinosaur now and then, just to reassure the YEC faithful (even the most loyal of whom nodded off long ago) that your tirade has SOMETHING to do with fossils and old stuff.

I think we should award a name to this Johnny-one-note strategy which is specially attuned for short-attention-spans and for those who find multiple FACTS unnecessarily confusing, especially in a debate where the opposition has an unfair advantage. (That is, evolution defenders have the unfair advantage of far more facts than you do.) I say we memorialize Mr. F's memorable example of a fact-free case against evolution: "The Stacked Deck Shuffle".

I can already visualize the video and catchy rap song performed by the 1985 Chicago Bears:

"We ain't here to cause Darwin no trouble.
We just here to do The Stacked Deck Shuffle!"

(With Henry Morris Sr. having passed on and Kent Hovind in federal prison, I wouldn't even try to sign a bunch of YECs for the filming. And retired pro-football players are a whole lot easier to find than bona fide biologists who deny evolution. And too many YECs are baptists who wouldn't be caught dead dancing in a rap video!)

Of course, the promotional campaign bumper sticker is a no-brainer: [Pun intended.]

"The Stacked Deck Shuffle: It's Fact-Free!"

Sep 17, 2011
To ForgivenBadBoy
by: Paul Pavao (webmaster)

FBB, you are quite welcome to respond to DrJ's articles. Not only is there nothing stopping you from responding here--you will note that I have not blocked, edited, or deleted anything you have written--but if you want to write a well thought out post, I will happily put it up on the site and link to it at the bottom of DrJ's two articles.

Now, keep in mind that my editing of DrJ's articles involved a total, between the two articles, of 5 or 6 minor corrections. (On one of them I had to change the word "deny" to "describe," and there were a couple typos.)

I will do the same for yours, if there are a FEW edits that need to be done. If there are many, then I will not make any corrections, and I'll put your response up as is. This will be almost like making fun of you, which I do not want to do. Therefore, if you want to respond to DrJ's articles, you need to do what he did, and write me a well thought out, reasonably well written response. I will gladly put it up.

I won't just continue to do that. DrJ's articles were excellent additions to my web site. The first one covered things already addressed on this site, but from his perspective, which added to mine well. The second addressed typical creationist tactics, which is something I have not written on yet (except addressing just one, at

A response to his article by you would fit with this site's purpose well enough to make room for that even if the response was poor. If you want anything more put up, however, they would have to qualify as good for this site.

Posting only articles that benefit the web site does not only benefit me. It is a service to readers, who are interested in reading quality information. The amount of visitors I get is a judgment of how well I'm producing quality information. That's going well so far!

Sep 17, 2011
Who's Hating :-/ ?
by: Forgivenbadboy

Gosh, I just try to get you to go to heaven instead of Hell
& now I get accused of Hating
you guys are so far off on Everything
No wonder you are so Lost ! :-/
Jesus didnt hate as God manifest himself & did what we couldnt do ourselves (Not a hypocrite)
He Kept the Law & fulfilled the prophecies
& then to top it off
He Paid the wages of sin that he wasnt guilty of but you were !
so how is any of this Hate
God you are stupid !
How shall you escape if you neglect such a Great of Salvation ??? hmmmm ???
as for you Abiogenisis etc.
you are again using evolutionist tacktics of diversion since you couldnt present any decent evidence in the Last debate reguardin fossils that SHOULD be there & are nat in reguard to the 3 creatures I mentioned.... Loser

as for us being dirt,
'well if you believe in Evolution that is all we are !
whatever you ate it can be traced back to Dirt
if yo had eggs, they came from a chicken that ate grain, that came from a plant that came from dirt

If you believe in Gods account, God breath Life into you & we are body / soul & spirit & not just dirt
so Dirtbag
chew on that one
Abiogenisis never vreated life forms

Sep 17, 2011
Having more fun than should be allowed by law!
by: DrJoseph

Mr. F. has explained a rather obscure aspect of the Great White Throne Judgment which has eluded the notice of most eschatalogists. The separation of the sheep and the goats actually refers to dividing the Special Creationists from the Neo-Darwinian "evilutionists".

Of course, the lack of scriptural support for such hatred of the observable truths of God's Book of Nature in the case of evolutionary processes has never deterred the Pharisee determined to defend a man-made tradition at all costs. But if you are feeling particularly feisty and in the mood for tormenting a YEC, just ask them to provide Bible references which deny evolution -- and promise to wait as long as it takes for their best excuse for why "God formed Adam from the dust of the ground" is not abiogenesis (biological life from non-life). Be sure to bring a sack lunch and a copy of WAR AND PEACE.

Sep 17, 2011
Talk about Tactics
by: Forgivenbadboy

I never took a Creationist Tactic course
alls I been doing is Just saying
your two's behavior is atrocious
as I presented as you asked a best argument
in return in a gentlemen like way I asked for some sites that would specifically direct me to your best presentations of evidence for three creatures

Your arguments are so weak you resort to tactics of posting Articles that I can not even respond to,
& you really should stop your denial & just admit at Minimum that there are no clear cut fossil finds for those three creatures that would be a good argument for the creation model !

Again it is you that is using tactics & have failed

Every knee will Bow & every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord !
You can do it before you die & go to heaven
after you die & go to hell....!!!

I only warn you cause I care
your Tactics you accuse me of using wont work there
& I must say, if it wasn't for hell,
The great white throne judgement would be Hilarious watching you all try to explain to God how things are when they are NOT , hahaha :(

Alls I can advise you at this point is to Humbly go to the Lord in prayer & ask him if you are wrong would he reveal that to you s that you may believe (the truth)
to not do that is to say you reject him even if you are wrong & this will be played back to you at your judgement if you don't ! :(

"The Blind will be made to see,
but those who say "we see" their sin remains"
dont be fools, put the Ball in Gods court...

I only took the time here to respond to you boneheads cause I d care even about you & wanna see you go to heaven instead of hell...

Sep 17, 2011
Another Longer Post Well Worth Reading
by: Paul Pavao (webmaster)

Apparently I'm worried that another one of DrJoseph's posts "suck," as our friend FBB so eloquently put it, because I posted it "off thread" rather than here on this page.

It's at:

I just posted it, and I haven't edited it for formatting, nor have I added links in spots where they're helpful. It may take me close to an hour to finish that because I have to make coffee :-D and put links on a couple other pages on my site. So don't tell me about any mistakes unless you find them after 10:00 a.m Central Time (today, which is Sept. 17, 2011).

As the name implies, DrJoseph's post concerns young earth creationist debate tactics, and, if you'll excuse my metaphorical description, it is satisfying to the soul of those who have been the victim of such tactics.

As an aside, Dr. Joseph refers to them as strategies rather than tactics, as I do. As a chess player with a keen sense of the difference between a strategy and a tactic, the decision as to which is a better description is providing some pleasant diversionary thought.

Sep 16, 2011
Just Judges OR Just Jurassic Jerks?
by: DrJoseph

Yesterday Mr. F. was single-handily declaring himself the winner of the debate. Today he's calling us "jerks" for daring to call him out on his various outrageous behaviors. How quickly the one who denounced us with scriptures and sermonized on our errant foolishness now plays the role of innocent victim.

To hear him tell it, he was merely asking for information to better understand evolution and the fossil record. But let's recall his opening salvo for an appropriate reminder of his ACTUAL agenda:

"evolution is so bankrupt
you really have to be closed minded & brainwashed to believe it anymore
sorry, but the fossil records to obvious the creation Model ."

And I hasten to emphasize that I've not left out any appropriate ellipsis nor have I omitted any words. (I challenge ANYONE to construct a meaningful thought from the last line.) This is exactly the kind of inflammatory, and borderline intelligible/unintelligible "prose" [I use the term loosely] that earns us Christ-followers so much contempt and derision in countless religion discussion forums. He's most likely one of those who spreads the claim that "scientists are abandoning the Theory of Evolution in droves!")

It's statements like the above from far too many of our least-informed anti-evolution colleagues that have been used to confirm the Dunning-Kruger Effect in Christian America. Have we been too tolerant?

As many have said, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But you aren't entitled to your own facts." I would add to that: "And nobody is entitled to fantasizing their own reality and then trying to claim that their man-made pseudo-science tradition is inerrantly stated in the Bible!"

Sep 16, 2011
Not Off Topic; A Useful Distraction
by: Paul Pavao (webmaster)


We're not the ones off topic. You were told at the start that what you are asking for is irrelevant and has nothing to do with evidence for evolution.

Nonetheless, because you wouldn't listen, we've also given you several ways to go find what you're asking for on your own. No one wants to go do your work for you just so you can misinterpret it and accuse people out of ignorance. It's work. Asking others to do it is both rude and foolish. Telling you how to do it yourself is the appropriate answer.

You haven't paid any attention to either of those things, so we've also been answering all those other things you've brought up.

Anything that's off topic is because you've brought it up. We've simply answered it.

That has been educational for others who read it, and it is much more fun than listening to you demand that we work to provide you meaningless information. It's like watching a peevish child throwing a tantrum in a grocery store. You wish you could go spank the kid, but you can't, so you find something else useful to do.

Sep 16, 2011
by: Forgivenbadboy

You guys are Kinda Jerks !
& you bare False witness against me
twist things I say
& no wonder you cant get Human orgins correct !
you cant even get things correct in this quasi debate

I said I went to your "orgins" site
& I came Back and I THINK even said Please...
but regardless if I said please or not,
I asked you to find the specific fossil you wanted to present as your picture to answer my question because the site had so many choices, I didnt wanna make a mistake as to which ones you would present AS YOUR BEST ARGUEMENT !
Which I went on to say this Forum asked me to present my best arguement (& I did)
[at least for a certain catagory]
so I felt my polite request was reasonable....

I did go to the "orgins" site & clicked a few sites it redirects to,
& alls I saw was words.....
Words in my school years got me to believe in the LIE of Evolution & at age 31 I became a christian & still believed in eviolution & it didnt stop me At the time from believing in God...
I was challenged to loo at the actual evidence & so i did...
Once I saw the actual fossils for many of the creatures it dint take long for me to realize I been duped by the Lies of Evolution & I became a creationist,
So now here I go again, being dirrected to words & then ridiculed for not going to your word site & believeing you because of Words....

I give-up on you two & exit stage left
I assume you went off "Thread" & by-passed my request because your best shot Likely would suck !

Sep 16, 2011
Guilty Accusers
by: Forgiven badboy

So if "yeah Buts" are a discredit
then your "Yeah but" that whale
was at 40%- 50% Angle" is discredited

Alls I have asked from the beginning before you two took this thread way off point
was ask for the closest pics of evidence for 3 creatures most closely metamorphically to those three creatures

Once again I get accused of something that my accusers are Guilty of

Sep 16, 2011
Editing's done and ...
by: Paul Pavao (webmaster)

DrJoseph's post is ready at

Sep 16, 2011
Dr. Joseph's LONG Comment
by: Paul Pavao (webmaster)

DrJoseph wrote a long response to FBB that I thought was worth posting, as it gives excellent insight into the proper way to approach these things.

In the end, this discussion has not been about conclusions, but about approaches to evidence.

Too often--well, almost always--the creationist throws out "Yeah, but ..." or "What if ..." as if those were any question or possibility were the end of the search for truth. Science doesn't do that. Science researches the yeah-buts and the what-ifs, sticking with them until they are resolved.

Thus the anti-evolutionists are like a drowning man trying to keep his head above water. Every little breath is a chance to stay alive, and there is no concern beyond that.

Scientists stand on firm ground, at least as far as handling evidence in our natural world, and they offer continually to creationists to join them. Somehow, though, the effort to save them is seen as an attack upon God, and they continue desperately and briefly surfacing for a quick survival breath.

It cannot continue.

That was too long an introduction. DrJoseph's article (answering FBB's posts) excellently contrasts the two ways of thinking, with a little humor that I hope isn't too harsh, so I posted it at:

I suspect that it still needs formatting and a little bit of editing, which I will go to do now. It is, however, well ready for reading already.

Sep 16, 2011
Difference Between Research and Wishful Thinking
by: Paul Pavao (webmaster)

To DrJoseph: I'm going to go post your article now. I'll come back here and link it from a comment.

Please understand that I am on day 11 of my second round of chemotherapy for acute leukemia. I'm in remission, thanks to the first round, but the chemo nonetheless wrecks my immune system during the second and third week, leaving me with a lot of abnormal activities to perform. I'm supposed to be without energy, too, but I've been really diligent about following through on exercise, cleanliness, and safety from germs, so I'm able to be up the whole day like nothing is wrong.

So, catching up on work missed while I was in the hospital and the constant breaks in my day for treatment slow down my ability to keep up here.

But first, one thing. There's a few sentences on Talk Origin's "Whale of a Tale" page ( that perfectly illustrate the difference between real science and the anti-evolutionists, even the ones that have science degrees.

"Had anybody taken the time and trouble to check the facts, they would have found that the story by Russel (1976) took some liberty with the facts and lacked very important information. First, the skeleton was not found in a vertical position, but was lying at an angle 50 to 40 degrees from horizontal. Finally, although at this angle, the whale skeleton lay parallel to the bedding of strata which at one time was the sea floor on which the dead whale fell after its death. These facts were confirmed by inquiring with the people at the Los Angeles Museum of Natural History who excavated the whale. Although nothing had been published on the whale, Russel (1976) clearly identified the staff who excavated the skeleton and they could have been easily called at the Los Angeles Museum of Natural History in Los Angeles, California. ... As a result of folding and tectonics associated with the formation of the Transverse Ranges, the strata containing the enclosed skeleton has been tilted into a less-than vertical position. These sediments lack any sedimentary structures that would indicate catastrophic deposition. Rather, the strata exhibit laminations indicative of slow accumulation on an anoxic bay bottom."

Talk Origins bothered with following through on the rumor. The science side of the debate always does. When they hear of a rumor, they go searching until they find the source of the story.

Creationists don't. Until 1994 I was a young earth creationist. It was not only the incredible case for evolution that "converted" me. Perhaps more than anything else, it was the behavior of the creationists toward the evidence. They would NEVER follow a story through to the end like Talk Origins did above.

Note that they not only researched the initial discovery, but they actually looked for evidence of how the sediment was deposited. Catastrophic burial or slow accumulation, both leave evidence behind. Creationists hope for catasrophe; scientists check the evidence.

Sep 16, 2011
Why do dead whales go to the bottom of the sea? [Yes, some people are stumped by that one.]
by: DrJoseph

>Why would Whales be Buried below creatures that >are on the bottom of the sea

Because even if dead things float for a while (from bloating), gravity eventually takes carcasses to the bottom. The same thing happens to creatures living "on the bottom of the sea". A few rare specimens which don't get eaten by scavengers get fossilized. And that's how all sorts of animals, even those living at different depths and in different marine environments, end up in the same rock strata. (Of course, some even get washed up on shore or get carried inland by a predator and end up far from their natural habitat.)

It's not "rocket science". I had no idea that anyone would find the concept difficult to follow.

But even while denying the existence of the geologic column, the Special Creation Model (SCM) can't explain why the fossil record shows definite "age progressions" of ancient to modern (as well as gradual changes in evolutionary development in those taxonomic groups which have a sufficiently large number of intact fossils) rather than the MIXED SPECIMENS that the Special Creation Model would predict. The fossil record has ALWAYS been a huge embarrassment to modern day YEC anti-evolution skeptics. In an effort to somehow salvage a reason why the fossil record doesn't fit the SCM, some speculate that some types of creatures did a better job of running from the rising Noah's Flood waters -- and that "hydraulic sorting" placed the dead animals in orderly layers which just HAPPENED TO CONCUR with what evolution and the actual fossil records show! (Talk about a "convenient" stacked deck!)

Yes, if anyone is going to study anti-evolutionist excuses for why they can't explain the fossil record, you are going to need a good sense of humor. I do, and that is one of the reasons I'm collecting "true believer" forum posts for my book. So keep 'em comin'!

Sep 16, 2011
More classic pseudo-science nonsense: the infamous "polystrate fossils"!
by: DrJoseph

>BTW whales & trees are found going through >multiple Layers

"Polystrate fossils" are among most hilarious of all anti-evolution myths. The history of this tall tale (tall tail?) phenomenonon that allegedly appeared in several ascending rock layers is entertainingly recounted in:

"A Whale of a Tale"

But only the most gullible of the gullible still fall for the whale tale. (Of course, that tends to mean lots of naive anti-evolution zealots.) The more common myths of this topic pretend that fossilized trees intersect multiple geologic beds, usually sedimentary rock strata. Enjoy the story of "Polystrate Tree Fossils" at:

This Proof-of-evolution forum is proving to be a gold-mine for popular pseudo-science classics, exactly what I need for my writing project on "American creation science" mythology and epistemology. I came upon this website just days ago when I needed some humorous examples of anti-evolution propaganda.

There never seems to be a shortage of over-confident contributions from the educationally challenged whose entire repertoire of "science factoids" comes from Young Earth Creationist straw-man arguments and quote-mining collections. It never ceases to amaze me that a generation which COULD check out sources and facts on a bogus claim in just a few minutes on Google nevertheless rushes recklessly to post lame myths from the 1960's that had already been thoroughly debunked long before they were born.

But remember, it is not about a passive lack of educational opportunities. It is a deliberate obsession with ignoring reality that starts with preferring man-made traditions to the TRUTHS of God's Book of Scripture and God's Book of Nature. They often couch their stubborn denials of observable facts in a proud but imagined loyalty to the scriptures (against which their ignorance of basic hermeneutics and Hebrew/Greek exegesis testifies) -- all while pretending that only they speak for God the Creator.

If you encounter ANY anti-evolution argument that you can't find thoroughly rebutted on, I would be shocked. But don't expect its facts to be of much value when your debate opponent considers Satan to be its webmaster. Meanwhile, the site is also a great place for a general overview of evolution and the many evidences which opponents refuse to discuss:

Anti-evolution zealots would much rather fantasize about card decks which don't match the fossil record -- while yet ignoring RING SPECIES and PHYLOGENETIC TREES -- and, as one scientist summarized the process: "Lie, Deny, and repeat."

P.S. I assume the article I submitted yesterday will be posted as soon as the webmaster has opportunity. So if you are interested in specific rebuttals to some of the nonsense arguments submitted here thus far, watch for that essay.

Sep 16, 2011
by: Forgivenbadboy

Opps, Typo last message,
Suite-site :-/

Anyways so the 1st few things I noticed about
is that it smelling abilities are thought to be more advanced than T-Rex
& it is actually bigger
& not anymore inlik it than say some monleys are to some chimpanzies or apes or other monkey much different from eachother or even than a Great Dane is to a wiener dog
I also noticed some T-rexes were found in the same stata as Giganotosaurus so I dont see how this creture would be a water tight argument for a creature not quite as evolved as A T-rex who eventually had kids & kids of kids & so one that bacame a T-Rex
TY for your time though

Sep 16, 2011
by: Forgivenbadboy

I know you ant have pictures here
I asked for the suite address of the best pic ya-all knew of for the closet ancestor in development to T-rex/Archeopteryx & trilobites

Sep 16, 2011
Posts can have pictures, but ...
by: Paul Pavao (webmaster)

... but comments can't. I'd enable pictures in comments if it were something I could do.

My post giving relatives of T. Rex (same family and subfamily) would provide him with pictures if he'd just go look them up. The picture of the giganotosaurus skeleton on Wikipedia looks just like the dinosaur from _Night at the Museum_.

Ok. Gotta go. I finally have a little time to address that email that DrJoseph sent me.

There is a picture series that is incredible and useful. Someone put together a series of pictures that started with a rabbit or a squirrel or something like that, then using all currently living species, it jumps from species to species along an incredible gradual spectrum till it arrives back where it begins. Maybe the two ends of the series of pictures were rabbit and squirrel. I don't remember, but it sure left one with a good idea of how the whole mammalian class could have evolved. I'd love to be able to find that again.

Sep 16, 2011
God Help Dr. Joseph
by: Forgivenbadboy

Why would Whales be Buried below creatures that are on the bottom of the sea & even in the sand

in Re; to you Dr. Joeseph;

BTW whales & trees are found going through multiple Layers
& even if the creation model were true(which it ain't)
but even if it were true, I could use the same argument that all the creatures on top should have ancestors in every single layer below


Sep 16, 2011
And PLEASE ......
by: Anonymous

Will someone PLEASE give the poor kid a PICTURE OF A DINOSAUR before he hurts himself!?

(Hey, I'd give him one myself if I thought that there was any chance that it would shut him up. Just don't ruin it by telling him that cameras didn't exist when dinosaurs roamed the earth. And don't think that I'm joking cuz I'll bet even money that he thinks that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time!)

Sep 16, 2011
Dr. Dawkins, I think we found one of your chess-playing pigeons.
by: Anonymous

I assume every one is familiar with the old joke (more true than humorous): Debating a Special Creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon. The pigeon craps on the keyboard, declares victory, and then flies home to his friends and brags of his genius.

Forgotten.Bad.Boy conveniently ignores the hundreds of transitional fossil examples because they prove that the "deck" is not stacked at all. The most-studied examples of gradual changes fit exactly what one would expect of evolution as recorded in the fossil evidence. Only an idiot would think the entire deck consists of one or two cards. Sheesh!

He chose to ignore the simple fact that the Special Creation Model would predict science finding lots of modern animals scattered among the ancient ones: whales among trilobites, humans and modern birds among pterosaurs, modern elephants among dinosaurs. In fact, all it would take to shake up contemporary evolutionary biology is finding just ONE modern animal among ancient ones to make headline news. But the Special Creation Model doesn't fit the fossil record, even a little bit. (Of course, now he will pretend that some "living fossil" animal is identical to an ancient ancestor and he'll start relieving himself on the chessboard again! Check out "Morton's Demon" sometime.)

All Christians look bad when one attention seeking summer-school remedial-English dropout ignores every piece of evidence provided and brags to his pigeon friends of his self-proclaimed debate victory. At least he is doing it on a website where there are few non-believers around to laugh at the "Ignorant Christians who allow such nonsense in their ranks."

Personally, I think we tend to be far too tolerant of the quote-mining liars within the Church who discredit the name of Christ. The ignorance on its own can be understood. (After all, most of them have been taught that they MUST believe their nonsense or their very salvation is in question.) But the lying and pretending that the evidence doesn't exist takes a conscious decision to sin.

Sep 16, 2011
there you go again DR Dodgoesph
by: Forgivenbadboy

I made a Hypothsis & only asked for a site or some pics of the best examples you have for 3 different creatures
(This Forim asked for my best example or Arguement for creation)

You accuse me of sidestepping the issue & useing Creationist tactics(for which I am unfamiliar)
But you accuse me of all sorts of things
(even misspelling & bad punctuation as if that has something to do w/ which Orgins model is more correct) :-/
& you do everything but present a simple request including your most recent attempt, sayng I somehow am now taking scripture outta context,
which alls I was saying was that God points out that it's not that complicated to tell he exist just by looking at his creation & that he(God) pointed out many will profess to be wise reguarding the matter & become fools for not recognizing the obvious.
heres a Copy & paiste of the scripture so there is NO Doubt (& no I didnt use Hebrews)
You really should get in the Habit of not trusting your own opinion !
(BTW, Satans 1st recorded lie was "Did God Really say",

Romans 19
because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools.

if you kindly get off your deversions
either admit Defeat in the point this thread on this Forum
or present the site adress of the best pictures you got of the water tight fossils that are the closest intermediary ot transitional form fossls to the "Kinds" of the 3 I mentioned !!!
(Still waiting)

May I suggest you ask God to reveal to you if he exist so that you may believe & if you already do, to show you the way, the truth & the Life,
& I might add by truth, I would also include the Truth of Life & if you do NOT pray that,
it is the same as saying IF you are wrong you want to stay Ignorant ! yep, true story
think about it (if your capable)
still waiting for your best examples in the meantimes

Sep 15, 2011
By the way, for those who might have missed it: I was using SARCASM.
by: DrJoseph

I shouldn't have to explain this -- but I've got a hunch I probably should. Mr. F's contorted paraphrase which combined two different scriptures was meant, in his mind, to condemn evolutionary scientists. His INTENTION through that "pseudo-scripture" was to condemn those who don't agree with his personal opinions about evolution. So his manufactured scripture had that intended meaning -- but the ACTUAL scriptures from the Word of God do not. This website has special appeal to Bible-believing Christians and so I was assuming that audience which generally tends to know the scriptures. But not all visitors have that level of knowledge, so in retrospect I realized that what would be clear to many as a tongue-in-cheek statement would not be to others. So that type of quip was probably more appropriate for a lecture than the printed page, where gestures and facial expressions are not visible.

Perhaps everyone understood the paragraph without explanation but I figure I should be careful to make sure. Mr. F.'s manufactured paraphrase was intended to convey scriptural authority to his position. But the original scriptures to which he referred address entirely different contexts having nothing to do with evolutionary processes.

Sep 15, 2011
Pictures matter
by: Forgivenbadboy

So in other words, Alls you can draw is 10's
outta the deck of cards

which is the creation Model...

(I can show 9 pictures of Archaeopteryx at one stage)
Thats whats been draw outta the Earth at Random,

All the same, all 10's
All what you would expect for the Creation Model.
Nearly Impossible odds that we should draw all 9 at the same stage,
w/ so many millions of years it must have took for them to get there (IF EVOLUTION WERE TRUE),
& then we have the 30 T-Rexes, also all 10's
put the two together & you have Impossible odds
Evolution is Not happening Now, & it Obviously hasn't happen for all the years that T-Rex & Archeopteryx existed :-/ Poor evolutionist :-(
wanna try anouther one, we have Millions of trilobotes drawn out as 10's,
do you have a picture or an actual fossil of one more evolved, or perhaps one thats obviously a Trilobite thats close enough to know it is one, yet far enough less evolved to KNOW it's not from the same time period or metamophic stage as the other millions

Do you know what the odds of pulling ONLY 10's outta a deck of cards a million times in a row if you have a standard deck ?
or course this is easy if "the Deck is Stacked" w/ only 10's :-)
Creation Model wins ! :-)

Sep 15, 2011
Don't quote-mine with the Word of God. I'm talking to you, Mr. F.
by: DrJoseph

Dubious proof-texting is bad enough -- but do NOT quote-mine with God's Word!

It's been humorous up until now and you've provided us with harmless entertainment. But the moment you start pretending that particular Bible passages containing warnings from God were meant to affirm your own man-made traditions while denouncing your opponents as "enemies of God", you've totally crossed the line.

Evolution (and most other scientific topics) is NOT a topic discussed in the Bible. Scripture tells us that God created everything. It does NOT tell us about the specific processes which God used to diversify living things over time and adapt them to new environments. So on those topics Christians are left to study God's Book of Nature (science) in search of truths which usually are not revealed in the scriptures.

If you wish to present a case for believing that God's Word declares something which DENIES evolution or would logically imply that evolution could NOT have happened, then do so by beginning with citations from the Bible. (Of course, as we could have expected from your habits so far, you didn't do that.)

Instead, you took scripture totally out of its original context and pretended that it somehow bolstered your position by awarding your words some kind of authority from God himself. (Actually, you tried to merge passages in Romans and Hebrews into a contorted paraphrase, but your purpose was clear.) Yet, this too is a creation science tradition: when you have no arguments and you refuse to respond to the arguments of those you oppose, declaring them enemies of God and implying them devoid of the wisdom YOU supposedly received on the matter under discussion is the ultimate name-drop -- and the ultimate quote-mine.

So here's some help with the scriptures of your paraphrase: They are talking about evolutionary scientists. And they aren't providing a defense for your foolish arguments.

Now, if you have a scriptural basis for rejecting evolution, post it under a new topic and everyone can judge your exegesis on its merits. But don't expect groundless analogies and evidence-less rants to get you any farther with the misuse of the Bible than it got you with evolution -- especially if you know as little of the Bible as you do of evolutionary processes.

Sep 15, 2011
Does ANYBODY have any idea WHY a picture matters? And why ignore the hundreds of fossil lines & obsess on one?
by: Anonymous

Does ANYBODY have any idea WHY a PICTURE of some ancient T.Rex. would be important to validating The Theory of Evolution? Is that how the scientific method works? Ignore the mass of well-documented examples and obsess over your own cherry-picked favorite?

Why should the huge number of well studied TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL FORMS listed in various compilations online be totally IGNORED while one particular dinosaur becomes the focus of rejecting or accepting the Theory of Evolution? (And doesn't EVERYBODY know how to use Google to find pictures of the species and genera listed? Yeah, I think so too.)

I'm not a taxonomist. But I DO know that some taxonomic lines are heavily represented by a large number of well studied and complete/nearly-complete fossil remains (though many of those got "filled in" in just the past few decades) while others only have scattered and incomplete finds at present. Due to the rarity of fossil finds and the special conditions required for their formation, we would expect this. And, obviously, we have ABSOLUTELY NO ASSURANCE that the fossils we DO find are randomly distributed by strata, time scale, adjacency to other better-studied genera, etc. Therefore, if someone wants to make generalizations about the fossil record, would you look to the most complete and "well populated" fossil distributions for DOZENS OF OUTSTANDING EXAMPLES of evolution at work over time OR would you cherry pick for less attested lines -- so that you can THEN use the infamous "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" logical fallacy which so many Christians have made famous? Once again, Mr. F. has demonstrated ignorance of the scientific method. But more importantly, he continues to ignore all the other arguments raised and continues to try and salvage his stacked deck analogy which the webmaster already destroyed. THIS IS TYPICAL CREATION SCIENCE STRATEGY: Ignore the forests and just find one irrelevant bush and try to make it matter. Then pretend a PICTURE of it is somehow important.

Meanwhile, still silence on the main arguments and the CHALLENGE. No surprise there.

(I'm becoming suspicious that I'm getting Poe played.)

Sep 15, 2011
Mr. F: Have you no shame? Infamous Patterson quote-mine should not be perpetuated!
by: DrJoseph

As our webmaster already pointed out, Carl Wieland's misuse of the Patterson quotation -- and the countless YEC websites which continue to use it -- has become a blot on the integrity of Christians wherever these "creation science" topics are discussed. Yet you, much like Wieland, insist on using Patterson's graciousness as an excuse to continue the quote-mining! Patterson basically reacted with the casual remark: "Well, I should have known better than to trust the integrity of Creationists. I'll be more careful next time." [That's my paraphrase of comments he's made about the incident.] Yet, you go on to pretend that somehow the lack of PICTURES for his book provides some sort of "water tight" proof of anything. Have you NO reading comprehension skills (in addition to NO SHAME)? Didn't you read Patterson's explanation that he was talking about taxonomic details in the context of minutiae that says NOTHING that could POSSIBLY construe his comments as saying ANYTHING against the fossil evidence for evolution!!!

Truly, I don't know which is worse for readers of your comments about the quote-mining INJUSTICE committed against Patterson (by others and now by you). Are you guilty of dishonesty or guilty of being intellectually incapable of basic reading comprehension skills and understanding Patterson's remarks -- and not understanding why the misuse by others AND YOURSELF should not continue?

I hate being so crass but your obstinacy seems to be forcing the question: Should readers consider you dishonest OR just plain dense?

(Of course, the same could be said of Carl Wieland's attitude about Patterson's correction and reflections on how his statements were misused by Wieland.)

I will leave it to readers to make the call.

[You remind me of the old illustration that ends with, "But other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?" Somehow I think that you have convinced me that you would have the audacity to say, "Well, I still think it is fair to say that Mrs. Lincoln didn't actually deny that she enjoyed the play with the exception of that little incident. So I think I can still count her as a fan of the play."]

Yes, at times like this I feel VERY relieved that I'm no longer part of the YEC anti-evolution camp that I used to represent in public debates.

Sep 15, 2011
Dr. Josephs Dodge
by: Forgivenbadby

Alls I asked for was your best picture of the closet intermediary or transitional form ot ancestor or whatever you wanna call it,
Evolutionary closest Line Fossil to the T-Rexes & Archeopteryx you have
& you give me this line of BS !

where the picture
Embarassed to show it ????

almost every arguement & accustatin you just made, you are guilty of....

I will grant you one thing
your evidence of fossils is BS when you match it up to my two Hypothisis of what SHOULD be found,
I think it is more than safe to say, you Lost this debate & your thoery has no water tight evidence to stand on regarding the Fossil record...!!!

God has made it clear to them making the unseen things clear through the seen things of his creation,
Professing to be wise they became fools

Sep 15, 2011
A "simple" challenge for Mr. F. until my main essay gets posted by the webmaster.
by: DrJoseph

Mr. F. provided such a good example of anti-evolution argument dodging (e.g. still no reply to human chromosome #2) and even quote-mining, that I just sent to the webmaster an essay on "creation science" debate tactics that should appear by tomorrow. Meanwhile I would encourage other participants to use Mr. F. posts as a case study in anti-evolution denial strategies and Intro to Evolutionary Biology 101. I realize that the card deck analogy is virtually incomprehensible (which, of course, is its purpose) because it has nothing to do with the fossil record, especially when Mr. F. has made clear that no matter what anyone posts nor the most voluminous catalog of "transitional fossil forms" appearing on line, he will simply deny that they exist. This "ostrich with its head in the sand" behavior doesn't literally occur in nature but it's common in the YEC camp. Everyone from Lee Strobel to Ken "Were you there?" Ham to Ray "Banana Man" Comfort to Chuck "Peanut Butter Jars Disprove Evolution" Missler play the same game.(Isn't it sad that we Christians are known for our foolish "arguments"?)So we probably shouldn't be too hard on the rank-and-file troops like Mr.F. who copy the behavior they've seen among their Youtube heroes, especially when their "experts" have zero science background and can't even DEFINE evolution.(And Ray Comfort knows how to pick his debate opponents. He visits university campuses & selects random non-science-major undergrads off the side-walk to ask them how evolution works. Of course, he edits out any students who actually know the answers to the questions!)

But Mr. F. has already convinced me that despite multiple visits to museums as a child [which has to be the most "unique" claim to scientific training I've ever heard touted in a debate context; does it appear on his curriculum vitae?], he has no idea how to define the fact of evolution nor even the Theory of Evolution--nor can he explain the difference between the two. So even though the equivalent of a "take home exam" should make this exercise trivially easy, I doubt that he can pass the test -- especially relating the theory to the facts.(I'm not asking him to concur with the facts. All he has to do is provide basic explanations. (No playing cards allowed.)

Speaking of playing cards, it's not just that his "stacked deck" illustration is inscrutable (even to him.) It's the fact that it doesn't illustrate anything that fits reality. Mr.Pavao already explained that the fossil record lines up perfectly with what we would expect of evolution. And the article I submitted explains how the "special creation model" woefully fails to fit the fossil record. Clearly, God the Creator used evolutionary processes to diversify the biosphere and God's Book of Nature (science) fully harmonizes with God's Book of Scripture (the Bible). What an ingenious way for God to create a world of biological organisms which continually adapt to survive in changing environments! Praise God!

Sep 15, 2011
Tale of two cities
by: Forgivenbadboy

OK so I went to that article
& even clicked on the site
It does not say Colin was miss-quoted
It makes excises or the Arguement he meant~
". . .Fossils may tell us many things, but one thing they can never disclose is whether they were ancestors of anything else."

Thus trying to Imply we cant be sure if any fossil find actually had any kids...

But my article Here stands Firm....

It's ike the judge that said;
"I'll know what Porn/smut is when I see it" !

Looking at the Fossil record, it becomes quit clear if you have two Decks of Cards & if one is Satcked w/ the Creation Model(ALL 10's)
& one is a Standard Evolution Model w/ random equal amounts of 1-10's & J/Q/Kings

After a while of seeing we always Identify a Kind of Creature from the mutitudes of Fossils of it found(All 10's)
& Never do we find more even at the other numbers (or Stages) even combined
The fossil record fits the creation Model

we have 30T-rexes & not even 30 supposed ancisters or water tight other finds at various different stges COMBINED !!!
& it is like that for every Creature !!!
an Impossible draw of random Fossils IF evolution were true !!!!!!

Sep 15, 2011
No Intermediary pictures :(
by: Forgivenbadboy

I went to & found No pictures of intermediary pictures of the Archeopteryx creature,
Niether more evolved or less evolved
I felt that was a reasonable request...
as for the T-Rex
I feel it is up to you to give the specific address that takes me to the Page of the specific picture of the Fossilyou feel is the closet intermediary form to T-Rex
if i search myself I may run across a creture that you are not presenting as a water tight arguement to be your best example.....
This article forum here is to present my best example & I feel it's only fair for you to present yours so there is no confusion.....
Perhaps there is an example of a Creature more evolved or a T-rex than the 30 found....

As for Dr. Colin Pattersons quot,
It seems he took great care to make himself clear At the time that Had their been any pictures of a water tight fossil transitional for he coulda put in his book (as he says he goes out on a limb to say so) there is non or he would have :-/

Sep 15, 2011
T. Rex & Archaeopteryx Lineages & Creationist Slander
by: Paul Pavao (webmaster)

Wow, FBB. When you asked about the fossils, I thought, "I wonder if he intends to ever do any research himself?"

Then you compound it by throwing out on your own side a reference from memory, not research, to one of the worst examples of creationist dishonesty there has ever been. I cover it at Go there and search for "A Tale of Two Cites" (Cites, not Cities). That's the "British museum head administrator evolutionist" story you throw out. I have a link there to the original story.

Without wasting a bunch of my time looking up specific lineages for someone who won't listen anyway, I can certainly tell you about T-Rex fossils in general and tell you where to go to learn more. Of course, anyone who's seen Jurassic Park knows something of relatives to T. Rex, which uses real species, even if it also uses speculative paleontology to describe them.

There are a number of species similar to T-Rex. Even as a kid, I remember Allosaurus, but now there's many more, including a larger predator called, appropriately enough, Giganotosaurus (not Gigantosaurus, which is a sauropod).

Species in the same subfamily as T. Rex are Daspletosaurus and Tarbosaurus. If you go from subfamily to family, there are several more. I found that out just by reading Wikipedia. It wouldn't be hard, however, to either follow their references or to go to numerous museum and university sites on T. Rex and the family Tyrannosauridae.

On archaeopteryx, you might want to take 5 minutes and follow DrJoseph's advice and look on It's an incredible site that keeps getting better. My site is not an attempt to replace or compete with them. I will eventually do an archaeopteryx page, but it's certainly going to be nothing like talkorigin's page! Theirs, as is usual, is from a professional contributor and covers about everything that is known at this point.

The fact is, at this point, your arguments are completely invalid. Making assertions about things you have not researched and know little about, then asking others to do research to prove you wrong is ... well ... rude.

So this is sufficient research done on your personal behalf. Write what you will at this point because I think enough has been said for any reader to have all the information he needs to assess your argument.

Sep 14, 2011
Sidestepping what should be found
by: Forgivenbadboy

How convenient to say now that the Fossil record isn't necessary to prove Evolution...

Thats a Good come back for someone w/ a theory that doesn't have the Fossil record to make their case

I'm waiting for a site to Pictures of Fossil that would SURLY be there considering what we have found so far of intermediary Fossils closely related to the Kinds of species we have found

This is so Basic
There is one model that would parallel the creation Model of Fossils if Creation is true
Another completely different Model of more random finds of all creatures scattered about there metamorphic stages throughout different periods of time & not all/every creature all the same as the rest of it's Kind

Like the 30 t-rexs~same
9 Archeopteryx~same
millions of trilobites~Same

Its a Dang good thing Dogs didn't go extinct
or evolutionist would say
Chiwawas were early dog,
& then came the Pekingese
Then terrier
then Retrievers
then Shepard's
& Huskies
& eventually great Danes & then they evolved into todays Horse
Thank god the Dogs didnt go extinct ;-) LOL

Yeah, they'd line up their fossils and say
there it is, from the oldest tansitional form to the most recent
That woulda been more believable then the current record Evolutionist Have....

Have you ever heard the quot from the British museum head administrator evolutionist who wrote a book called evolution & was quoted saying he didn't put in hos book any pictures of Transitional forms because he felt there were no water tight arguments of any that existed ?
(an evolutionist, head of a Museum, wrote the Book on Evolution) !!!!

Sep 14, 2011
PART 2 OF: My reply to both posts
by: DrJoseph


And once again, if you were to study the fundamentals of evolutionary biology, you would not only know the answers to your questions, you would not be myopically focused on repairing a very flawed illustration. Mr. Pavao has already provided a good start on your path of remedial biology tutorials. Yes, I realize that anti-evolution arguments can't hope to take on the HEART of evolutionary theory (because they have no case and nothing to replace it.) So instead, the last-ditch strategy is to try to find some single error somewhere (even if they have to be concocted as straw-man fantasies and artificial illustrations)-- as if one flaw of some sort could topple the entire theory. And there is also the hope that if evolution can be debunked, one particular man-made tradition of Bible interpretation of one minority group of Christians known as Young Earth Creationists would replace it, even though they've published no single theory to explain the phenomena which evolution explains. (No. There's lots of reasons why no such "creation science" theory has found its way into the science classroom.)

Once again, has already answered your questions about fossils (and they have no 3000 character limit.) But precisely BECAUSE evolution is so well attested, we don't need ANY fossils!

Sep 14, 2011
My reply to both posts
by: DrJoseph


I've not published anything autobiographical but I've been asked to include it as an appendix if I write a popular-level version of my "Creation Science epistemologies" research. In the meantime, I'm actually supposed to finish a large Bible reference book on an entirely different topic, but in some ways it is a far less interesting subject.

Mr. Forgivenbadboy:

I'll even do better than provide the fossil examples you requested. I am willing to imagine a world where absolutely NO FOSSILS survived from ancient times. And in that imaginary world where no fossil evidence exists, we find that it has ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT ON THE FACTS OF EVOLUTION! Yes, despite the emphasis in popular level discourse on museums full of "transitional fossil forms", Darwin said little to nothing about fossil evidence and scientists don't "need" the fossil record to make the Theory of Evolution what many have called "one of the most resoundingly attested truths in all of science!"

And as if there weren't already truckloads of evidence for evolution in many different fields of biology, Dr. Francis Collins et al have brought us yet another entire "universe" of evidence in the form of genomics. And that is yet another domain which could scarcely have been imagined by Darwin! But genomics and its reaffirmation of evolution principles reminds us why the scientific method is so powerful, even in its predictive powers. When a theory is sound, it often explains new discoveries even long before they are made. Thus, when scientists wondered why chimpanzee chromosomes numbered one pair more than human's, an evolutionary biologist predicted that the day would come when detailed genome mapping and comparisons would reveal a JOINING of adjacent chromosomes. Sure enough, about six(?) years after that published prediction, Collins' DNA maps showed that chimpanzee chromosomes 2 and 3 had been fused in the human genome, with vestigial telomeres and centromeres clearly evident as the "smoking guns".

Sep 14, 2011
The Evidence that should be there
by: Forgivenbadboy

Ok Gentleman....

I been talking about
Trilobites a Lot


To help us get to how scanty evidence is(or Not)
Please give me the best examples or Fossil finds for.....

The closest Relative to each of the Above mentioned
either more evolved or less evolved

T-Rex" we have approx 30 at on stage as predicted by the creation model,
the evolution model is true,
surely there should be some indisputable fossil finds of a CLOSE relative either more or less evolved (& actually More & less evolved) that are close enough to KNOW it is the same creature
(in my parable of examples something in the 7-9 area would be nice or if more evolved, the Queen or King would be good :-0
3 examples would be nice, & 6 even better
2 for each
a site w/ pics would be great
for pics of Archeopteryx you can even find those fossil pics on Photobucket just by putting "Archeopteryx in the search box :-)

Sep 14, 2011
by: Paul Pavao (webmaster)


Do you have anything further written on your path these last 50 years? I am intrigued by the story and the scientific arguments of former young earth creationist Glenn Morton, and I link to his pages here and there on this site.

I would be interested either to read or to help spread what you might have written on the subject.

Helping those that have been roped in by a Christianity that is primarily intellectual--and worse, intellectual only from a deductive standpoint and not an intuitive one--is exceptionally difficult. At stake is unity within the church and on an individual level peace with God as he is revealed in the Scriptures.

I am always looking for ways to join voices with those who can either speak more effectively to the issue than I can or who simply represent one more way to effectively communicate the peace the comes from being free to rest in the truth.

Feel free to answer here or email me with the "contact me" button on the navbar to the left.

Sep 14, 2011
Part 2 {FOOTNOTE and Continuation}
by: DrJoseph

** [FOOTNOTE: I tend to use double quotation marks when referring to "transitional forms" because even though anti-evolution writers prolifically use the term to deny their existence, the term can be misleading -- because, in a very real sense, EVERY species that is not a "dead end" tends to undergo changes and is part of an "evolutionary path." But that's a topic for another context and failures to use terminology carefully (or even just a little too casually) has many pitfalls. Even this "non-rigorous" paragraph makes me nervous because due to my brevity these concepts could be easily misconstrued and someone probably will!]

Over half a century ago, I was an enthusiastic anti-evolution speaker/debater on university campuses, having been inspired to join the growing Young Earth Creationist and "Creation Science" movement after Whitcomb's & Morris' THE GENESIS FLOOD excited us all. Incredibly, although the pseudoscience of that 1960(?) volume was debunked long-ago, much of the "logic" & "evidence" continues to cut-and-paste its way around the Internet. I'd like to think that I can excuse my youthful errors of those days, in part due to 1960's science having fewer fossils & radiometric dating methods and no genomics. (And in my defense, at least I think I can say that we were far less guilty of "Lying for Jesus" in those days. We didn't quote mine. Our ignorance was sincere.) But actually it was my linguistics and Greek/Hebrew exegetical studies as a Biblical scholar which brought me around and led me to realize that the Bible itself debunked much of the flawed "creation science" I championed.

Only after I realized how many of my cherished beliefs were man-made traditions [e.g. a Global Flood] rather than unambiguous Biblical truth, did I decide that I must re-examine my "pseudo-science traditions" as well! My new enthusiasm for a GENUINE Biblical hermeneutics revolutionized my understanding of God's omnipotence and omniscience! And as I proceeded to update and expand my scientific knowledge, I basked in the thrill of seeing how God's Book of Scriptures (the Bible) and God's Book of Nature (Science) were in magnificent harmony! Indeed, I was also convicted of my role in perpetuating the myth among many Christians that the Bible and Science are in some sort of eternal conflict. That too is a big subject for another time but it saddens me to consider that I'm guilty of having reinforced the legend that the theory of evolution is "inherently atheistic". That myth and much of the nonsense I perpetuated under the rubric of "creation science" continue to present artificial and unnecessary obstacles to the general public's respect for the credibility of the Bible and the Gospel itself.

Sep 14, 2011
Spell-check, punctuation, & grammar are your friends. (Facts are great also.)
by: DrJoseph

The Internet is an international forum so I don't wish to embarrass participants for whom English is a second language with many formidable obstacles to mastery. But I WOULD recommend that forgivenbadboy (FBB)ask for the help of a technically astute friend in supplementing your web browser with at least a spellchecker, if not also a punctuation assistant and grammar tool. (Even just an occasional period to end a sentence now and then would be greatly appreciated!) And if you don't have anyone qualified to help you with that software installation (or even a native-speaker who could help you by proofreading or editing), consider composing your essays in your word-processor or email program -- where such tools are likely to already be available to you -- and then when your writing is complete, you could simply cut-and-paste the final into the discussion forum.

That modest extra effort will go a long way towards making your writing much easier to comprehend, at least in terms of basic prose. However, your readers will continue to struggle to ascertain exactly how you have misconstrued some of the most fundamental principles of evolutionary processes. I have neither the time nor inclination (nor patience) to compile a complete list and use them to draft a tutorial of Evolution 101 but here's some examples of ideas you need to reconsider:

>"The Fact that we always find multiple finds of ONLY the most highest[sic] evolved state from 1st find of any spiecies[sic] or KIND of creature is also evidence that the law of averages is pointing something out !"

And if that is not enough to give Dr. Dawkins a stroke, we are reminded that, yes, it gets worse:

>"when have we EVER found a creature of a new Kind, & then at a later date, found a more evolved state of the same creature far enough more along its evolutionary path to know it's more evolved & yet close enough to know it's the same creature.."

Sorry. No amount of editing can rebuild scientific reality from that much fiction.

>"a trilobite never bred a turtle
& a turtle never bred a Bird & a bird never bred a fish"

Finally we are agreed on a few basic facts which the theory of evolution affirms.

>& if their[sic] ever were a trasition[sic] of any of the above, there would be millions of intermediaries to prove it...!!!"

1) Appropriate "transitional forms" have indeed affirmed exactly what the Theory of Evolution describes and predicts.

2) The numbers of such forms are impressive (especially considering the special and rare conditions necessary for preserving them as fossils) and the published database compilations continue to grow. ( provides an excellent and voluminous taxonomic grouping of "transitional form species" and exposes the naivete of anyone claiming that no such fossils exist!)**

{Continued in Part 2 along with the FOOTNOTE for above}

Sep 13, 2011
elaboration on web masters comment
by: Forgivenbadboy

I chose 50% to use laymens terms
& the spirit of the point should be easily taken
(i would think)

1/2 it's existance in time coulda been used

1/2 way through it's metamorphic stages to date
Partial evolving towards it most evolved state we found to date.

However you wanna say it....
The point is that ALL spiecies intermidiary forms should out number any one state we find them in.
& that simply isnt the case for any species of one certain kind.....

if ya wanna say a huge lizard eventually branched off in two different directions & one direction eventually evolved ino a Hippopotimus
& the other branch(or direction eventually evolved into a whale....
You still as you say, once you get close, it becomes apparent that a creature would be an obvious slightly(or not so slightly) less evolved creature that eventually Evolves into the most evoled creature we've found to date of it's "Kind"

Spontannious Generation is the new Goal post to explain away what shoulda been found in the fossil record & there is no science that proves it happens, has happened & certainly that it is happening today...
but nevertheless, it wouldnt happen to such an extreme we still wouldnt have fossil finds of a gradual metamorphic upward spiral of fossils leading to the most evolved ones found...

The Fact that we always find multiple finds of ONLY the most highest evolved state from 1st find of any spiecies or KIND of creature is also evidence that the law of averages is pointing something out !
when have we EVER found a creature of a new Kind, & then at a later date, found a more evolved state of the same creature far enough more along its evolutionary path to know it's more evolved & yet close enough to know it's the same creature..

a trilobite never bred a turtle
& a turtle never bred a Bird & a bird never bred a fish
& if their ever were a trasition of any of the above, there would be millions of intermediaries to prove it...!!!

Again, I wanna Emphasize that Intermediaries would far out number any one "stage found"
if there is an A-Z you wouldnt only find "M" or "Z"s

we only find z's for every creature(kind)

If someone offered proof for a creature w/ say 30 "Z"s & wnated to point to several a-m's then yes, I would offer more sceptitizm for there should be plenty of "N's - y's that would be close enough to the "Z" to be indispuatable
& if there were 30-z's , then on average there should be as many at each letter n, m, o, p, q, etc etc etc. & frankly, there isnt any :-/

Sep 13, 2011
The Confusion About Evolution
by: Paul Pavao (webmaster)

DrJoseph has pointed out that forgivenbadboy (FBB) is confused about evolution. Here's an example of what he means:

FBB writes: >>don't think YOU understand the inaccuracies & years & how many Transitional forms their should be even between something 50% evolved to 100%<<

50% evolved and 100% evolved are meaningless terms. If you're following the lineage from the first one-celled organisms to us, then any of hundreds of thousands of species could be 50% evolved, and they could exist anywhere from the Cambrian Explosion 540 million years ago to the end of the Cretaceous period 65 million years, depending on what definition you attached to 50% evolved.

No scientist would use a term like 50% evolved, but in the context of FBB's comment, he's saying there should be some fossils so extremely similar to achaeopteryx that they would be classified as archaeopteryx, but they don't have all of archaeopteryx' features. Why, he's asking, aren't all archaeophteryx fossils different? Why aren't they from various stages along the evolutionary path.

The primary answer to that question, though there are other answers, is that evolution tends to occur in fits and spurts.

When a population is adapted to its environment, there's little reason for it to change. On earth, however, few environments last for long geologic periods. As a result, as environments change due to catastrophes, changes in climate, or even the gradual chance evolutionary drift of nearby species, most populations are forced to change.

Change often progresses rapidly, at least by evolutionary standards, until the population is adapted to its new environment, when it settles into a new period of stasis.

Thus, we do not expect to find a transitional form between archaeopteryx and a closely related form in the same genus. The transformation is unlikely to have left a fossil record.

Between archaeopteryx and a related form in the same family or order, however, we do expect to find transitional forms. Such changes, being larger, include the periods of stasis, and we expect to find fossils (at least occasionally) from those intermediary periods of stasis.

And that is exactly what we do find. There are thousands of species of dinosaurs and proto-birds that have been found.

This is what DrJoseph means by confusion about evolution. We don't expect to find many different types of archaeopteryx with tiny gradations between them.

Sep 11, 2011
response to 2nd comment of DR Joeseph
by: Forgivenbadboy

I've taken every local college tele-course re; evolution locally their is...
I believed in Evolution till I was age 31 & am now 53yrs old,
I know perfectly well what Fossil displays would be & should be in the museums (IF) Evolution was true & the Gradual metamorphic of every creature HAD taken place,
I been in museums since a very young age & have seen the displays that are very misleading
replacing parts that SHOULD be there w/ plastic molds & putting whole Villages of artificial scenes when only a scull & Leg bone was the only evidence they ever had
(later to be proven 2 different creatures)
unless you are buying into the spontaneous generation theory which is even more far fetched,
I don't think YOU understand the inaccuracies & years & how many Transitional forms their should be even between something 50% evolved to 100% or rather (The most evolved of the species being examined) their should be....
for instance, the archaeopteryx,
though only 9 are found, just between 50% (lets call the stage "M" & the 9 we have, Lets call the stage "Z" we should have well over 9 per letter at a gradual metamorphic evolutionary upgrade from letter N-Y putting the number at something like approx 228 obvious transitional forms leading up to the 9 found , & we do NOT have even one :-/
evolution is so bankrupt
you really have to be closed minded & brainwashed to believe it anymore
sorry, but the fossil records to obvious the creation Model

Sep 11, 2011
I think I understand what is going on now....
by: DrJoseph

You are clearly confused about what is described in the Theory of Evolution.

So it is inevitable that your attempt to illustrate your argument through an analogy is hopelessly confused.

Before critiquing evolution, you need to understand the fundamentals of the theories. There are many excellent resources online. contains an excellent collection of virtually every argument pro and con dealing with the theory of evolution.

Sep 10, 2011
response to 1st comment
by: Anonymous

in an evolutionary Model
all creatures start out simplistic & evolve
in the fossil record
what we randomly draw out does NOT show that

just like drawing out random cards from a deck of cards

in the creation model all the cards are 10's
np 1-9's less evolved
& NO jack/quenn/king/ more evolved

9 archeoptyix & all 10's
30 T-rexes! all 10's
millions of trillobites~ all 10's

IF evolution were true & drew out 9~Archeopryix
you would dra random stages of development
perhaps one of these & 2 of those & mayb not find some stages
But you certainly would NOT always ONLY draw the same number for each speicies(Kind)

30-t-rexes, we soulda drawn a few 2's som 5's a 6 mayb, several 8's & a nine, maybe even 4 10's & a queen, but not ONLY 10's or ONLY any other number
it would be randomly spread out & that does NOT happen !

another wqay to say it would be useing the Alphebet.
if A was the least evolved of a critter & Z was the most evolved specimen, where are all the b-y's ????

Sep 09, 2011
I have no idea what this means.
by: DrJoseph

Obviously, the purpose of an illustration is to make a complex concept easier to understand by using something simple and familiar to teach by means of analogy. I've spent a great deal of time researching virtually every angle of the creation-evolution debate and I believe I have a good grasp of the controversy. But although I won't object to your calling this imaginary deck "stacked", I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say. Your illustration appears more confusing than whatever concept you hope to explain.

Click here to add your own comments

Join in and write your own page! It's easy to do. How? Simply click here to return to Creation Argument Invitation.