Museums are supposed to be about Science and history, not Magic and Fairy tails, which Creationism really is.

Posted by Mark | 14.03.09, 19:50 GMT

I'm constantly amazed at how stupid my countrymen are.
Not just uneducated, or ignorant - actually, properly thick.

Incapable of understanding logic, or even basic cause and effect.

I'd really like to see society segregated into those who wish to believe in fairies, and the rest of us.

We'll take the medicine and other scientific advances, you guys can roll around in the mud praying for salvation whilst bitterly persecuting your fellows who believe in the same things but give them different names.

Honestly - rejecting the sum of human knowledge thus far on acccount of ideas in your head. The Taliban do that, too.

Posted by Bernard | 02.03.09, 14:32 GMT

Dear Billy - you wrote 'As usual the comments from Mervyn's creationist/intelligent design supporters are full of statements about the science of evolution which are simply not true. Have any of them including Mervyn ever read any books on evolution?'

My Christian ‘faith’ is not a blind 'faith', God gave it to me when He intervened in my life & opened my spiritually blinded eyes. I now see, through the complexity & design of everything that exists, the obvious reality of His existence staring back at me. He also showed me the reality of my sin against Him & His solution, Jesus Christ crucified for me, thereby securing the salvation of my soul. This is real to me – others prefer Carl Sagan’s explanation in his pro-evolution book COSMOS of a 4 billion-year-old ‘organic oceanic soup’ where ‘quite by accident a molecule arose able to make crude copies of itself’. I instead believe ‘In the beginning God created’ but only God Himself gives faith to believe that. I sincerely wish you well

Posted by Cecil Andrews | 25.02.09, 07:38 GMT

im pretty sure a great flood is a pretty logical arguement for alot of the gaps evolution fills with fantasy. you flat rejected that one with a bit of low quality humour. you certainly didnt appear to take it on board.

Posted by dave | 19.02.09, 15:37 GMT

did you accept the holes in the evolution theory regarding the supposid one land mass planet or the dissappeared land bridges?? did you accept the evidence of the sound mended individuals who experience god? did you accept the absence of transitory fossils when they should be plentifull? did you accept reference to the flood to explain fossils on high ground? did you accept that darwin himself found bands of sea shells fossilized high in a mountain and couldnt explain it?a global fllod would explain it. i imagine though you wernt aware of that, but if you travel to south america you can view them for your self. but i suppose this is all nonsense christian lies and propeganda isnt it? oh or the fact there are numerous organisms on earth that simply could not have been formed in the small steps darwin theorised. Eg.woodpecker, venus fly trap, vinegaroon/whiptailled scorpian, or most things that inject venom through fangs, even a strong arguement for the human eye. you love google, use it

Posted by baryy | 19.02.09, 15:34 GMT

I haven't seen any logical argument from you, let alone rejected any.

Posted by McD | 18.02.09, 14:17 GMT

i never mention scientific explanation, i mentioned the gaps in the theory that have been filled with things that have no basis in science or history, just purely made up to cover of the flaw. things like seperating land masses, land bridges that have dissapeared and cannot be found, things like this. im beginning to wonder how much you really know about the theory your hiding behind. hiding from the prospect of considering there might be more out there. also i said quite clearly you only know what youve been TOLD, not taught. meaning you clearly havnt done much in the way of independant searching to draw your own conclusions from the many resources available. and as i said before, i didnt go to church as a child, i only got saved as an adult. perhaps it is you who should be reading the comments more carefully. At least i am open to ideas, all you do is flat reject any logical arguement put foward, and you accuse us of being closed minded.

Posted by Baryy | 18.02.09, 13:52 GMT

Yep, I'm the stupid one for not putting my real name on the internet. There's a lot of wierdos out there you know!

Posted by McD | 18.02.09, 11:51 GMT

If you find such scientific explanations amusing, I suspect you dont understand them.

And yes, obviously I "only know" what I've been taught, like everyone else, which incidentally is the only reason you believe in God, because you were taught it as a child.

And as for your "great flood" hypothesis, if you're not going to be serious, why continue this argument.

Posted by McD | 18.02.09, 11:44 GMT

McD (muddled? confused? dumb?) i dont think you even pay attention to your own posts from one comment to the next. You told me i wasnt very brave for putting my name down, im making a mockery of you and your stupidity by stating my name and stating how ridiculous it was for you to imply i might be afraid to put it up on a web page. are the millitant etheists gonna get me because i testify to things that scare them?? ooooh noo

Posted by McDsamug | 18.02.09, 10:36 GMT

which arguement is that McD, there have been quite a large number put foward here. have you ever read a book on the subject from a neutral point of view or even a creationist point of few. i have read alot of Dawkins stuff and found it for the most part quite amusing. fear of the unknown has forced people to create explanations with no explanation. You havnt added anything from the start and thats all iv been able to gather from your previous posts. you only 'know' what youve been told clearly and cant structure anything better than 2your wrong, im right, religon bad". Its not very scientific or very convincing. what is the 'other evidence' you have for evolution beyond fossils? Fossils dont disprove anything to do with creation or the bible accounts, they back it up in more realistic ways than the evolution explanation such as the high concnetrations of fossils on mountain tops etc etc many things suggesting a great flood...interesting

Posted by Baryy | 18.02.09, 10:33 GMT

baryy - No, I don't feel qualified to add anything new to the debate, and judging by your post neither do you, because it's the same argument creationists love to cling to. Even my own passing interest (I'm no expert, my formal education on the subject ended at A Level biology, and I kept up in interest by reading various books on the subject) in evolution tells me that without fossil records at all, other evidence is overwhelming, and with out the other evidence the fossil record, even with gaps, is also overwhelming to creationists. Putting them both together renders the creationist argument arcane, laughable and without a place in modern society.

Niell - Hi Niell! Why on Earth would you want to hunt me down? Have I hit a nerve? I've nothing more to add, my previous posts speak for themselves.

Posted by McD | 18.02.09, 08:51 GMT

Yes by all means. We should teach creationism as science and offer degrees in it as well. Creationist scientists would bring new fields of study that will benefit mankind. Once we understand that there is a God and morality comes only from him, then we will all be better off.

Evolution is a farce, everyone knows the earth is 6000 years old and the Bible is infallible. We should not allow any research in evolution as it corrupts all. I had my prayers answered multiple times, every plane flight had a safe landing! God is great!

Posted by Frank | 18.02.09, 04:47 GMT

McD he is pointing you toward google to search for transitory fossils, the missing links from one life form to the next in evolution, the part you cut and pasted doesnt even mention the bible. if you do opt to look up poeple more inteligent than ourselves and more specificly yourself, then google these. youl find there are none that are not otherwise classed. id also recomend you look into the evolutionists explanations for how the same species end up in many locations around the world. its good for a laugh but not much more. ideas with even less factual foundation than evolution itself. id recomend you read up since you just admitted you didnt feel qualified to comment on the subject.

Posted by baryy | 17.02.09, 17:24 GMT

im sorry McD, your soo brave putting McD on a msg, now we all no who you are and can hunt you down. nice one, another super valid point. my name is Neill Mattson, does that make me brave now?? Andy ditn advise you use the bible to find scientific evidence of creation, your not paying attention. i dont understand why evolution seems to go hand in hand with militant anti-religon when the two are quite seperate and not mutually exclusive to a certain extent. i doesnt appear to dawn on the people here that the world had to come from somewhere, and no matter how you dress it up, thats something your gonna have to face up to eventually. blind faith just about somes up the non believer quite nicely

Posted by anon | 17.02.09, 17:18 GMT

Anon (brave, aren't we?) - Do you really need me to add anything to the creation/evolution debate? I'd say there are a few more people out there more knowledgeable than you or I. I'd read them rather than an internet comment board.

And no, he wasn't referring to historical research and the life and times of Jesus when he posted - "if evolution actually occurred, surely there would be loads of these? in reality, there isnt. Id like to recomend a bit of research to the darwinists, even if its jsut on google."

I'd maybe do a bit of research yourself, even if it is reading back a few posts.

Posted by McD | 17.02.09, 15:58 GMT

Andy can you elaborate on this statement?

"youd rather use google than the resource written at the time of the events by eye witnesses to said events"

Are you seriously trying to tell me that someone was there with their paper and pen to record the story of creation at the time? Well according to that book the bible man was created on the 6th day, how then did he record what had went on before he was created? That's a neat trick alright. Now let's say for the sake of arguement that he was created, say, on the 2nd day. It was, according to that book, completely dark; God then made the greater light for the day and the lesser light for the night, on the 4th day. How would he have been able to see to jot these happenings down? Creationism is nothing more than fancy fairytales. It's glaringly obvious. Not to mention completely outdated. Let me ask you this if you became ill or had a minor accident would you reach for a 2000 year old first aid manual?

Posted by Barry | 17.02.09, 14:18 GMT

I wish barryy would be a little more specific on which books and seminars he has read and disagrees with, and what creationist 'literature' he recommends. Because, lets be frank, if you believe in creationism then you would believe in anything. It should be laughed out of society, but because our country is so crippled with religion and supersitition idiots are allowed to propogate this filth.

Posted by Martin Dee | 17.02.09, 13:44 GMT

McD do you just tour the site looking for places to be an irritation? historic research is perhaps what he meant given that thats what was said. and i believe he was referring to the live and times of jesus by that point and not creation/evolution. which incidently you havnt added anything of use to the debate on

Posted by anon | 17.02.09, 12:36 GMT

thats not even implicitly written McD let alone explicitly. so in short i would have to say no, i doubt that he is

Posted by baryy | 17.02.09, 12:27 GMT