Creationist questions evolution

I mean giving consideration to defending their assertions.

Of course they can. They can start their own forum and talk amongst themselves.

Or they can ask questions, and avoid making unfounded assertions.

This is a public discussion forum. It's public. And it's for discussion. If they don't want to have their ideas challenged, they are in the wrong place.
I agree, this not Twitter or Facebook, you know those sites where you can post lies, without being challenged....:(
Bass... was on the road for 7 years with the same group, International IV, playing the show circuit.

I play the drums.
Every now and then, if I’m lucky, I get to play some jazz. Love bebop!

Is there any footage, or audio segments of the band online that you would care to point out?

I play the drums.
Every now and then, if I’m lucky, I get to play some jazz. Love bebop!

Is there any footage, or audio segments of the band online that you would care to point out?

No, we were basically a showband and played and sang standards with a jazz flavor. But never recorded other than an old 4 track master-tape.
But the experience of playing timeless standards taught me much about music and the techniques of creating moving sound scapes, musical story telling.

Here are some examples of what I consider brilliant examples jazz in its most entertaining forms.

The Modern Jazz Quartet playing Django (in memory of the great guitar player), the piano solo is brilliant;

and a love song by Michel Petrucciani;

and a tour de force by Birelli Lagrene and Vic Juris on Spain;
Yet you believe one type of creature can turn into a completely different type of creature (eg; whale evolution), which cannot be scientifically verified.
Nobody believes that except Creationists.
That's contrary to Darwinian evolutionary theory.
Nobody believes that except Creationists.
That's contrary to Darwinian evolutionary theory.
And fossil evidence.
Last edited:
@ jan,
Just to conclude the little segue into music.
Below is promotional picture of The International IV, once on file with Milton Deutsch Agency......:rolleyes:


  • International IV.jpg
    International IV.jpg
    75.7 KB · Views: 3
Jan Ardena:

You are apparently quite incapable of having a discussion about evolution in good faith. For instance, my previous, detailed, reply to you consisted of three posts. But you chose in your reply to completely ignore two of them.

I am not surprised at this, especially since one of them addressed your "complex specified information" requirement (again) by showing, using a simple model, how "complex specified information" arises in the Darwinian framework. The other ignored post asked you to account for the observed similarities among species of different "kinds", among other things. Difficult, if not impossible, for you to answer and maintain this pretence of yours about believing the Creationist story.

Without good faith, no real progress is possible in this discussion. Nevertheless, as I said earlier, another reader might find my postings in the discussion useful, regardless of your disingenous contributions.

I note, in passing, that you also have no answer to my post about the uselessness of a putative Creationist concept of "relatedness" across species. I assume you remain silent on that topic because to acknowledge it would be to further expose the weakness of your pretended beliefs.
So, to businesss...

I don’t need you’re dodgy teaching to understand what is termed microevolution. So why do you think I need you’re dodgy teaching for the Darwinian story?
You're not equipped to judge any teaching I give on this topic, I'm afraid, so your opinion can be safely dismissed as one that comes from a position of ignorance, combined with a pig-headed desire not to learn inconvenient truths. (Apologies to the pigs.)

So far, Darwinian evolution is an article of faith. There is no evidence for it, unless you can provide some now.
A brief google search or two would be sufficient to disabuse any honest inquirer of the silly idea that there is no evidence. The conclusion that you are dishonest is therefore unavoidable. But, as I wrote previously, I had no high hopes that you would do any better that this poor showing on this particular topic.

You need to provide real evidence, if you want this idea to be accepted.
Ample evidence is available to you. Many other people in this thread, and myself, have directed you as to where you might start your inquiry, if you were to want to approach this with the semblance of an open mind.

Did the wolf ancestor look like a wolf?
Which one? How far back do you want to go?

I’m only interested in something that nobody could possibly characterise it as a wolf. Just like the crackpot idea of whale evolution.

Would you describe a fox as being of a different "kind" than wolves and dogs? How about coyotoes? What about jackals? Or do you regard all of these animals as the same "kind"?

How far back do you want to go? Is a black bear "really" a wolf, or is it sufficiently different in your eyes that "nobody could possibly characterise it as a wolf"?

Point being, of course, that all of these creatures can be shown to share common ancestors. It's that pesky evidence stuff again, from the fossils and the DNA and so on, that threatens to mess with your neat "kinds" classification.

I’m not doing reasearch on your religion.
I don't have a religion. Well, I'm partial to drinking coffee, but I'm not sure if that counts.

Either tell me what creature the wolf/dog evolved from, or don’t.
You've already been given several ancestor species. What more do you want?

Look, just because you're too lazy or too scared to look up this stuff yourself doesn't mean it isn't readily available information. Like I said, it's only a brief google search away. Why should I waste more of my time on you, when you're so reticent about dedicating any of your own time in the spirit of honest inquiry?

We’re having this discussion now. I am asking the question now.
If you cannot answer the questions, not only does it show the nature of those previous discussions, but it puts to bed, right now, that Darwinian evolution, is nothing more than a religion. It’s done. Get over it.
I've answered all your questions.

I don’t recall discussing “my religion” with you.
You won't do it directly. You're too scared. But, indirectly, you've been telling me all about it for years now.

You're ex Hari Krishna, aren't you? Or, at least, you've gone a little unorthodox on them.

Secondly, let’s say my religion was Christianity, how would something that is a natural phenomenon, be a threat to it.
If you were a fundamentalist - a biblical literalist - I have already explained how it would be a threat, at some length.

And just recently you were telling us all how the Garden of Eden story is literally true, so you're not too far removed from that position, obviously.

Would you see “evolution” as it currently scientifically observed (micro), a potential threat, to my religion?
Yes, because, as I said, you can't have micro-evolution without macro-evolution. Not if you're honest. The only alternative is cognitive dissonance, which isn't exactly unknown among the devout, of course.

Actually, evolution, as currently observed, fits exactly with the“sacred” text of the bible.
You're being dishonest again. If you think your bible rules out speciation, which has been directly observed as you know, then clearly evolution doesn't fit the bible.

Darwinian evolution is a concoction, which has turned into a religion.
Just like the Theory of Gravity, I suppose. Or the idea that the world is round instead of flat. You're the scientific equivalent of a Flat-earther, Jan. Congratulations!