The ‘kinds’

I have been saying this for years. Take careful note of the answers, or lack thereof, and the cut and paste repeated answers by so-called smart people who show how utterly lacking, empty, and shallow, is the thought process of they who cling to Darwinesque thinking.

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

I love the matter of fact persistence, patience,  and overall superiority of the host in not allowing the people to escape his questions with non-answers or answers that expose complete fallacy.  Truly beautiful watching science pulverize ‘false science.’

To my WP brethren, just substitute any unbeliever, skeptic, decon, or atheist’s name here, pick a face, be it guys with cement ball caps, fake professors, others who feign underzanding, just plug and play, and enjoy. To all others, seriously pay attention. After all, Genesis and God’s ‘kinds’ are on display.  Watch the students and professors run for the hills in their own non beliefs.

This is pure gold. Perfect really. A cross-section of academia throughout the world. ‘Make me a rose.’

(ps- and to my believer friends; don’t go telling me scripture does not have the drop on science. Of course it does.)



About ColorStorm

Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture, while adding some gracious ferocity.
Gallery | This entry was posted in God and science and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to The ‘kinds’

  1. Ha! So true. I’m a big fan of that scientific method in regards to faith, “observation and experimentation.” Observe the Lord, testify to His goodness, and experiment with His promises. Works for me! In our crazy upside down world, our pop culture scientists are actually religionists.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Wally Fry says:

    Ray Comfort is the bomb for sure. What a warrior for our Lord.

    Liked by 1 person

    • ColorStorm says:

      He beats the crap out of foolishness using their own tools. It’s like watching a high powered hemi engine on full revs- all cylinders firing.

      If I was an evolutionist, and I had a drop of honesty, I would immediately rethink my world view.

      Darwin is as incompatible with Christ as light is not keen to darkness.

      Truth exposes lies, and a whole lotta exposing here.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. tildeb says:

    “The scientific method is a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    Oops! Ray has missed that end bit for the seventheeth gazillion time. What are the chances? So, he’s back to selling quote mining again, I see. And the tools just keep sending it on to the cheers of the idiots. Well, that’s what dishonest people need to do to try to make their lies seem supported by reasonable and rational people because, I mean, who care about what is true when piety is on the line?

    Not theists like you people.

    Science is a method. Not a result. Not a theory. Not an observation. You’ve been missing this point, CS, for years. If I were that obtuse, I would have no means to revisit my incorrect and ignorance fueled world view. So you and your little cohort here don’t disappoint.

    As for Ray the Banana Man Comfort, he’s been pulling this same stupid stunt repeatedly, and it’s been repeatedly slurped up by those who think it’s clever. It’s not. It is dishonest. That’s why RC has been corrected for decades about this dishonest tactic and yet fails to correct this intentional lie of omission. And he’s been lying about it for decades. I don’t expect theists who champion these lies in the name of piety to hold him to account for his intellectual bankruptcy and intentional dishonesty. Lyin’g fer Jesus is SOP. And, oh look, here comes the cheering section.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Citizen Tom says:

      The problem with the Theory of Evolution is that there is no way to satisfactorily test the hypothesis.Therefore, we cannot say the Theory of Evolution has been scientifically proven.

      What do we have? We have a bunch of “data”. We have a theory that seems to correspond to or conform with that data. However, due to the time scale require to evolve a new creature, an actual change in kind, we cannot test the theory.

      Is requiring a change in kind as proof for the Theory of Evolution unreasonable? Why aren’t mere changes chromosome structure sufficient? Given the claims Secularists make for the theory? Really?

      To explain why all creatures have similar DNA structures, the Theory of Evolution postulates that everything evolved from some strands of complex molecules in a dirty mud puddle or perhaps at one of the volcanic vents at the bottom of the ocean. Who knows? Could have happened, i suppose, but randomly?

      Frankly, I don’t know how life began. If your best explanation is the Theory of Evolution, you don’t either. The difference between us is this. I believe God is our Maker. I believe the Bible. What I don’t know are the details. I do, however, have a grasp of the Big Picture. God made us. Until you believe the Bible, you will continue to miss the Big Picture.

      Liked by 1 person

      • tildeb says:

        CT says, “The problem with the Theory of Evolution is that there is no way to satisfactorily test the hypothesis.Therefore, we cannot say the Theory of Evolution has been scientifically proven.”


        That statement is so wrong it’s not even wrong. It’s a baldfaced lie.

        Your arrogance describing the method of science in biology as somehow not doing what you think it should do – when it has done exactly this a hundred thousand times far, far in excess of what you pretend it doesn’t do, a fact that you somehow continue to ignore in this sanctimonious way – demonstrates your assumption (your assumption that is factually wrong) that it cannot be true when, in fact, the hypothesis has been more severely tested over a greater length of time to unquestionable success by reality in every case, which is WHY it is a theory. A scientific theory that has nothing whatsoever to say about origins. You know this, but you don’t care to admit it. You do care enough to grossly misrepresent the facts.

        The short answer to your ridiculous assertion is:


        Genetics offers us a MOST satisfactory test… which the theory of evolution has passed more robustly than any other test for any other scientific hypothesis in the history of man. But you simply don’t care about this fact or you would never state such a ridiculous and utterly inaccurate claim as you did above.

        I sincerely would like to fault a deplorable lack of knowledge on your part, on your education, for you to assume that your statement above had any knowledge value to it at all. But because I know I have addressed this ignorant statement of yours before, I have to think you continue to peddle it because you continue to elevate your religious creationist beliefs about reality above reality’s role to arbitrate them. In other words, no evidence from reality, no matter how compelling, no matter how complete, no matter how much is compiled, no matter how practical and useful and productive are the multiple applications, therapies, and technologies YOU USE EVERY DAY that are based on the theory to matter a tinker’s damn to you. The only thing that matters to you is to continue to believe in creationism… no matter what reality has to say about it. That’s the fact being demonstrated here. And that position of assumed knowledge imposed on a reality that simply does not comport to it, Citizen Tom, is called (at its most charitable) closed minded and ignorant because you cannot learn beyond your own brittle religious woo in POOF!ism even though you rely on the theory to be correct and to accurately describe reality, which makes you a glaring and obvious (and pious, of course) hypocrite…. not that that matters, either.


        • ColorStorm says:

          The problem with your THEORY tildeb, is just that, a magnificent untested and unprovable idea whose only worth is the effort it took to put it on paper, which paper is suitable not for intellectual consumption, but perhaps worthy of bird cage paper.

          You have not yet been able, or completely unwilling to defend not one of the characters in the vid who were asked for proof of their beliefs.

          Massive contradictions. Bloviating guesswork of billions of years, utter embarrassing replies,
          And yet, a whale is still a whale, a man is still a man, thus proving the word of the Creator regarding ‘kinds’ of both man and whale much to your disappointment.

          The KINDS.’ Same as it was, same as it shall be, Darwin be damned.

          But perhaps you as the created one, have the drop on He who created man, and maybe you can tell Him he did it all wrong.

          Yeah, this ought to be good, do describe how the whale defied evolution and spit in the face of godlessness and said ‘take your evolution and shove it. I am a whale period. And no, I never walked on earth like a monkey; only fools think that.’


        • Citizen Tom says:

          You seem to be a bit confused. Instead of offering up this incontrovertible proof you have, you attack me.

          The point of science is to model cause and effect relationships. If the Theory of Evolution is true then we should be able to generate something in the lab that looks like what we should expect formed in that legendary primordial soup. Well, some guys have managed to create some amino acids. That’s interesting, but it is not proof that what we call life could arise that way. That research is still ongoing.

          All the research on the Theory of Evolution is like that. Interesting, but speculative. In faith, people adopted the theory BEFORE they could prove it. You make a big stink about genetics, but DNA’s role in heredity was not confirmed until 1952. The monkey trial was in 1925.

          Lots of people have a distinct bias on this subject. Bias is not scientific proof.

          Liked by 1 person

        • tildeb says:

          I criticize the scope of hubris, intentional misrepresentation, and utter lack of respect for what’s true you demonstrate because these deserve loud and sustained criticism. They are deplorable tactics YOU select, that YOU use, that YOU continue to spew. Your motives are not to respect what’s true, not to respect what is known, not to respect what reality demonstrates is the case, not to respect those who have spent lifetimes accumulating this knowledge from which YOU benefit but decry. That’s why what you do in defense of your creationist beliefs is deplorable. Sure, it may be pious, but it’s still deplorable.

          Who has imported this crazy notion that we have to GENERATE anything? That’s not what the theory of evolution does. It MODELS how life descends from common ancestry. And the evidence for this is overwhelming… not that you would ever bother to inquire because you assume you already know it cannot possibly be the case. There are literary many millions, many billions, even trillions of examples from realty you wave away. And you wave all of them away because on the one hand you will not accept anything reality has to offer in support of the theory while, on the other, continue merrily using applications, therapies, and technologies based on the accuracy of the model that works for everyone everywhere all the time. Just wave it all away even though you bet your life that it’s true – ever taken antibiotics? – and then go back to using deplorable and hypocritical tactics to pretend your creationist beliefs diametrically opposed to overwhelming evidence are reasonable when in fact and in any honest comparison they are not. Your creationist beliefs – beliefs about reality from which offers ZERO evidence in its support – are not some other kind of reasonable scientific hypothesis but across the board of reality nothing but superstitious nonsense not in part but in the whole.

          Remember, genetics could have revealed the theory to be wrong, could have revealed different ‘kinds’ with unequivocal evidence from reality to support the proposed boundaries, but in fact meshes seamlessly with descent from common ancestry. Genetics at every level produces nonstop support for the accuracy and usefulness of the evolutionary model. That’s why you turn to antibiotics when you have a life-threatening infection… because you trust the science that assembled the theory of evolution, that assembled how and why antibiotics work, with your life.

          So all this other creationist nonsense you pretend to support with what you think is an earnest and pious nod is really nothing more or less than a deplorable and hypocritical rationalization you import and sell by dishonest and hypocritical statements to cover up your utter duplicity. I just don’t think such deplorable tactics you demonstrate deserve even a modicum of respect but a strongly worded condemnation.


        • ColorStorm says:


          In your saying this to CT, you are obviously saying this to me, as well as all my sober minded believer friends who you rub shoulders with.

          You allege:
          ‘So all this other creationist nonsense you pretend to support with what you think is an earnest and pious nod is really nothing more or less than a deplorable and hypocritical rationalization you import and sell by dishonest and hypocritical statements to cover up your utter duplicity. I just don’t think such deplorable tactics you demonstrate deserve even a modicum of respect but a strongly worded condemnation.’

          I’m sorry that you can not conceive in your mind that the scriptural account of creation supports the highest of the sciences. Science does not fear the truth of scripture. The reason I mentioned the ‘kinds’ in Genesis, and put forth the vid which agrees with me, is because it is time tested and true.

          Evolution is not time tested, has no proof, thrives on guesses, and denies the Creator for no other reason than that the human heart has an issue with God. Period.

          Your lame insults of ‘condemnation’ towards believers refuses to acknowledge that some of the greatest minds this world has ever seen, were loyal students of scripture, and believed in the only God of heaven and earth. This is your loss.

          And STILL, you have refused to address the commenting of the students/professors in the vid. I don’t blame you I suppose, as they are clueless.

          You do get credit though; as an atheist, it is difficult to stay on point, and create all ‘kinds’ of diversions, just as CT said.


        • Citizen Tom says:

          You sure spouted a lot of words, but you are just saying the same thing over and over.

          Has it occurred to you that what we know about Genetics works for both the Theory of Evolution and Intelligent Design?

          Frankly, I don’t have a beef with the Theory of Evolution. If everything just suddenly appeared in six days, that just makes the Bible easier to understand, but Genesis was written to people who would not have not have understood our debate. Since they were not stupid, I suppose they could have been taught the Theory of Evolution, but that did not happen.

          If life evolved, it would have been pointless to go into the scientific details in the Book of Genesis. Instead, Genesis teaches the theology of Creation. Even if we evolved, the science in Genesis is not wrong. It is not presented.

          What is clear is that Adam and Eve were created apart from the rest of creatures God created. How so? That specifically is stated in the Bible, but much of the story is so cryptic we don’t much more than that.

          Anyway, I don’t have a Biblical interest in fighting over this matter. I don’t think the Bible tells us enough. My point is simple. Without hard proof, you have accepted the Theory of Evolution as a matter of faith, just like that film suggests. Since this faith in the The Theory of Evolution is so commonplace, I don’t take the protestations of proof too seriously. Too few even bother to consider the matter objectively.

          I think the first men and women did live for almost a thousand years, and we have degenerated as the result of the curse. I also have little doubt the Great Flood would make the fossil record look as weird as what we actually see. Still, there things that fit the convention “scientific” explanations quite well. So there is probably some truth in the theories.

          Meanwhile, all I can do is shrug my shoulders. It is just not that important. Whether they believe the Theory of Evolution or not, doctors don’t seem to have any problems practicing medicine. Therefore, when I have trouble reconciling the Bible with the Gospel of Science, I don’t worry overmuch.


        • tildeb says:

          If by “spouting the same thing” you mean I keep raising reality and the overwhelming evidence it contains in support of the theory, then yeah, guilty as charged.

          Now compare and contrast that with creationism/intelligent design. Zero evidence.

          You’ll notice there is no difference except in terminology between the hypothesis of creationism and the hypothesis of Intelligent Design. Both have exactly the same amount of evidence in their favour: zero. None. Not a shred of scientific merit based on what science uses: evidence from reality. As soon as you try to support a hypothesis with evidence, we find both creationism and Intelligent Design in the same boat. There is no means to differentiate between them. This is why the now infamous ‘cdesign proponentists’ from the substituted ‘science’ textbook in the Dover case is so funny: you really can substitute one for the other without changing a single element of its ‘scientific’ merit. Again, that merit – if one relies solely on evidence from reality – is zero. That fact has nothing to do with me. It is this fact that creates the problem for those who wish to pretend there is some kind of doubt about the merit of the theory of evolution. But then, reality just doesn’t support your reality-denying beliefs. My issue is you trying to present the Theory of Evolution as something it’s not and using tactics – the same used in the video – that are neither honest nor reputable. And that’s a clue that itself reveals a motive by creationists that has nothing to do with honest or reputable inquiry into reality and everything to do with selling by dishonest means a religious Just So story in its place.


        • ColorStorm says:


          If I can say without this sounding insulting, you sound like a drunken man who is pleading for others to believe he is sober. His words betray him.

          The video I posted is not a casual display of questions that support creation. It is dead serious, and the ‘students of Darwinism’ are lost as fog. Too bad you can’t see this.

          As to scripture and science, the entire book is enough proof that the Genesis record can be trusted. Too bad you cannot see this either.

          Darwins ‘Species’ is a frontal assault on the Creator’s ‘kinds,’ anybody with an iq larger than a pea can see this.

          Don’t act drunk.


        • tildeb says:

          “As to scripture and science, the entire book is enough proof that the Genesis record can be trusted.”

          You may – and do, in fact – find ‘the entire book’ to be enough proof to satisfy you; when we compare the Genesis account to what reality demonstrates without guile or agenda, we find its claims without support. That’s a real problem. Your ‘solution’ is to blame reality by refusing to pay it any mind, by rejecting everything it contains that is contrary to ‘the entire book’. That’s your right. Believe what you want. But you go too far to demand that others do the same or make multiple accusations that there’s something blameworthy for not going along with your rejection of reality.

          Now, the cherry picked and quote mined video dishonestly portrays evolution to be an imaginary mechanism that is equivalent to a faith-based belief. By rejecting any commentary about the long periods of time necessary for changes in ‘kind’ from common ancestry and how we know this to be true, the video is crafted to prevent any explanation of how this happens. This editing is done intentionally to misrepresent how we can observe changes over time. And this is why I raised the point that genetics reveals this slow change by heredity all at once, which is what Comfort is demanding he see. But Comfort has no intention of respecting this observable data when it comes to understanding why evolution is true and that’s why Comfort’s approach is so dishonest: he has some other agenda that you know and I know and Comfort knows has everything to do with pretending it requires faith of the religious kind to believe in evolution. Well, when you’ve already intentionally rejected reality’s role to present evidence by heredity over time that shows us common ancestry that links different ‘kinds’ as having descended from one ‘kind’, then you’ve already rejected any means to understand why evolution is true! Evolution is not a belief requiring faith of the religious kind; it is an inescapable evidence-adduced conclusion that is derived from studying reality itself. This is what Comfort will not allow into this video: any explanation derived from the evidence reality provides. This video has no truth merit.


        • ColorStorm says:

          This is my last comment to you tildeb on this, CT can have you all to himself. But please do not take this as an admission of your superior position; on the contrary, it is the superior position of the Creator; we have His word on it after all, that a whale is a whale, a man is a man, no evilution needed; as a fact, it has been completely disproven by history, facts, and common sense.

          And I make no ‘demands’ of you or anybody else, what? I try to convince you that blue is better than green?

          And my rejection of reality? Knock knock? Anybody home in there? The Tigris and Euphrates are not real? The seeds of the fruit tree are not real? The sun and moon are not real? Jerusalem is not real? Christ never lived? Paul the apostle is not real, who was once Saul of Tarsus, and one of the greatest minds the earth will ever see?

          Scripture is good tildeb. Darwins word? Eh, not so much. One day you will learn the difference between science, and ‘science falsely called,’ as the good book had stated thousands of years ago, always ahead of man’s petty and ignorant claims which leave out the Creator.

          But you go ahead and rely on the words of DeGrasse the comedian, Nye the clown, and Maher the buffoon. I’ll keep the word of God, which is forever settled in heaven, thank you very much, which always has the last word. As it should be.

          True science will always agree with scripture.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Citizen Tom says:

          All to myself?

          Liked by 1 person

        • Citizen Tom says:

          There is enough philosophical and Biblical evidence that shows God created everything, that what the Bible says is true. However, what God does is outside the realm of science. Creating something from nothing is not sort of scientific experiment we can perform. In fact, that would violate one of our scientific “laws”. Intelligent Design presents similar issues. These concerns, while perfectly legitimate areas of inquiry are metaphysical concerns, not scientific. That, however, does mean children should not be taught how God created the world. It just means that it is kind of pointless to accept the world’s demand that teaching about God is only legitimate if it can be taught as science.

          Because God exists outside the realm of His creation, we cannot use science to study Him. The definition of science makes it pointless to try such a thing, but some Creationists refuse to accept that. Because some people who should know better insist that Biblical creation theories should be taught in the public schools, they have gotten a bit silly.

          The desire is proper, but the solution is inappropriate. If parents want control over what their children are taught, they have to get them out of the public schools. Politicians will never educate children properly. They should not even be trusted with the responsibility.

          Is the Theory of Evolution scientific? If you are not going to apply the scientific method’s criteria for proof, the answer is no, of course. To prove a hypothesis, the hypothesis has to be testable. The hypothesis for the Theory of Evolution is not testable. We don’t have any way of performing the reproducible tests the hypothesis requires for proof. That’s why it requires an inordinate amount of faith to believe the Theory of Evolution. Because the proof is inadequate, if you believe in the Theory of Evolution, then you have to want to believe it.

          It is actually funny. Atheists tell Theists we believe in God just because we are weak. We supposedly need to believe in God. When we offer evidence that God exists and the Bible is true, it is not possible to provide enough evidence, not to satisfy an Atheist. Always, the demand is for more evidence. Yet here you are, just like the rest of those of your faith, believing as an act of faith something you have no way of proving. Even though you have no way of testing the hypothesis, you just blindly insist upon the scientific merit. Moreover, you still have the nerve to rant about the dishonesty of your opponents.

          That, of course, is the point of that film. When pressed with direct questions, those promoting the Theory of Evolution cannot provide straight forward proof. They cannot demonstrate the hypothesis has been tested.

          Liked by 1 person

        • tildeb says:

          CT boldly and without shame writes the following paragraph:

          “Is the Theory of Evolution scientific? If you are not going to apply the scientific method’s criteria for proof, the answer is no, of course. To prove a hypothesis, the hypothesis has to be testable. The hypothesis for the Theory of Evolution is not testable. We don’t have any way of performing the reproducible tests the hypothesis requires for proof. That’s why it requires an inordinate amount of faith to believe the Theory of Evolution. Because the proof is inadequate, if you believe in the Theory of Evolution, then you have to want to believe it.”

          So let’s break this paragraph down to reveal the scope of the distortion, the range of misrepresentation, the boldness of the lies, and the absence of honest understanding, needed to arrive at that conclusion.

          “Is the Theory of Evolution scientific?”

          Yes, which is why it is called the theory of evolution. It is the strongest theory in all of science because it is the most supported by evidence from reality for any scientific theory. This evolutionary model – an explanation of HOW life changes by natural selection over time to produce speciation (‘kinds’) – is exposed by every available means in every available field of study all of which mutually support the explanation. In other words, the evidence from reality fits. ALL the evidence. There is no contrary evidence to this explanation when there could have been (this is essential to understand) and the best example is the seamless agreement between genetics and the the proposed model. Genetics could have revealed genetic boundaries to create ‘kinds’. It could have. So, the answer to this question CT raises about the scientific validity of evolution is an unequivocal ‘YES’ because that explanation is supported by more compelling evidence from reality than any other scientific theory. More than germs. More than nuclear physics. More than quantum mechanics. More than gravity.

          “If you are not going to apply the scientific method’s criteria for proof, the answer is no, of course.”

          Well, the term ‘proof’ is red flag in that the issue at hand is being framed in an intentionally dishonest manner. ‘Proof’ is a term used for axiomatic (closed) procedures like we use in math and logic… like the rules of Chess. Reality is not like that. It is open in that we don’t yet know all the ‘rules’ so we’re trying to figure them out, figure out how reality operates. Proof is the term used to conclude a logical sequence based on the assumption that the premises – the rules – for it are themselves known and correct. That’s not how you study reality. That’s why in science – in the method of extracting data from reality so that we can try to figure out what’s going on – we don’t talk in terms of ‘proof’; we talk in terms of likelihood and confidence related to the strength of that likelihood for this model and that one. Without doubt, the method of science applied to how life changes over time has been used to establish the highest possible confidence in the model that explains how life changes over time. The correct term to use for models that are of this highest level of confidence is ‘theory’. To claim the theory of evolution does not meet the scientific criteria for the highest level of confidence for its explanatory value is an obvious falsehood and a massive distortion to appeal to those who do not understand science or how it works. Because CT claims to respect ‘science’, this sentence is either an intentional lie or reveals just how extraordinarily ignorant CT must be about science to make this accusation. That’s why I say it’s so wrong it isn’t even wrong. It’s a lie no matter how you come at it.

          “To prove a hypothesis, the hypothesis has to be testable.”

          Again, the term ‘prove’ reveals the intentionally distorted agenda at work. Scientists don’t set out to ‘prove’ a hypothesis; the method clearly starts with TESTING whether or not the hypothesis models the evidence successfully. So, obviously, to TEST a hypothesis, the hypothesis must be testable… or it’s not following the method of science! That’s what religion does… sets out various hypotheses that cannot be tested. That’s why religious claims about the supernatural are not scientific. What CT is claiming here in this dishonest sentence is that the scientific theory has somehow slipped by its most basic beginnings and has managed to avoid being tested by so many scientists over such a length of time! Obviously the sentence CT makes is a baldfaced lie.

          “The hypothesis for the Theory of Evolution is not testable.”

          Of course the hypothesis of descent from common ancestry is testable has been tested, continues to be tested… up the wazoo, and for over a hundred and fifty years! In fact, one of the most famous predictions was Tiktaalik. Google it. But there are literally millions of examples starting with the genetic connection between you to your parents and to theirs, and so on, and so on, and so on, to your complete ancestry that offered genes you what you have inherited today. That’s why you and I and every Christian believer and evolutionary denying creationist still share the identical damaged genetic strand (an ancient simian virus) common to – and found in the same sequence – all other great apes. To claim the theory has not been tested, when it is tested every time genetic tests are undertaken, is actually an obscene lie for the vastness of dishonest scope. Notice that creationist claims avoid any specific explanation for just this kind of inexplicable evidence except to wave it all away as ‘very mysterious’. Well, yeah. There’s nothing that doesn’t fall under the ‘Godidit’ explanation… that explains nothing, of course.

          “We don’t have any way of performing the reproducible tests the hypothesis requires for proof.”

          The ‘proof’ of just how robust the theory is in all the applications, therapies, and technologies based on the evolutionary model that just so happens by the greatest of coincidences to work for everyone everywhere all the time. If the theory were wrong, as creationists insist, then genetics simply wouldn’t work to explain why created ‘kinds’ that are claimed to be different actually share so much ancestry that is identical. If ‘kinds’ were a fact, the genetics would clearly show these hard boundaries. But no such boundaries exist. In fact, there are no hard boundaries; there is a spectrum of common descent revealed through genetics that demonstrate what only look to the uneducated eye as ‘kinds’. These different ‘kinds’ are, in fact and revealed by genetic inheritance, relatives some closer than others. This is as if to say, the tip of the branch here might look different than the tip of the branch over there but genetics reveals that these tips sometimes share a common branch but ALL share a common trunk. All life on earth is one thing expressed millions and billions of ways. The idea of ‘kinds’ is an artificial way to try to describe some differences. But those differences do not refute common ancestry, To claim these difference DO refute common ancestry is not supported by evidence from reality. It is an imported rigid myopic framework not supported by reality.

          “‘That’s why it requires an inordinate amount of faith to believe the Theory of Evolution.”

          No. It requires no faith at all. It requires an understanding of why evolution is true based solely on overwhelming evidence from reality, and this understanding has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with ‘faith’ any more than claiming finding your car in an otherwise empty parking lot must require faith. If you actually bother to look for it, it becomes pretty obvious pretty quickly… except to those who refuse to look.

          “Because the proof is inadequate, if you believe in the Theory of Evolution, then you have to want to believe it.”

          The testing is ongoing. Every day. In many ways. And the explanatory model works. All the time. Every day. It explains the central natural mechanism of how life changes over time. We use this explanation all the time. It is a consistent and reliable explanation that deserves our respect because it has earned it. It is a fact. So, without compelling contrary evidence from a reality (an explanation reality fully supports for the evolutionary model to date), the onus falls to those who would deny this fact to go forth and produce evidence from reality that DOES NOT FIT the model. This is exactly what creationists and Intelligent Design proponents have consistently and reliably failed to produce. They have produced nothing to draw the evolutionary model of how life changes over time into question. Nothing from reality. Creationists have ONLY their religious belief packaged in metaphysics and philosophy to deny this fact. That’s it. And in all ways, this contrary-to-reality religious belief is exactly the same as complete ignorance because it explains nothing, produces no applications, therapies or technologies, ever. It is simply a claim of denial… for pious reasons that have nothing to do with respecting what’s true, with respecting what reality demonstrates to us every day is true about it . And that’s why dishonest people need to distort, misrepresent, and lie to maintain their evolution-denying claims. We call this effort religious because it only comes form religion.


        • Citizen Tom says:

          You say the theory of Theory of Evolution fits all the compelling evidence, that genetics does not reveal genetic boundaries to create ‘kinds’. I guess you have never heard of taxonomy.

          I think what what some people are asking for is a demonstration of the Theory of Evolution that is significant enough to be compelling. As a practical matter, no such demonstration exists.

          You say this, whatever this is, is not how you study reality? Well, I would agree that science has its limitations, but you are the one that insists that we have to have scientific proof, and we have scientific proof of the Theory of Evolution. Yet when an hypothesis is not testable with scientific methods, it is not provable by scientific methods. You can assert otherwise, but that is all you are doing. If compelling test exists, why don’t you just point to it?

          Look at how you operate. You call yourself an Atheist. That is an assertion God does not exist. Logically, you cannot prove that. You know that that so then you say “atheism means non belief in gods or a god”. That, however, is Agnosticism. If you cannot even get your definitions straight about something so fundamental, then you need to stop talking and writing and start listening and reading more, but I suppose that is something we all need to do.

          We are fallen creatures. Both you and me too.


        • tildeb says:

          CT, you state, “but you are the one that insists that we have to have scientific proof, and we have scientific proof of the Theory of Evolution.”

          Why do you keep stating this when I’ve gone to such length to explain why I do NOT say this, that using the term ‘proof’ indicates on your part a very intentional tactic to misrepresent (at best when it’s really an intentional and gross distortion of the truth you need to use when you do so over and over again in spite of ongoing and repeated correction). Yet here you are, once again, using this tactic!


          It’s like your mentally stuck in this rut of your own making and are trying to blame me for putting you there! Get over yourself, already, and stop using this term ‘proof’ when it comes to understanding any scientifically valid claim. It’s the wrong tool.

          Evolution is true because reality demonstrates it is true. On that understanding of descent by common ancestry that you continue to intentionally misunderstand and misrepresent, humanity has erected all kinds of applications, therapies, and technologies that work for everyone everywhere all the time. This fact is not a trivial expression but an ongoing test that evolution as an explanation continues to pass. In effect, you are denying that all of these applications, therapies, and technologies work because the understanding is correct, that evolution is true, but work for some other reason! And all you can offer for this other reason is the childish response that Godidit as an alternative… without a shred of evidence to back this up! This matters because the root understanding of common ancestry behind them all you claim is what you are claiming is wrong… but have nothing FROM reality to support your contrarian view. You have word games and metaphysics and philosophical conclusions based on incorrect premises to support you (because that’s what they are designed to do by avoiding reality’s role to arbitrate their truth value). But from reality? You’ve got nothing. Nothing! Taxonomy does not now and never has countered the overwhelming evidence for common ancestry. All taxonomy does is classify based on certain differences. So what? Taxonomy does not support the anti-evolutionary position you hold, that some creator agency POOF!ed various kinds of beings into existence. Well, bully for you. That explanation that Godidit does not reveal why all these evolutionary-based applications, therapies, and technologies work when their scientific foundation is supposedly wrong. It doesn’t explain why the same understanding continues to produce new knowledge, greater insight, and ever-increasing efficacy of these applications, therapies, and technologies. You just stand there hand waving away reality while chanting Godidit and are smugly satisfied that our understanding of how reality actually operates with no evidence of some tinkering supernatural critter fiddling the dials and nobs of biology is wrong. This ignorance fueled certainty you maintain makes you a science denier.


        • Citizen Tom says:

          Comment in moderation.


  4. ColorStorm says:

    Tkx tildeb, but there is no misinterpreting the words of the students and lost as fog professors. You apparently miss the point about the ‘kinds,’ and there being no ‘observable’ change to back up Darwins’s diabolical claims.

    You should be embarrassed by such blank stares by the ‘students of godlessness.’ Forget, bananas, don’t create a smokescreen and trap yourself further,

    ‘But maybe you can ‘make me a rose?’ or as the lady sez: she needs more time. But the greater point was missed by you too, and that is, the intellectual inability to face the awkward dilemma of a world view that has no basis in reality.


    • tildeb says:

      Observable change? In kinds? Sure: your chromosome 2. There’s your observable change in kinds.


      • ColorStorm says:

        Notice it was YOU tildeb which brought up God in the vid.

        The host said not one word regarding God in the vid, so tks for that!! This is pure science on the table, and the students of Darwinism and the professors (especially the woman) are a pure embarrassment.

        The ‘kinds’ which we are referring to, have been raped by Darwin, and you, substituted by ‘species.’

        The whale ‘kind’ then, is still a whale kind today. You have missed entirely the essence of the point regarding ‘kinds.’

        The students and professors all admitted there has been no change in kinds.

        Whales do not and did not, and will never turn into doves, porcupines, hyenas, or people. Period.

        Darwinism is pure stupidity.


        • tildeb says:

          ‘Kind’ is an archaic reference to one type of opaque biological classification. When science deniers use the term, they have already assumed the conclusion such that no such change is possible, that any change to ‘kind’ provided by scientific inquiry – like Chromosome 2 that separates humanoids from other great apes in the primate family, the change in primate ‘kind’ into human ‘kind’ and ape ‘kind’ – presumes by definition no such ‘evolutionary’ change is possible, (because the change cannot be directly observed as an individual morphs from one ‘kind’ into another). Here’s a human, the thinking goes, and here is an ape. See? different ‘kinds’, different morphology, so the two cannot be related because they are different.

          But is this true?

          Well, we do not ‘see’ the overwhelming evidence for a direct linkage between the great ape to human by using this classification, a classification that simply waves away the 97% similarity that by any useful definition classifies a very strong linkage. In fact, the two ‘kinds’ are so closely related that the only difference is the notable exception of chromosome 2 in humans that is a fused gene, making the human ‘kind’ have 23 chromosomes, rather than the 24 directly observable chromosomes we share with all other primates.

          It makes laughable the creationist claim that there is no evidence we can observe between ‘kinds’. There is nothing BUT evidence in its favour that all life is linked by varying degrees of similarity, that the use of ‘kinds’ is not a useful way to find out what’s true, that ‘kinds’ is artificial way to try to deny what is true and erect barriers between them in order to deny the level of shared similarities, that all ‘kinds’ of life are, in fact, directly and observably related in a long chain of small incremental changes at the genetic level over a great deal of time, that with each change the relationship is branched into more and more ‘kinds’ from common ancestry.

          The point of just how stupid is this argument used by creationists against common descent is demonstrated by this simple analogy: if Americans are descended from English colonizers, then why are there still English people? Were you there? Did you see this ‘magical change’ in national ‘kinds’ occur before your eyes?


        • ColorStorm says:


          Only in the mind of the godless is the term ‘kind’ archaic.

          It is NOT archaic. If you were teaching a group of children, (or even adults) basic biology, I do hope you could honestly admit that there are:

          whale kinds.
          eagle kinds
          cow kinds
          human kinds…….

          Men do not live underwater, and whales cannot fly high atop the Rockies.

          This is completely the point you are missing, and are trying so desperately to avoid.

          You need to explain sir, how tossing up a handful of sand into the air, results in the arrival of a whale, an eagle, an a man.

          But first, you need to explain the arrival of the sand. You see, all attempts at the legitimacy of evolution per Darwin fall immediately flat.

          How about for once in your life, be honest and give the Creator the courtesy of existing. It would not kill you to defer to the Creator, instead of the created.

          Your order is all wrong, so it is no wonder you try to defend the indefensible. I suggest you listen again to the vid here, and take an impartial look at the answers by the so called learned ones.

          If they were in a boat, they would all drown with their full of holes answers. It’s a pity really. You do not have to be in that boat.

          ‘God created great whales…………’ After their kind. Still whales today. Always will be whales.

          As to your English people, they are still PEOPLE, not turtles. Geez man, wake up.


        • tildeb says:

          You demonstrate exactly the criticism I raise about assuming the conclusion based only on appearance that defines this term ‘kinds’. Even in your very short list of 4, the cow and the whale are directly and observably highly related. In other words, the ‘kind’ you presume is clear is, in fact, as wrong as it is misleading. The ‘kind’ category you use is not helpful but impedes your ability to marvel that very close common ancestry between whale and cow, the high genetic similarities that then explains the genetic expression for the whale ‘kind’ to have the pelvic bones of the cow ‘kind’. In the creationist model, the inclusion of pelvic bones in the whale makes no sense. Your assumption that they are not directly related in ancestry but of distinct ‘kinds’ misleads you not just to miscategorize these close relatives but stops you from actually understanding why and how they are so closely related.

          The over-reaching problem in your method to trust scripture as a science textbook in this regard rather than investigate biological reality as it really is makes you substitute ‘Godidit’ as if this were a answer that had any utility. It doesn’t… it has zero knowledge because it’s not an answer. It is a statement that when parsed really becomes an obvious substitution for, “I don’t know” but is coated with the gloss if appearing to be a final answer that has some knowledge merit and so it, in effect, stops further inquiry dead in its tracks.

          This is why the creationist method to assign Godidit as if an answer does not now, never has, and probably never shall produce knowledge about reality. It is guaranteed method to uphold ignorance as if it were a virtue, yet in all other avenues of human endeavor such imposition of willful ignorance is a vice. Nothing good can come from this exercise of willful ignorance especially when believers try to insert this method and assumed conclusions into areas that do produce useful knowledge… areas like biology and the unquestionable mechanism known as natural selection from common ancestry we call evolution. This mechanism is a scientific fact, observable everywhere by everyone all the time – a fact supported by nothing but compelling evidence as much and even more so than anything else we can call ‘knowledge’ – and a fact that continues to be the cornerstone of all kinds of knowledge that you yourself use to your benefit and welfare. Denying evolution while utilizing its ongoing and tremendous benefit in all kinds of ways (from medicine to food, from resource extraction to silvaculture, and dozens and dozens more) is not just a denial of reality but a level of hypocrisy and dishonesty you presume is mandatory to be pious. That’s a clue about its truth value, CS, something as compelling as anything else humanity has ever perceived about reality, an insight that you wave away just as often as Ray performs his science-denying spiel to promote creationism. That’s why he presumed the banana was evidence for his Christian Creator.. a presumption of Godidit that is synonymous with ignorance writ large, an assumption contrary to reality that was celebrated with as much furor by the equally ignorant gang of supporters as by those who assume evolution must be wrong. That is a presumption of ignorance and it shows in this comment of your by not knowing the cow and whale are close relatives of a common ancestor.


        • ColorStorm says:

          I should at least thank you for your time, albeit misguided, but tildeb, the whales who live and breathe underwater are related to the cow or bird which walks on fours or flies in the air?

          And you expect to be taken seriously? Take a look at 7.59- and following, Embarrassing.

          And 11.55+ is painful to listen to.

          You keep referring to scripture, and God, as against science, yet I have demonstrated to you that here now, in this vid, scripture and God have been entirely avoided to make a point.

          That point being that academia, and the students thereof, are unable to formulate cogent arguments for what they believe.

          True science has been the tool to expose false science.

          Their ‘belief’ is not their own, but has been spoon fed to them by others who have been spoon fed, by others who have been spoon fed, beginning with they who have never digested the truth of the matter, thus, pure speculation is evident. This is not science.

          I also pointed out that true science fears no scrutiny, and the quotes posed at the outset by the two
          heroes of godlessness have been exposed as fraudulent.

          As to your own take on truth, I submit that the Creator knows more about the design of whales and birds and man, than all your evo friends combined, both dead and alive.

          And that’s a proven fact.


        • tildeb says:

          No, CS, it’s pure speculation where you assume you know Godidit is the right answer. That’s where your thinking goes off the rails of reason and rejects reality’s proper role to arbitrate your beliefs about it… when it comes to anything that legitimately draws into questions scripture that is factually wrong according to the overwhelming contrary evidence from reality.

          And the unspoken fact is that evolution competes with creationism, and so the only argument raised against understanding why evolution is true is by creationists, and so while you may find the occasional religion without creationism, you will never, ever find creationism without religion. Religion, not science, not reality, not facts, is the only source of conflict with evolutionary theory. That is what motivates Comfort in this video, not open inquiry. That’s a clue, CS. Your religious belief in being created by a Creator is the only source that stands against what is true as arbitrated by reality and the overwhelming evidence it offers those of us who can see past the closed-minded ignorance that is creationism.


        • ColorStorm says:

          You are being plain stubborn tildeb.

          The vid is about science. The vid proves the utter inconsistencies of alleged ‘facts.’ The professors and students have been proven to be intellectually clueless. They are disciples of YOUR world view. They came up empty. They have wry smiling faces but no answers, just like your guesses.

          And the creation of whales is hardly ‘religious.’ For the love of common sense drop your ego and admit they had an intelligent Creator. No religion needed. Since when was water, blood, and bones ever religious?

          Unless you are admitting you also have no intelligence, if not why not, if so, from whom, since Intelligence must have one greater. But that’s the rub, you claim all intellectual property rights, while you are a trespasser on another’s property. Not too smart.

          Once more, try to stay focused. These people in THIS vid are representative of Darwinism and godlessness. They are intellectually void, and unable to carry an argument to the next logical level. Congratulations to the public school system which graduates college kids as idiots.

          At least the Asian kid admitted he honestly had no answers. He has a chance at graduating to common sense, where scripture proves to be true every singletime.


  5. I think we are going to get along splendidly! Keep up the good work, Stay Strong & Stand Tall!

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Pingback: Debating Atheists: Three Types of Atheist – Stand Tall For Christ

  7. Tildeb – the scientific method was supposedly used to craft the theory of evolution. Which is far outside of the reach of science… as everything evolution claims requires millions and billions of years to unfold. There is nothing to observe and certainly nothing that can be repeated from any time that far back, in fact ALL sorts of assumptions have to be made concerning the composition of the atmosphere, what elements did or did not exist, what chemical processes would have taken place and so on and so on.

    All we have observed is adaptation within a species, congratulations! We agree. Aside from what we can actively observe and repeat, what evidence are you left with? Presuppositions? Based on laws that we created? And a large of amount of assorted bones in the dirt?

    If you wish to believe your great ancestors were cousins of apes you are free to do so, but I know the truth about you… you were created in the image of God. You are not a random pile of molecules. There is design and purpose in your existence. Your DNA proves that point, as at no other point in history has there been another human just like you. Try embracing your true identity.

    Liked by 1 person

    • tildeb says:

      See my comment to CT, June 12, 2:44.


      • Would you say Evolution then is “settled Science”?


        • tildeb says:

          More so than any other scientific model, like the ones used to guide the building of the screen you are looking at, the technology used to enable the transmission of electronic particles that can be reassembled for you to read, the electromagnetic ‘laws’ used to electronically connect you almost instantly around the globe with the writer of these symbols. None of these are as well informed or as solidly supported by evidence as the amount and quality of evidence that supports the ‘fact’ of evolution.

          And speaking of fact, that you glean there is an ongoing adaptation on the genetic level within species is the first glint of understanding how evolution occurs… over time. The change is incremental within a biological branch until reproduction between slowly diverging members of that branch is no successful, no longer what we call ‘fit’. We have oodles and oodles and oodles of examples in biology of this very thing. That knowledge is there for you for the taking. We can trace the genetic inheritance to the point of this division in thousands and thousands of species, meaning we really do have the means to trace when one ‘kind’ becomes two ‘kinds’and how many generations this prior occurred. (And we now have the ability to pay this same scientific understanding forward in many different applicable and useful ways for many different purposes… the most recent example of evolutionary theory at work is CRISPR.) This is called common ancestry and it is demonstrable for anyone who cares enough to actually look at the overwhelming evidence for it. And that caring is almost never done by creationists who presume they already know differently… and they have gained this evidence-lacking ‘insight’ into reality, into biology, by some kind of magical ability to extract the correct understanding from some ancient writings that claim POOF!ism from a divine source (Outside of reality, of course) is a much, much more reasonable ‘explanation’.

          Think about that.

          On the one hand we have strong confidence by such people as you in supernatural POOF!ism. On the other hand, we have CRISPR… a technology derived from the application of evolutionary theory that works for everyone everywhere all the time. You are trying to argue the latter is faith and the former is more reasonable. Seriously?



    • ColorStorm says:

      Love your last paragraph.

      Welcome to the den!

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s