Feedback for June 2005

Dr. Derek P. Blake

Hate to break this to you but the latest research in genetics shows conclusively that changing the instructions in the DNA as little as 1 letter in 10 million causes sickness not change.

Could someone answer the question about how there has never been evidence of new information in the genetic code ever observed. Since new information is required for evolution to be true, could someone answer this question.

randy

As far as "The Big Bang," how can something possibly be created from nothing, without "something/someone greater" to make it happen? If I recall correctly, there is a "scientific statement/principle" which states something to the effect of "Energy is neither created nor destroyed." How is that possible? It would seem that for one thing to be created that it had to be made of "pre-existing components" of some kind or other. Seems to me that there's some "mathematic principle" that goes something like "No-thing + no-thing = nothing," not "No-thing + some-thing = everything." Have the scientists and mathematicians gone to war with each other and I never heard about it?

Natrobius

Kent uses the definition for Evolution that is used by any and all "Evolutionist" scientists today. You try to make out like they are some sort of package that has to be accepted all together. Sorry, Kent isn't wrong.

Toby

I have recently heard claims of dinosaur bones containing carbon-14 and claims that creation "scientists" have dated the bones to 10,000 years or so. I am mesmorized by how they could make such a claim in front of the scientific community. Surely what they are saying cannot be true. If carbon 14 was found in a dinosaur bone it would be no more than 40,000 years old. However, I am unable to find any evidence that says dinosaur bones do not contain carbon-14. Is this just to be assumed? I cannot imagine science making such a blunder. Please post something about why creationists would make this claim and if it is true post some logical reasons for it getting there.

Your article on evolution was typical. It proposes many farfetched ideas that have zero fact or observible data. The writer indicates that creation is not science and evolution is. This is a lie. evolution has no basis in observation or fact. Therefore it is not science. Creation is as possible as evolution. Creation is really more probable because everything except the original creation is observible. Everything we know of is distinct and there are no part one species part another. I think the best way to approach in the schools is to NOT teach evolution or creation. I believe in creation, but since the original act is not observible, I will allow it not to be taught in public schools as long as the not observible evolution is also not taught. Evolution is as much religion as creation.

Carson peter Gray

What a refreshing change to see something intelligent. I really fear for the future with the things people are turning to in the name of religon. They openly reject thier own common sense and science in the name of religon. I even met a chap who believed the dinosours werein the ark with noah?

Thanks alot I really appreciate the hard work you put into this.

George

The main issue with evolution as a science is that, for one, there are no observations that can be made. Thus, evolution must be classified in the same category as UFO's. Secondly, evolution is supposedly an ongoing process. If so, where are the shrew's that can "almost fly" or any half-bats? Where are any of thousands of variations that should have taken place between apes and humans? Where for that matter are the billions of countless variations of species that should be the go between for any number of billions stages in the so-called evolutionary ladder? The evidence should be overwhelming if evolution took place. If it is possible to locate fossils that are allegedly millions of years old, then we should also be able to find all the evidence to go with every "mutation" from then until our present day. In any case, I find that teaching evolution even as a theory, should not be done in ANY science class unless UFO's, and other "he-said, she-said" conspiracies are also allowed to bewilder our young minds.

Bill Daniels

YOU ARE ALL GOING TO BURN IN HELL!!!! In the meantime could you please tell me how I can evolve my toaster into a DVD player? I don't really care about toast but my DVD's keep melting in the toaster.

Thanks for the good work.

Kimberly Wills

Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.

After reading some utter BULLS*** on this creationist website I found, about dinosaurs and man living together - interspersed with 'believe in god or go to hell' - AND presented as absolute fact, I nearly pulled my hair out. This was from the new 'museum' in whatever state it was. Fortunatly, I found your site shortly afterward and feel much better now. I realize there will probably always be creationists who refuse to see 'the word of god' as anything but totally literal, but I'm hoping your site will inject a little sanity into the world. Thank you.

Evolutionists convince many to believe their improvable theories and it’s now forbidden for schools to teach in contrary. Why should students value things like school and their behavior if they’re taught they evolved from apes? I don’t believe evolution should even be taught in science class because it doesn’t pass the scientific method. In the other hand there is confusion among creationists (I’ll mention it later). Lets take a look at the evolutionary theories first. Take spontaneous generation for example. How could a cell just come out of nowhere? The cell is said to be more complex than NYC, so it would be ridiculous to believe that. (That theory has already been abandoned anyway.) Why not believe that there is a creator that can make something out of nothing? Mutations may cause changes to species within their families but will never form new families. This is also supported biblically. For example, there are many breeds of dogs yet they're all still dogs. I think it’s racist that some evolutionists say that the natives from places like Australia may be the closest link to apes. Why can’t they give up and admit they’ll never find a link between apes and us? Who would want to believe they evolved from a hopeless ape anyway? The fossil record strongly supports creationism. The empty strata may have to with a worldwide flood. The theory of uniformity assumes that all natural processes worked the same way in the past. The Flood story also explains why some rare animals can be discovered today. Other times it might just be cross breeding or something. Humanists look at are “animal ancestry” as an excuse for immorality and violence. This provides license for people’s inappropriate behavior. At least creationists have their bible to tell them the origin and remedy for evil. The interesting thing is that many times animals behave better that humans. Did you know animals only mate because they have to? They don't do it just for the sake of doing it. This is because the live only by instinct so they can stay alive. In the other hand, humans have the freedom to make unreasonable choices that could kill them. Unfortunately the bible has rarely been studied deeply by many creationists(Comparing text-to-text and using prayer for some logical and supernatural guidance). It no wonder many are biblically illiterate! It’s because of this that there are so many different churches. Most of them don’t celebrate their seventh-day Sabbath (friday sunset to saturday sunset) to remind them of creation. Much less do they even celebrate their "lord's day" on sunday which originated from Pagan Rome. There are creationists who say that immortal souls are burning in hell right now. That doesn't even make sense. How can an immortal soul even feel pain? And what kind of remedy for sin is that? The bible explains clearly that the souls are mortal and the evil ones will get burned out of existance AFTER a period of a thousand years. This period will start after Christ returns to bring his people to heaven. I'm sure if people read the bible carefully they would get to know God a lot better and would behave better knowing that he doesn't want to torment anyone, or even take their life away. Another point that many creationists miss is the fact that their life, body, and blessings all come from God. If they really thought about that, they would think twice before putting on a tattoos, peircings, make-up, jewlery, etc. which you don't need anyway. The best thing to do is be modest. Sure you can have watches, braces, glasses and so on, but keep it simple. It doesn't matter what people think of you, because God always thinks of you.

Dave Sacks

I want to congratulate the team who designed and maintains this website, particularly the very extensive and cross-referenced FAQ. I am neither a biologist nor a creationist, but a PhD student in cognitive psychology. I was curious about the issue of irreducible complexity from a theoretical standpoint. Your explanation was excellent, to the point, with clear language.

I was under the impression that Behe (I have not read his book) had proposed a competing theory, with testable hypotheses, to explain certain biochemcial processes. But instead, as a scientist, he simply picked a phenomena that has yet to be fully explained, although still explained much more so by evolutionary theory and experimental biology than I originally thought. Because we haven't fully explained it, everything else that has been explained is now irrelevent. It's even more disingenuous coming from a scientist than a fundementalist.

I do believe there are many "irreducible" complexities awaiting any scientist, but our job is to reduce those as well. To continue explaining that which has yet to be explained, and never to simply brush something off as unsolvable.

Thanks for having a great site, and keep up the excellent work.

Ken Griffiths

I sent this tongue-in-cheek letter to the local paper:

Intelligent Design for unintelligent Americans

Far from decrying Intelligent Design, Australians should encourage Americans to adopt the teaching of ID theory instead of the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

This will lead to the evolution of a scientifically illiterate American population, meaning a decline in superpower status. This will allow the rest of the world to catch up.

Mary

I was very happy to stumble across your web site, However I'm afraid that the message will fall on blind eyes and closed minds. In spite of scripture being filled with contradictions, believers will not be swayed. Worse, the number of people who believe in evolution is decreasing if a recent statistic on television was correct. According to that source, only 1/3 of the population believes in evolution. We are becomeing a society led by those with closed minds and with too many of it's members emulating those leaders. There is work to be done, and apparently educators haven't found an effective way to do it. Mediums, ghosts, yeti and extrterrestrial aliens are ok, but not evolution. Scary.

David Chisholm

Regarding moon distance from Earth. I diffidently suggest that your correpsondent works through the arithmetic for himself before asking his question. Moon/Earth distance = 400,000km = 400,000,000m = 40,000,000,000cm. 40,000,000,000cm / 4cm per year = 10,000,000,000 (10 billion)years. PLENTY of time for the orbit to decay to its present distance. Deep time is hard to visualise, but the effort is worthwhile.

David Ferguson

I believe in Intelligent Design. I am inclined to support and old earth theory of creationism as opposed to a young earth theory. I am checking out your site to see what some of the evolutionary apologetics are in response to Intelligent Design.

As I read through your FAQ sheets to see what you have to say, I am getting the impression that most evolutionists are pretty impatient towards and scornful of people who believe in creationism in one form or another. That scorn comes across loud and clear in the editoral commentary aaccomanying the FAQ discussions.

This impatience and scorn is all too common coming from evolutionists. Of course, I realize that creationists have their own temper problems. But there are there are many books on Intelligent Design written in a calm, rational tone of voice that manage to get their points across without painting evolutionists as nihilistic pagans.

Here's my point and question. Why the anger? If evolution is self-evident and self-supporting then how is creationism even remotely a threat? A book on creationism should be no more threatening to a young person than a copy of Aesop's Fables. The evolutionist response to creationism is akin to that of a book banning. Wouldn't creationism be deselected from public discourse faster if its flaws were laid open for all to see in a public manner? If not, then maybe a strong case can be made that creationism has strong survival traits from generation to generation? ;)

Anyway, here's what I want to see: an explanation of evolution written in a friendly, non-condescending tone. Not begging questions or avoiding difficult topics. Specifically addressing the religious implications of evolution. Written with the assumption that a religious person is attempting to make an honest inquiry into a difficult subject. Written with a sense of compassion and patience that acknowledges that a sensitive area is being breached and that people should not be brow-beaten into submission. Maybe such a book exists. If so, I would love to know its title.

brightmoon

i loved that POTM about ape ancestry and common descent ...please please please keep up the good work

incidentally ny is trying to put ID into the school system here .....it's before the assemly as a bill

any advice on how to stop this pseudoscience nonsence?

Thank you for a very well organized, logical presentation of these various scientific explainations... It is a bit amazing to me that the need for such argument exists, but it seems that many people refuse to see reality for what it truly is... And frankly, the acceptance of scientific principles and findings, contrary to what the zealots would have us believe, does NOT necessarily negate one's religious faith; in fact, it could very simply increase one's understanding of God's divine work (if that is how one views the universe.) I mean, consider the possibility that evolutionary processes, for example, are just the method used by the Creator to develop life; perhaps the complexity of the process as described by Science could be seen as evidence of God's work, rather than a refuting of it. He made the Big Bang happen, knowing that the universe would organize itself according to his design, because He crated the laws of Physics, Biology, Geology, etc. when He created the world... Just a thought. Keep up the good work.

I'm just a dumb creationist

I'm just a dumb creationist, I haven’t yet evolved to your evolutionist level ha ha ha ha h hahhhhhaha

It really amazes me as to how blind evolutionist can be, you believe in bad science ther is no prooof of evolution it is hog wash pure and simple. I have seen both sides, your side is lacking and it sounds like you people are getting very desperate since you are loosing ground. You believe in evolution just because you want to and you would not dare beleive in God because that would make you face that you are a sinful fallen creature in desparte need of salvation. But hey that is you choice and man I am for choice arent you?

Eugene Lai

First of all allow me to commend every one who has contributed to this great site. It does an absolutely fantastic job in explaining biology in layman terms, and I am always impressed by the level-headedness that you all display in your articles and your comments

I have a problem that I have been thinking about for at least 3 years, and I still have not figure it out.... so I hope you guys can throw some light to this.

In your FAQ, you have

Q "Don't you have to be an atheist to accept evolution?" A "Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution as the scientific explanation for biodiversity, See..."

Just because some people of the faith think it is not a issue does not make it a non-issue. Likewise, it is not reasonable say that "since some Catholic priests are pedophiles and that the church are known to have tolerated their behaviour for a long period of time, the Catholic faith accepts pedophilia." What is the logical difference between this and your Q&A?

This is the exact reason why scientists with faith are routinely dismissed as non-believers by fundamentlists. In my humble opinion, this is a fair accusation. A believe system that revolves around an absolute entity such as christian god cannot be adaptable at the same time. At some point science and religion become plainly incompatible. An attempt to reinterpret religion to fit modern science is no more acceptable than an attempt to twist science to fit a particular religion viewpoint.

Eur.Ing. A J Edwards

I came across your site somewhat by accident while researching another matter altogether. To be fair, I could not care less whether so-called "creationism" is right or wrong. However,having read the site contents I am intensely irritated by the way in which people's credentials are attacked - and not their published work. This is usually an indication that the attacker is unable to refute the author's work so the character of the author is attacked. This appears to me to be common American practice. You must surely understand that it is the work that must be attacked (in an academic sense) and not the author. It seems to me that it is a uniquely American attitude to attempt to de-bar people from comment just because they did not attend some particular type of university. I would consider this to be the denigration of the true meaning of academic study - after all the greates advances in the decipherment of ancient scripts were made by amateurs. Perhaps when American universities are at least another 800 years old they may have learned a little humility.

David

I have something that can be added to claim Claim CA341

Hovind indirectly admits that his $250,000 Offer is impossible, and is flawed.

The mp3 proves it in his own words...

Don McInroy

You are deceiving yourselves. There are two origins of thought. One is from God (The Creator) and the other is from satan (The Deceiver). The thoughts that enter your mind are not all from within. So, evolutionists, please explain to me how my prayers to God in Heaven through his son Jesus Christ are answered, and have been answered repeatedly time after time after time for years and years. Specific prayers, not vague generalities. Too specific to be coincidence. Are they answered by the forces of nature?...or by dead apes?...or by the universe? So please provide your intelligent...er, I mean smart scientific answer to how prayer is answered. I,m sorry, I KNOW you don't have an answer, but I trust you will continue to trust in your own limited knowledge to be all the truth that you need in this life and the next. So, are you deceiving yourselves or have you been deceived?

In the flood section, I sorley miss a simple description of the amount of rain that needed to fall, to create a flood that covered even the highest mountains.

fast math:

Raining 40 days > cover mountains up to 29 000ft (8 900 meters) above the sea level. 29 000ft(8900 meters)/40 days = 10 500 inches (222.5 meters) /day 10 500 inches (222.5 meters)/24 hours = 440 inches (9.25 meters)/hour 440 inches (9.25 meters)/60 minutes = 7 inches (154 milimeters)/minute 7 inches (154 millimeters)/60 seconds = 0,10 inches (2.57 millimeters)/second.

Aside from this flood story, the heaviest rains ever recorded in one hour were 181 mm. This means that the downpour during the flood were 50 times heavier than the heaviest downpour ever recorded. The heaviest 24 hour downpour in the US, in a 24 hour period was in Houston TX, where 43 inches fell in 24 hours, comparing with the 10 500 inches it fell in a 24 hour period during the flood, that's more than 244 times the rainfall in Texas.

Doug Lay

I read PZ Myers critique of Wells chapter on Haekel's embryo's and wanted to challenge the conclusion that similar characteristics such as "gill slits" are evidence of common ancestry. In Myers discussion of similarities among embryo's he states the following; "The best explanation for these phenomena is that they are a consequence of a common heritage". This expresses a common argument of evolutionists and I would just say that as a software designer I have learned that the existence of common charactaristics or patterns in a complex system is more likely evidence of a designer than anything else. Designers use common patterns to solve similar problems. Its not surprising at all that the fundamental mechanics of subsystems that support hearing, breathing, etc. in mammals would be similar. That could just as easily be explained by a common designer as by common ancestry in an evolutionary model.

jacobsen

It's amazing how you fundamentalist Darwinians keep the fantasy of evolution alive! Your fancy words hide the ''science'' that truly disproves the silliness of such a hideous explanation of life. I noticed you quoted Darwin on your site at the top. Want another quote from Darwin that may embarrass you? Be glad to send it! Course facts never get in the way of TALK ORIGIN, do they? Neither does debate! Their is no debate. The degrees of Sagan, Gould and Dawkins are worthless when the truth is exposed just like the Piltdown man. The cover=up was exposed, now the ''science'' of evolution is being challenge. You lose!

Ed Hensley

I have college degrees in computer science, but have fallen in love with evolution in recent years. I collect data on atavisms and unusual biological specimens, such as humans with tails, humans with six fingers and toes, humans with multiple breasts and nipples (Polymastia and Polythelia), and wolf men (Congenital Hypertrichosis Lanuginosa). Most of my focus has been on humans and how these atavisms are evidence of proof and evidence against intelligent design. A recent headline from abcnews.com via the associated press documents a puppy with 6 legs being found in Malaysia. Are there more documented cases of animal atavisms I could add to my data? I have focused mostly on human atavisms and not much on animal atavisms. I am an amateur biologist, especially when compared to those on your website and would appreciate more detail on atavisms in general and animal atavisms in particular.

ew

in response to Claim CB921 (irreducible complexity:

why are you not citing the stunning finds resulting from the AVIDA experiment in digital evolution? AVIDA has shown a means by which irreducibly complex structures like the eye can evolve in stepwise fashion. AVIDA has shown this very process occurring in the lab, in a digital environment, with digitial organisms that spontaneously evolve the ability to do an irreducibly complex mathematical operation that's dependent upon prior adaptations that in themselves do not produce the skill. the AVIDA writeup was a discover magazine cover story, i believe back in february 05. full text here:

http://www.carlzimmer.com/articles/2005/articles_2005_Avida.html

martien kuylman

Thanks for this website.

There is a debate going on in the netherlands between the evolutionists and the creationists. I am quite happy to point out this website here and there to keep up the quality of the discussion.

Thanks!

Martien

Robert Esland

In the article on this website "Changing Views of the History of the Earth" it is mentioned that

Clair C. Patterson produces accurate "primeval" lead isotopic measurements from minerals of the Canyon Diablo meteorite which contain very little (less than ten parts per billion) uranium. Meteorites provide the final solution to the puzzle, for they both are "rocks which formed at the same time as the Earth," and provide the important data which allows lead isotope computations to look back to the formation of the Earth.

I would be interested to learn how someone, without having been present at the occurence of the event, can be so absolutely certain that meteorites formed at the same time as the Earth, that they feel confident to use this belief to base their scientific argument on.

I could follow the above argument if it would have said: based on the assumption that meteorites formed at the same time as the earth....

But it doesn't. It states as fact that meteorites and the Earth formed at the same time. I am puzzled.

B. HOLDER.

re: Mark Isaak response on beneficial mutations evolving a stick insect..... As I understand, many small beneficial mutations occurring in population of, say: ant-like creatures will completely morph the skeletal structure and metabolic functions into a stick-like creature. I.e.: through a series of small mutations, a beneficial extension to the left anterior leg will appear on an offspring that did not exist in the parent. In time, and with a subsequent beneficial mutation, the extended stronger leg will accidentally mutate into a still larger and stronger extension of the leg. Now, the creature has one enlarged leg and is unable to maneuver as well, but mates with another mutated member of the population who accidentally mutated a right anterior leg with, you guessed it, two successful mutations which approximate the size and strength of the first mutant. And, of course, the offspring will have two matching anterior legs. We are still a long way from a stick creature. My question is this: from the known quantity of functional cells, can you quantify the number of ‘beneficial’ mutations required to morph from the ant to the stick??? It seems improbable, but I’m sure the calculations are out there somewhere. Remember, mutations are small, so the enlarged legs would require considerable beneficial changes. And, I used the population mutation example so the creature wouldn’t have to mutate two beneficial anterior legs by himself... Looking forward to a response...

primoz

Here is a claim from my animal behavior class: evolution is not a fact because it explains facts. My answer to this was that the Theory of Evolution is the explanation of facts (observables) and that evolution as a process is a fact. Is there a better answer to this apparently popular claim?

M Chouinard

Well organized and nicely done. Since science is a continuum and we are learning all the time, at some point we discard unworkable theories, no matter how dear to the heart. I grew up through "land bridges" that made no sense (except to biologists) as a physical scientist and delighted as plate tectonics exonerated Wegener. I have watch bad science from the creasionists and equally bad science from the evolutionist rather than having the courage to say "I don't know", No one will resolve the issue, for there is as much faith in evolution as there is in creation, a delightedly enough uncertainty in it all to keep us wondering, amazed, and awestruck at the incredible beauty and complexity of it all. I teach physics, it is not the answers that are important, but the questions we raise...and I should think the evolutionist and creationist, putting mechanisims and bias aside should look at the woodpecker's skull and say "Isn't this an amazing structure" - I'm still chewing on Stephen Hawking's works and no he doesn't have it all together, it certainly gives one pause to think...then I step outside on a beautiful night with my lovely wife and can sit is awe of the heavens and still can't explain a thing about women or why she loves me...and there I think all a sudden of us males - evolutionist and creationist are suddenly far beyond our depth. And in all honesty we are like a couple of little boys playing with sticks in a mud puddle and thinking that one of us has it all figured out and then we stop in wonder at a blue damsel fly.

Thanks again for a good site and the good thinking, from a creationist friend who, like all of us, doesn't have it all together -"Like iron sharpeneth iron, so does one man sharpeneth another" A good verse that applied to us all as we think, and test ideas, and listen. Mike Chouinard

John-Daniel Encel

When I read the March 2005 Feedback item from Randall Wald, suggesting that religious Jews, even the most extreme ones, are not critical of science in the same way that fundamentalist Christians are, I was reminded of something I was given a copy of, a long time ago. I found a copy on the Web, here: http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/_judaism_/9357 This is an example of at least one extremely religious Jew, the late Lubavitcher rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, putting forward arguments that will, I think, be sadly familiar in tone to anybody who's seen the anti-evolution and anti-science arguments of fundamentalist Christians.

It also turned out that the document emanating from Rabbi Schneerson was included in a multi-author book which receives an extremely critical examination and review here: http://www.talkreason.org/articles/challenge.cfm The review's description of the book shows that some other religious Jews take much the same view of evolution as Schneerson does, although the reviewer does say that the other authors' arguments are not quite as bad as Schneerson's.

Randall Wald's comparison of religious Jewish and Christian attitudes was explicitly extended to cover 'even the most extreme religious Jews I've heard of', but I think the evidence shows that, although it may well be generally applicable, it's not universally applicable.

Staffan Sjoberg

The link to Genesis (in Swedish) is not current. The new URL is http://www.genesis.nu/

Ken Shackleton

I was just reading the POTM by John Harshman describing the relationships between humans and the other apes using DNA sequences. It is an excellent post; very easy to follow for someone of my limited education in the field.

I do have a question though...how did John come to select ND4 and ND5 as the sequences for this test? Was it a random selection or was there some other reason for selecting those sequences.

I read the post twice and did not see the reason mentioned, so I apologize in advance if I missed that detail.

Please address Sarfati's comment that the universe must have had a cause since it had a beginning - Gupta

Frank Marsh

In Volume 18(1) of TJ (2004), a creationist technical journal, there are three articles on the evolutionary origin of sexual reproduction. The authors concluded that there is no evolutionary explanation for sexual reproduction. An evolutionist suggested that I try this website for an explanation. After searching your site, I have not been able to find an explanation as to how the process of sexual reproduction (the sperm and the egg) evolved. There are a few references to sexual reproduction such as:

"For what it's worth, I think that sexual reproduction evolved initially as an accident due to the diploid nature of the DNA material, and was conserved in later lineages, but I'm no expert." feedback/feb98.html

"There are advantages that come with sexual reproduction; and life forms have developed which use both sexual and asexual." feedback/sep03.html

"...you ask which came first, the penis or the vagina. The answer, of course, is neither. Most animals that reproduce sexually do not have either of those structures; others have both. Single-celled organisms that reproduce sexually may just have a single gene difference." feedback/may01.html

None of these responses even makes a serious attempt to explain the origin of the sperm and the egg. There are some references to other websites, but after checking these it was found that these websites had no explanation for how sexual reproduction evolved either. So it is correct to conclude that evolutionists have no explanation as to how sexual reproduction evolved, that it is merely a faith belief?

Cheers,

Frank Marsh

Lisa Z.

Just recently my boyfriend has begun taking me to his Sunday school. I was surprised at first because I was not expecting to go, he told me that we were simply going to church. Much to my surprise and delight I found the Sunday school was going to be discussing evolution vs. creation for a period of a few weeks. After sitting and listening to everyone discuss this topic I found that they were very close minded. I was, at the time, only a little educated on the topic of evolution even though I believe in evolution. I went home that night and searched for something to help me to show the people in the class my point of view, as well as all the evidence backing evolution and not creation. I stumbled on this site and after reading everything I could for hours on end I was satisfied in my newfound knowledge. I scribbled down the notes I would need and studied up until the next Sunday school. Ever since I have been able to refute almost everything they say, the evidence they have for creation is very weak. They don't believe me and I don't expect them to but I hope that I am giving them a fresh perspective on evolution and making them think. I also don't want to bash their relgion and I don't think I am, just showing them some evidence that disproves that one part of the religion. We are currently discussing feathers and how they disprove evolution. I have studied up on the subject and thanks to this wonderful site I am ready to go head first into the battle that rages on. Any advice I could get on the feather topic would be much appreciated, I want know as much as possible. Thank you for having such an informative and well put together site!