Evolution Myth Explodes

Darwin's Dangerous Legacy ** NEW ** (FEBRUARY 2009)

Creationism may be a term of derision, even among many Christians, but do these Christians really understand its implications?

We challenge you to listen to our talks with John Mackay, one of the World's leading Creationists and make your own mind up. In this special feature for 'Darwin Day' we also feature a challenging article by Steve Maltz and a timely song recorded on this topic by Howard Werth, a rock icon from the 70s.

The Bible & Creation
Listen now | Download
Science & Creation
Listen now | Download
For John Mackay's UK itinerary click here.

Questions answered
Listen now | Download
Listen now | Download
For John Mackay's latest DVD click here.

Click here to hear the full version of Howard Werth's recording of "Evolution Myth Explodes" and click here to order a copy of the full album.
A Challenge for Every Christian

Darwin’s dangerous legacy

By Steve Maltz

Just over two thousand years ago, in the womb of an unmarried Jewish girl, a life was created through the fertilisation of her egg by a non-human entity called the Holy Spirit. The correct chemicals were created out of nothing, as was the genetic information to ensure that the resultant human being was going to be very special indeed. Around thirty years later this same human being, Jesus, having been dead for three days, his body marked by the most horrific and disfiguring injuries, brought about by scourging and crucifixion, was brought back to life, his body healed so that he could walk, talk and eat broiled fish.

Of course you believe this, it is what marks you as a Christian. Without the miracle of the resurrection of Jesus, in the words of Paul, our preaching is useless and so is our faith. For Christians, God gives us the gift of faith to believe these miracles. Then there are other miracles. Did the red sea part for Moses? Did the sun really stand still for a day for Joshua? Did the water turn into wine? Science tells us that all of these are impossible acts, the Bible tells us that these are miracles. Where you stand on these issues is determined by where you stand in your faith. Has God given you faith to believe that pure water can be transformed at Jesus’ command into a complex but tasty smorgasbord of organic chemicals or that he could take a handful of loaves and fish and feed the equivalent of a small football crowd? God is a God of miracles, which puts Him on a collision course with those who cannot or will not admit to such possibilities. But where do you stand? Do you really believe all of those stories in the Bible where God seems to act in a way that is contrary to our rational minds?

Around a hundred and fifty years ago many Christians were beginning to falter in their faith. They still believed in the Resurrection, the minimum requirement for Christian belief, but the World had already entered the “age of Enlightenment”, when human reason took over from divine revelation as the dominant force in society. Human reason, rationalism, was the response to the dogmas of the Church and the pointless religious wars of recent years and Science took a firm foothold on the minds of the great thinkers of the day. God was relegated from an active role in the affairs of man, to the one who kick-started the Universe then left it alone. Nothing was considered exempt from this process and the Bible found itself re-examined, God’s written revelation was subjected to analysis by the human mind. It was called Higher Criticism. In the first edition (1771) of Encyclopedia Britannica, the entry for Noah’s Ark included much musing over the finer details of the Biblical account of the flood. In the ninth edition (1875) these had disappeared, no longer considered worthy of inclusion, the account having moved from Biblical account to mythology. That was the fruit of Higher Criticism.

It was within these changing times that a man appeared on a white charger as an embodiment of this new thinking. Charles Darwin was that man and his book, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” proved a rallying point for rationalists, intellectuals and even many Christians to declare the victory of the mind over the spirit, of naturalism over supernaturalism. What did Darwin do? He must have been significant because even now, 150 years later, we are celebrating “Darwin Day”, our Natural History Museum is a shrine to the man and the BBC is churning out hours of radio and TV dedicated to his ideas.

What Darwin did was to provide a scientific methodology to disengage mankind from the influence of the Bible. What had been considered as certainties could now be dismissed as myths, legends or poetry as discoveries and theories, interpreted by the rational mind of the scientist, began to take centre stage. The clincher came a few decades later at the infamous Scopes “monkey” trial, when a clever prosecutor managed to ridicule the ill-prepared Baptist minister and the theory of evolution firmly cemented itself in the Christian psyche as the most reasonable explanation for life on Earth. For Creationism, the prevalent view before Darwin, it was a long slippery path, certainly in the UK, into ridicule, denigration and bitterness. Creationists are now portrayed as simple-minded innocents at best or contemptible liars at worst. How could it have come to this, how can Christians fall out so spectacularly?

If you took a straw poll of any group of British Christians and asked them their views on this issue, the vast majority would say something like this: I believe in the Bible and that God created life on Earth, but we surely need to marry this up with the overwhelming scientific evidence of the evolutionary process. This is a reasonable view, after all. But, then we must ask ourselves whether, as Christians, we are governed by “reasonable” views … or Biblical revelation. In our scientific age, with our secular educations and fed by our humanistic media, it is safest to take refuge in a majority view, held by those we have grown to respect, from David Attenborough to Auntie Beeb. Clever people have assured us that evolution is a done deal, the answer to everything. That is why there is a Darwin Day this year. Inasmuch as the human heart requires explanations of the World in which we live, the theory of evolution is the closest we have come to a secular religion. Darwin is the secular messiah and Dawkins and his ilk are his prophets. This is what you have bought into.

The trouble is that evolution as an explanation of the origin of life on Earth is inconsistent with a Biblical world view and any attempt to shoe-horn it into Holy Scripture is a fudge and a compromise. To illustrate this, I ask just one question. Did Adam and Eve actually exist? The apostle Paul certainly thought so.

So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. (1 Corinthians 15:45)

And so did Jesus.

But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female’ (Mark 10:6)

But what about you? What do you think? Can the Bible be trusted in every way, or do we just pick and choose what to believe in, swayed by the prejudices and cleverness of others. The Bible genealogies suggest that Adam’s grandson was a contemporary of Noah. So if Adam was not flesh and blood, then what about Noah, was he a legendary figure and the Flood just a myth or an allegory? Noah’s own son, Shem, lived at the time of Abraham, the father of our faith, so could they have actually met? Or is Abraham just another legend, in which case who exactly decides when fables give way to actual history? Or, putting it another way, when does that great gallery of faithful ones in Hebrews 11 switch from fiction to fact? And if Abraham’s existence is questionable, then that takes us into very dangerous waters indeed. If the foundations of your faith are shaky then on what basis are you secure in your salvation?

Our Christian faith depends on the fact that Adam was flesh and blood. A real man had to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and bring about that curse on mankind known as the Fall, the falling away from God and the need for redemption, bought for us by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Adam sinned and, as the Bible tells us, death came into the World.

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned (Romans 5:12)

If death came into the world through Adam and Eve, then what about the dinosaurs, crocodiles and mammoths that supposedly pre-dated them in the billions of years since the first cell was created by some chemical accident? How do you explain their deaths if death hadn’t yet entered the World? How do you explain the cancers and other diseases that these animals suffered, if the Fall hadn’t yet occurred? There are a lot of questions that need to be asked. Scenarios have been put forwards by Christians attempting to marry evolutionary theory with Scripture. Some put the millions of years required by the theory of evolution in between the first two days of Creation, others put them later in Creation week. They say they are being consistent with Scripture, but they still fail to explain how death had crept in before the Fall. Still others accept the full secular deal and concede a full animal ancestry! To these people we need ask, what is your starting point, the Bible or Science?

If Science is our starting point we are saying that our frame of reference is the constantly developing world of the scientist, the world of reason. If the Bible is our starting point, then it is the unchanging Word of God, the source of revelation. When these two Worlds seem to clash, as Christians we either stand or fall by the Word of God, without compromise, even if we are vilified by others, even brothers and sisters in Christ!

Six days, six days, I ask you! From billions of years to six days! You’re asking too much of me! Yes, it seems unreasonable, of course it does. Yet many scientists, proper scientists with qualifications and academic success are Creationists and have provided reasonable alternatives for their beliefs that don’t compromise the Word of God. But the virgin birth and the resurrection are unreasonable too, yet we accept them as truth. How big is your God? Do you struggle to fit Him into the box marked “miracles of Jesus”? If you can live with this then just consider Jesus’ other miracles. The reason why Jesus himself believed in a six day creation was because he was the one who did the creating! He was around at that time. Were Dawkins or Darwin around too? So who better to believe, an active eyewitness or an atheist postulator of theories?

“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” (Colossians 1:15-17)

Make no mistake, evolution is the religion of our age and it serves a jealous god that is most definitely not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It not only tells us that life came about through blind chance and that we are descended from apes, but it has insinuated itself into our consciousness, through our educational, legal, communication and – sad to say - ecclesiastical systems. It tells us that as life itself was a random chance, then our lives are random too. It has no room for absolutes, governed only by its rule of survival of the fittest. It makes abortion and euthanasia acceptable and finds its perfect expression in totalitarian regimes, like Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, where individual freedoms are sacrificed for the good of the majority, because individual lives are considered worthless.

One parting thought. Charles Darwin was groomed by his father to be a clergyman and, in his own words, “did not then in the least doubt the strict and literal truth of every word in the Bible”. His life, of course, followed a very different path, one that destroyed that faith, to the extent that, in a letter to a correspondent shortly before his death, wrote “'I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, and therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God'.

Darwin’s life work on formulating the theory of evolution was to lose him his faith in Father God. Don’t let it do the same for yours.

Comments :

human egg?

Good article Steve but have never thought that Mary's "Miriam's" egg could have been fertilized by sperm of Holy Spirit as that would mean that Jesus "Yeshua" would have had original sin through His mothers egg. Imaculate conception surely means that Mary conceived or carried to give birth, but could not be biologically fertilized with human egg?
It would assume therefore that God placed placed baby Jesus in Mary's womb through the Holy Spirit as He did not have original Sin?

Religious twaddle

I have just come upon this site so may be repeating the responses of others but I can not let this pass. You are saying that to believe in your god you must believe every single word of the bible. Why? The bible is a man-made guide book on “How to control people”. The laws included go beyond common sense and exact rigid, ridiculous control over the masses. The bible is a journal of bronze and iron age folk stories raised to the standard of "the word of god" by control freaks. Evolution puts us in our rightful place - we are really nothing special on this planet. From what I see, due to a smidgen of intelligence, you need an ancient book to make you feel wanted. Perhaps ignorance is bliss for you troubled, sad people desperate for the fatherly love you never had.

You then go on about adam and eve, original sin and the begets of the old testament – may I ask what planet you are on? These books were written by people with very limited knowledge of the extent of the real universe. Why did god not explain the full glory of his creation? Did he think we would not understand? These true words of god would have been totally beyond our comprehension but as they were revealed we would be truly amazed. Why did he not give some useful tidbits of information to these primitive folk? There is very little in all the books of the bible that is of any real use and these tend to be no more than simple common-sense. “Thou shalt not kill” – doh! If god had given his chosen people cures for diseases and knowledge of the unseen wonders of the universe then perhaps we could be amazed, but he didn’t and I am not.

You mention “totalitarian regimes, like Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, where individual freedoms are sacrificed for the good of the majority, because individual lives are considered worthless.” A little out of touch with reality I am afraid. Such regimes had nothing to do with the greater good of the majority; lots to do with the greater good of the dictators. I would say that the worst totalitarian regimes are catholicism and islam; control of the ignorant masses is very easy when you promise an eternal life to come.

You obviously do not fully understand evolution as we are not "descended from apes" - we and apes have a common ancestor (just google "human primate chromosome fusion" for proof - unless you think your god likes to trick us occasionally ;-). Evolution is backed by mountains of real evidence – much of which has been prophesized and fully fulfilled (unlike the derived, post-dated, contrived prophesies of christianity). Many attempts by creationists to disprove evolutionary theory have failed; Irreducibility being one of the most desperate (and hilarious).

I can understand, of course, that christianity gives you a sense of superiority and a chance to control by your words of wisdom but why believe ancient scripts just because they are old? Or because they correlate? People have done much more than link ridiculous folk stories in their endeavour to control. Why don’t you just admit that you do not understand the universe – we don’t understand; we are not perfect. Humans will slowly discover more and more of reality – but not if they are stuck way back before the dark ages! Science is the future not ancient folk tales. The bible may comfort you with its fairy tale notion of a better world to come but the reality that we are so transient is much more powerful. Every one of us is here not simply by the chance creation of those first amino acids; we are here by the amazing stroke of luck that our sperm was first to the egg.


i think u have made a great point about evolution. I am also a very big supporter of evolution. Although it is ok to not believe in science, it is simply impossible to discredit something that has been proven. I hope u will continue to be a champion of science.

WHAT KIND of evolution?

Microevolution is minor change that I, as a zoologist certainly would agree to.
Macroevolution is darwin's infamous 'descent with modification' and I cannot see any evidence of such a strange doctrine either in the field, laboratory, or fossil record.

Show me how MACROevolution has been "proven"

reply to 'What KIND of evolution?

Hi ,
Surely if evolution is true there must be at least some blatantly obvious examples of fossils in transition , that any member of the public would recognise as such .

I've got a few questions for you , what are the evolutionary explanations for the following :

1. Why is there male and female ? After all if the first organisms were self replicating , where is the advantage ? Surely in evolutionary terms there is greater advantage through reproducing on your own and being reliant on no-one .
2. How can the reproduction have evolved , evolution takes time (supposedly) and yet obviously living creatures can't hang around waiting to evolve in order to have offspring !
3. How can mainstream science disregard non-naturalistic explanations and at the same time believe in the Big Bang from nothing ? Clearly , things coming from nothing is not a natural process ,
4. Why aren't Komodo Dragons , Crocodiles & Alligators classed in the same group as dinosaurs , apart from them not being extinct ?

There is a very big

There is a very big difference between championing evolution and championing science . I am open minded to evolution , show me some transitional fossils and I'll believe it .

You boldly claim evolution as fact , well in that case can you explain the origin of life from non-life , in fact from nothing at all if you wish to look back further . If evolution is proven why do so many scientists doubt it ? 150 years since Origin of the Species and what is there to show for it , mind you Adolf Hitler would have agreed with you , evolution was a great inspiration for him showing that Jews and others were not really proper humans ......

I'd recommend the book ' God's Undertaker' by John Lennox .

I am open minded to evolution , show me some transitional fossil

Well, how many do you want? and between which taxa, there are loads

For instance:

Jawless Fish to Sharks

To name a few there are Cladosleache, Tristychius, Ctenacanthus, Paleospinax, Spathobatis and Protospinax in that order geochronologically

Or maybe Jawless fish to bony teleosts

The Acanthodians followed by, Cheirolepis, Mimia, Canobius, Aedulla, Parasemionotus, Oreochima and Leptolepis to name about half of them

Fish to tetrapods has one of the best records, or at lest most well known

Osteolepis, Eusthenopteron, Sterropterygion, the famous Tiktaalik, Pandericthys, ventastega, Elpistostege, Obruchevichthys, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, Pholidogaster, Pteroplax

or perhaps you want something more familiar such as human evolution's fossil record? Too easy Sahelanthropus Tchadenisis

Ardipithecus Ramidus
Ardipithecus Kadabba
Australopithecus Anamensis
Australopithecus Ramedus
Australopithecus Afarensis (cranial capacity: ~380-430cm³)
Australopithecus Africanus (cranial capacity: ~400-500cm³)
Australopithecus Garhi (cranial capacity: ~450-?cm³)
Australopithecus Bahrelghazali (unknown cranial capacity)
Homo Habilis (cranial capacity: ~590-650 cm³)
Homo Rudolfensis (cranial capacity ~526-752cm³)
Homo Ergaster (cranial capacity 700-850cm³)
Homo Erectus (cranial capacity 850-1100 cm³ )
Homo Antecessor (cranial capacity: 1000-1150cm³)
Modern humans (cranial capacity: 1100-1700cm³)

Notice how the cranial sizes are clearly transitional in size when layed out in chronological order. There's no disputing numbers.

So there you are, the transitional fossils

"If evolution is proven why do so many scientists doubt it ?"

The only scientists who do are creationists with no real credentials in biology. Even including them within the entire consensus it amounts 10 around 0.0001% of the total scientific community without exaggeration.

"150 years since Origin of the Species and what is there to show for it"

The entire field of biology

“mind you Adolf Hitler would have agreed with you”

The same Adolf Hitler who said that he believed that what he was doing was according to the will of the almighty creator?

The same Adolf Hitler who said that life could not evolve between ‘kinds’ as that idea is an abomination against god?

The same Adolf Hitler who implimented the Die Bucheri blacklist ban on all books that speak of Darwinism and monism?

The Same Adolf Hitler who destroyed The Freethinkers and Atheist Halls of Germany to set up religious institutions?

THAT Adolf Hitler?

“evolution was a great inspiration for him showing that Jews and others were not really proper humans”

How the hell could you confuse Martin Luther’s sermons and the book of Matthew (Particular when Jesus drive the Pharisees out of the temple) with evolution?

That’s the thing about creationists. Their ignorance of science seeps through to politics and history

They want to be spoon fed

It is obvious that you have done the hard work in thinking about this subject. I also have spent a great deal of time in finding and comparing primary sources, although you are by far my superior in your elucidation and clarity in this argument. My salute to you Roy

Britain's greatest ever

Britain's greatest ever scientist was a creationist , Sir Isaac Newton . Interestingly , he considered it very worthwhile to spend much time in Bible study including a book on the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation .

A.E Wilder-Smith with 3 earned Phds was also a confirmed creationist .

The supposed transitional changes are of such magnitude that the fossil evidence should be clear , which it is not . Dr John is absolutely correct . What good explanation is there for existence itself , through natural means ? What explanation is there for two sexes when evolutionists claim early organisms very successfully self-replicated ?

Anyway , the point is this . Time is ticking away and you need to get right with God . As Jesus said 'Repent and believe'.

transitional fossils

Transitional means a step on the way to something else. I wonder if the evolutionists would call anything living today "transitional". I suppose you can only assign the concept to the supposedly transitional creature when the transition has been made. I recon, though that anything transitional would not survive the transition.
Given the millions of of different species it is not surprising that some creatures look similar to others. This in itself does not prove that one is derived from another.
Darwin thought that changes in species were very slow so could not be observed in many life times. When the fossil record became better known, a famous but now dead evolutionist, Stephen J Gould, realized that the fossil record did not support gradual change, so he invented the concept of "punctate equilibrium". This states that creatures stay the same for yonks then suddenly change. How convenient to explain the fossil record.
Give me 100 different fish fossils; I could put them in an order according to their features, but I would not claim that this proves that one came from another, it is just a classification. You cannot prove evolution by so called transitional fossils.
You give interesting lists of supposed transitions, but you have got to admit there are many step changes that are either missing (evolution) or simply not there in the first place.

responding to Great comment , final sentence

Why ? Please explain. Enid

I hope your worldview brings

I hope your worldview brings you great joy ! Believing in God never got in the way of Isaac Newton's science , also Isaac Newton considered Bible prophecy a worthwhile occupation . Still he lived a long time ago , - what did he know !

As for mountains of evidence ?. If there were mountains of evidence for evolution NO-ONE would doubt it . Irreducible Complexity may be hilarious to some but to others it's an interesting view . The point about 'descended from & common ancestor' proves what ? Why not make the point that you believe we evolved from fish as my evolutionist cousin does ... but hey it's easier to link man to monkey (through common ancestry)

Try apologetics.com on itunes it might broaden your outlook .

Like Dawkins and others your worldview offers what exactly ? Why evangelize the belief that life is meaningless , at least Dawkins made a lot of money out of it - what are you getting out of it ? Hitler , the medieval Papacy , Mao , Stalin et all will all one day be judged by God as will we all . Think of the 2 thieves on the crosses either side of the Lord , which one are you going to be like ?

My worldview

My world-view offers the truth - not some cotton-candy, imaginary fairy world where I can live in eternal happiness with my saviour. Loads of ancient religions have been removed by science. Humans are an enquiring lot on the whole; we like to understand what is around us and why things work. Most people would prefer the truth to being told a load of rubbish to make us feel better - well I would anyway.

There is absolutely NO evidence at all for god, yet there is absolutely TONS of evidence that we have evolved over millions of years (not 6006!) Transitional fossils by the bucket load; genetic evidence linking animals (including us) to common ancestors. Consistent scientific method produces consistent scientific fact. You religious have no consistent approach.

Jesus says in the bible so many times (I hasten to add I don’t believe it) that whatever you ask for in prayer you will receive (no conditions). This is faith-speak and will not happen. You get a group of christians together, pick a group of dying people and pray for them (with or without their knowledge) and nothing will happen outside of chance. I challenge you! It was so mind boggling watching the news about the recent Italian earth-quake; People saying it was a miracle they had survived, yet next door 4 students had died in their dorm. A village of 250 people had lost 40 people - that’s chance in my book – or perhaps those 40 were evil :-( What a load of tosh.

Give me ONE SCRAP of evidence of god’s existence and I may see the light but I won’t be holding my breath. The truth doesn’t hurt anyone. If we accepted that life if short and we are all just lucky to be here, we would all be that much more precious.

Enid: Millions of sperm; one egg; no soul.

I look forward to your brain-washed responses...

Stephen Brown

Not a clue

You are living in the proof of God's existence , in fact you are proof yourself . It is very foolh to consider humans mere animals - are you so blind you can't see the difference .

The evidence fits design .

I don't know why you bother posting on here , perhaps you are trying to convince yourself . Give me a scientific explanation of the origin of everything from nothing and then maybe we will be impressed . Saying 'science will discover it one day' does not count as an answer!

"Saying 'science will

"Saying 'science will discover it one day' does not count as an answer!"

Neither does saying 'God made everything' without having the slightest shred of evidence that he exists.

There is abundant evidence ,

There is abundant evidence , fulfilled prophecy for one .

To believe life can come from non-life or that anything can can come from nothing goes against everything we know . Think about the origin of the universe and I mean - you think , not read people's opinions . How can something come ultimately from nothing ? Is that sensible ? Is it natural - can you think of an example of something coming from nothing ?

God made everything is not an answer , it is the answer .

I do relate to your sense of

I do relate to your sense of awe and reverence for the mystery of creation, indeed I share it. And if I'm honest with myself I experience an inexplicable sense of spiritual wonderment at the fact that the universe happened at all, and that we're here to talk about it and explore it. But I cannot accept what is written in the Bible because it describes an inaccurate history of the world, and its books have been written more recently than you think which makes it prophecies questionable.

I'm happy that the books of

I'm happy that the books of the Bible are written by who and when they claim .

Daniel chapter 9 for example predicts the life and death of Jesus , followed by another destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem . This is proof of supernatural information . Skeptical scholars try and date Daniel later because of it's enormous accuracy , but they cannot claim the words to have been written in the 1st century A.D !

The Bible is history and I would always take that version over another history . There was a time when people said that the Hittites never existed . The Bible said they did and now there are artefacts to prove it in museums .

My reply to Stephen

I doubt Stephen that you would accept the reality of God if someone were to give you proof. Here is my brainwashed response. I see that you base part of your proof of the non existence of God in evolution theory. To do this you obviously readily accept what you are told about evolution, maybe because it is dressed up in "scientific" language. Tons of evidence for evolution is simply not true. What you are calling "evidence" is not evidence at all, but the interpretation of evidence. Evolutionists have a narrative into which they fit the findings, but will never be able to prove if their narrative is correct in the first place. To be fair, I cannot prove to you the existence of a creator, but the more we know the more that evolution theory looks impossible. Even so called simple creatures are extremely complex. Do you think that the evolutionists claim of chemicals + time+sunlight+bolts of lightening= life fit the evidence or does the complexity of life demand something intelligent to create and assemble the components of life. It seems to me that a super intelligent nano technologist has been at work. Maybe God has not been described as a super intelligent nano technologist very often. You must have a great faith, Stephen, to believe evolution theory. A so called simple cell is full of nano machines. Just one example or we will be here all night. A beautiful motor is at the heart of energy production. It is called ATPase. As it spins it removes a phosphate complex to create energy and reassembles it again for the next cycle. Have a look The ATP motor Something of this complexity needed to be present in the very first cell. Who or what made it? Do not follow the crowd, let your common sense work for you.
Your other proof you give for the non existence of God is that bad things happen, and that prayer is never answered. I guess you mean a God who claims to be a loving God. Some people think that if God exists he would order the world so that bad things do not happen. Well that was the case in the beginning but man including you, Stephen, and I before I became a Christian, ignored it's creator. People do not say “what has gone wrong” because we were all born into a world that is the way it is. We think it is normal to have earthquakes and tragic deaths. Bad things happen to Christians and non Christians in this God- rejecting world.
God is not just a loving God, but he is also a fair God, and our rejection of him demands some sort of justice. He is also merciful and has provided a way of escaping his justice. Please speak to someone who can explain what we Jesus freaks call the “Gospel” or look at a Gospel Web Site

Doubting John...

Please give me some proof of god so that I can ignore it. I’m waiting…

I doubt, John, that you would accept the reality of reality if someone were to give you proof.

What I am calling evidence for evolution is scientific evidence and there is a lot. I am not going to list it all here again as you will simply ignore it. On October 23, 1996, Pope John Paul II made a formal statement to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that “fresh knowledge leads to recognition of the theory of evolution as more than just a hypothesis.” – even the catholics accept evolution as more than an un-proved theory.

Why must I have great faith to believe evidence which, given the opportunity, I can replicate in the field or in the lab. I am an astro-physicist and I can only assume you have never studied stellar formation – millions of years are required not a few thousand as the bible allocates. This huge time-scale fits with all the observable evidence (I can obtain spectra in my own observatory, calculate parallax and obtain magnitudes) and with the known laws of physics. Once again, religion has NO evidence! But then again evidence does not exist, only our interpretation of it. Perhaps your interpretation of your mountains of biblical evidence is wrong? You can not interpret the evidence for a god as there is absolutely none outside of your heads.

My point about prayer not working is that nothing happens from your god. I have heard so many xtians thanking god for their parking spaces; finding their lost keys; one even told me that time had reversed so she could make an appointment! Yet these are just chance (or misreading your watch). Your god does not answer prayer. I did not say that bad things prove the non-existence of god. I said that prayer will not change bad things and therefore, as your bible promises ALL prayer will be answered, your god does not exist.

ATPase is not a motor. ATPases are a class of enzymes that catalyze the decomposition of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) into adenosine diphosphate (ADP) and a free phosphate ion. Perhaps you meant the bacterial flagellum which uses ATPase as a power source. You assume that evolution could not have made this machine, yet we simply see the end product – we do not know how this flagellum came about over millions of years. Many theories may been proposed for evolutionary processes to create such a motor. All you have is “god did it”. That is not common sense! How does it go? “Common sense is anything but common”.

“Do not follow the crowd, let your common sense work for you.” That’s what I am doing! I am not following the crowd (some estimates put the “believers” of some god or other at over 5 billion – quite a crowd) and common sense points to anything but a god.

A major problem with understanding evolution is our inability to imagine the time-scales involved: 3,000,000,000+ years is a long time when we are constrained to just a few score and ten. As you stated, bacterial life provides the major building blocks for life – even us humans are a vast amalgam of bacterial life. Also, were did your god come from? Where did your “super intelligent nano technologist” learn his skills? Oh, of course it has always been. Pathetic.

As far as I have read, most evolutionists do not claim that “chemicals + time + sunlight + bolts of lightening = life”. Most of them admit that they do not know how life started; they just recognise that evolution was the natural result of that initial formation. Perhaps we will never know how life started, but the thought that a god just “poofed” it into existence is pretty pathetic. Where is the evidence?

We humans do not fully understand the world around us but our understanding is improving as we investigate our universe with science. Just blindly assuming that a god must have created it all and we shouldn’t meddle just doesn’t work. If we had never investigated the workings of the world we would be in a sorry state indeed. Where would we be now without the medicines and technology science has provided? Up until the early 20th century the average life expectancy at birth for humans was around 30. Since the introduction of anti-biotics and other medical (not spiritual, which in your book is now worse) care the life expectancy has risen sharply to the current world average of 66! Very low life expectancy is still to be found in the poorer regions of africa where religion is still rife. Of course, people will call on desperate measures when they and their children are dropping like flies. Perhaps you can pray for them? It will not help of course, but it will make you feel better.

So a god created an ordered and perfect world and we corrupt it with our sin. You really believe that your god made such a hopeless mess of his first humans? What a pathetic god that he couldn’t even get his first pair anywhere near his ideal. Your fair, loving god “has provided a way of escaping his justice”, that’s a good one, “and our rejection of him demands some sort of justice”. Why? Can’t he live with his mistakes? I have no fear of true “justice”, but your gods' justice is anything but – it is your interpretation of it. I am a loving, caring father of six and would not punish any of my children with eternal damnation. But perhaps I am more loving than your god.


Am I responding to Stephen Brown, who has such strong things to say about prayer in his paragraph entitled 'Doubting John' ? Allow me to respond to that part of the diatribe. Prayer that comes sincerely and quietly from the heart is always answered. I am not talking about 'shopping bag' prayer - I am talking about the prayer we pray when we need to know how to deal with a situation so that we might be fair, loving and just in our behaviour, rather than immediately leaping in with a lot of hot air with something to justify ourselves and force an opposing view on others.
Prayer, real prayer by a true believer, always preceeds action, guided by the Holy Spirit. Not necessarily action by others, but action or change within ourselves.
Furthermore, prayer doesn't always make us feel better, sometimes it shows us that we were about to make, or perhaps had made a wrong and hasty decision, it can make us feel very uncomfortable, having to go back to put things right. You are, I think, referring to a very different kind of prayer, with which I personally have very real reservations, however well meaning. There is no better prayer for any Christian than the Lord's Prayer which is all encompassing, for God knows the heart and needs of all and will respond or not in accordance with His Mercy and wisdom in the light of the far bigger picture than we are capable of seeing in our tiny human minds, and will only understand in hindsight. As to the Bible telling us that women must not preach, as you commented in an earlier paragraph which held reference to my name, I don't preach, but I speak the truth as a grateful child of God, who is yet still fallible , for my journey is not yet done. If speaking the truth is preaching, so be it! I don't expect you to agree with my view, but nor should you seek to justify use of the Holy BIble with bits taken out of context that suit your persuasion, and ignore it's essential message to all who are joyfully in Christ:-
' There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.' (Galations 4.20).
To remain in denial of a Creator is your freedom of choice, which Praise God, as yet we still have in this country. Even the freedom to waste money on advertisements on buses in an attempt to do the impossible, i.e. remove Almighty God from the lives of those who have sought and found the Way . Enid.

Astrophysisist falls into black hole

It is obvious to me, Stephen Brown, that you have no intention in engaging in a civilized exchange of views. Your statement “please give me some proof of god so that I can ignore it [my italic]. I’m waiting...” and calling my view “pathetic”, shows me that there is little point in engagement. For the sake of the forum, I need to correct your outdated view on ATPase. It is a motor. I am sorry that my link did not work but here is a graphic demonstration of the motor in action
ATPase motor in action

You black hole is bigger than mine...

"So that I can ignore it." - like you ignore the evidence FOR evolution. You keep on saying that there is no evidence for evolution but you ignore any that is given to YOU. My point is that you can offer absolutely NO evidence for your religion, not even the slightest. That was my point. Good to see that you can write off evolution, which has loads of physical, real evidence, but can't take criticism of your man-made beliefs. It would have been nice if you could have persuaded me that my "pathetic" view of your lack of proof was incorrect, but obviously you can not. Your ATPase powered motor is amazing proof of the wonders of the evolutionary process. I am quite willing to engage in a reasoned debate on evolution – but you are ignoring all reason. My black hole is not quite as massive as the one you can not climb out of!

The black hole information paradox

I totally agree with Dr John. Evolution is not backed up by concrete evidence. Why do people go on about the “overwhelming evidence for evolution”? We can not, and indeed should not, accept this evolutionary (or for that matter, any) theory without hard evidence.

Evolutionists, I challenge you to show us incontrovertible evidence for evolution, not a load of (carbon, radiometric or stratigraphic) dated, transitional fossils (matching not just the missing links but dated to the time periods expected; not simply a load of fish from today’s catch), or millions of extinct animal fossils, or masses of documented observations of evolution at work (such as finch beaks or pigeons or the evolution of dog species or the tropical blue moon butterfly or genetic engineering, etc.), or ridiculous predictive dna tripe (merged primate chromosomes or phylogenetic trees reconstructed with the dataset of complete mitochondrial genomes or genetic drift or double endosymbiotic events in cryptomonad algae or genetic detritus such as pseudogenes or comparative sequence analysis or phylogenetic reconstruction or molecular variance patterns, etc.), or comparative study of the anatomy of groups of animals or plants, or evidence from geographical distribution, or continental drift, or evidence from studies of complex iteration, or evidence from speciation, or evidence from interspecies fertility and modifications, or evidence from antibiotic and pesticide resistance, etc. What a load of twaddle!

If Sir Isaac Newton (the great creationist who, even if he had been born after evolution was proposed would not have been swayed from his beliefs) were alive now he would turn in his grave. Now I am sure Dr John can finally put an end to this ridiculous discussion by providing us with the concrete, hard, incontrovertible scientific evidence for Christianity which is required by all theories (not just evolution) for their validation (excluding ancient writings of course, otherwise we would have to believe those silly Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Bahá'íst, Jewish, FSM etc religions as well – what with all their foolish written gospel evidence!)

Over to you John. Or perhaps someone else can chip in with the necessaries and show these evolutionists a thing or two…

1. Your life is slipping away

1. Your life is slipping away and you're wasting time .
2. Bible prophecy itself is proof , if you think predictions are easy stick your wages on horses and see how you get on
3. Since evolution offers no explanation of life from nothing it's no big deal ,
4. God is not impressed by intellectuals
5. Evolution is not overwhelming , well it is for you but not everyone .

Proving Christianity

I would love to come up with incontrovertible scientific proof for Christianity. However, science is not the best tool to explore this question. Science involving our origins will always be modified by our existing world view. There is no such thing as a truly open mind. The post modern world view (today's philosophical world view) is secular and humanistic. This philosophy says that there is no God (or creator) so everything we see in the world must have had a "naturalistic" explanation. It would not entertain the remotest possibility that there is a creator even if he turned up and proved it, but maybe he did.
A good starting point for proving Christianity would be the death followed by resurrection of Jesus. Death is easy to explain, we all do it, but the resurrection is more tricky, that just does not happen. So we turn to New Testament which is a testimony of eye witnesses to the fact, the changed lives of the disciples and the vigour of their testimony in the face of death that their friend, Jesus had died and was resurrected, which is well documented in the Bible. Today we would want to see the CCTV evidence and forensic evidence. Now we can turn to the Old Testament and see that there were over 300 predictions of the life and death and resurrection of Jesus. A co-incidence to the unbeliever, but if we want to be scientific, Josh McDowell (a well known Christian apologist) calculated that the possibility of the 360 predictions being fulfilled in one man was many billions to one (I forget the actual figure but it is the order of 1.0 to the power of 24 ie 1 with 24 "0"'s). This includes the very day that he would be crucified. So I think at least we have to sit up and take notice. Then we discover that the death and resurrection of Jesus was not a purposeless magic trick, but was done to reveal the creator of the universe, and how we can be reconciled to him.
There is more historical documentation about Jesus than there is about Julius Caesar. There is also secular documentation about his resurrection.
If we say that Christianity is not scientifically provable, therefore should be rejected, says more about the limitations of science, than it does about Christianity don't you think.


Unfortunately, all of Josh McDowells's prophesies could easily be explained by later editing to fulfil or complete fabrication of later stories to fulfil (and some are a bit on the vague side).

Not true . Please be careful

Not true . Please be careful with your comments . You have to look at the prophecies as a whole , they are very convincing . Try reading 'Prophecy 20/20' by Chuck Missler .

Proving christianity

What a wonderful response, Dr John. I personally only became involved in the discussions at all because of a totally misplaced so-called 'prophetic word', which sadly some gullible folk may have taken seriously, and which I felt it necessary to correct. I would never have become involved on discussion of fossils - I am interested in the Living, not the dead .
God Bless, Enid.

Blackhole 1 to Blackhole 2

Please ring me 01254 705017 if in the UK or email me drjohnbidwell@gplocum.org

Are you Black Hole 1 or 2?

Why do I need to phone you? Are you Black Hole 1 or 2? You got something to hide? This is an open forum, let everyone know your mind; your words of wisdom are welcomed. Evolution 2: It gets personal.

‘Evolutionists have a

‘Evolutionists have a narrative into which they fit the findings’

The theory of evolution emerged gradually (evolved even) from the painstaking observation of species and fossils uncovered across the world over many years. When fossils were arranged according to temporal sedimentation, the resulting sequence led to a derivation of the theory of evolution. The theory did not precede the findings. There has never been anything written about evolution before the discovery of variform species and fossils. Evolutionists have findings into which they fit the narrative not the other way round. This is what makes it a viable theory as opposed to Creationism and ID which looks for findings to fit the (Biblical) narrative.

Is your argument wholly based on your assertion quoted above?

Can you afford to wait and see?

Thanks for your reply. I pointed out that neither camp can prove their position. In scientific terms both positions remain a theory. Charles Darwin correctly identified that species changed according to environmental pressures and this has since been proven to be correct, but no one has proved that one type of creature can change into another. The science of paleontology actually did come after evolution theory was popularized and undoubtedly was a driving force to try and prove evolution to be true. Cows gradually turning into a whale type of thing (David Attenborough, The Planet Earth) has never been proved, and whilst the eye of faith of the evolutionist can see the gradual step changes needed, I cannot.
Just a few pointers follow to the problems of interpretation of the "evidence". This can only be brief in this sort of media. Fossils do not conform to neat "evolutionary" layers very often. As the science of geology has evolved it is now know that sedimentary rocks are laid down under water like a slow wave in a horizontal direction yet the strata are positioned in horizontal layers. This makes the rock appear as though it has been constructed like a building bottom to top. A bottom part of the rock strata can be younger than a top strata.
Lyell, the "father" of geology left a legacy that the speed of geological change has always been as observed today; that is very slow. This is an assumption. One of the most studied recent geological events, the Mount St Helen's volcanic eruption, showed some interesting pointers that geological structures can form very rapidly, yet look as though they have been their for years.
Admittedly, both creationist and evolutionist camps can throw many observations at one another and get nowhere, so enough for now. I do agree with you that creationists fit their observations into the narrative of the Bible and make things fit. I maintain, so do the evolutionists. Evolutionists have had a head's start, and the media and academia and world view are largely on their side. This of its self does not make their view correct. What we are really doing is upholding our world views. Evolutionists upholding the "there is no God, and the world is the way it is by natural processes. Creationists upholding the "God is the creator and the world is how he made it except that it has gone wrong because man has ignored its creator".
One day we will find out for sure one way or the other. Have I wasted my time worshiping and adoring a non existent God, have I been conned into thinking that the Bible is true? I'll let you know.

I must say, I have been

I must say, I have been enjoying our correspondence. I feel you have accepted my querying as the genial, yet demanding inquiry that it is. My line of questioning is fuelled by a fascination with the dividing line between faith and reason. It seems we have partaken of an interesting dialectic that has led to a synthesis. The notion that sedimentation can make the world look older than it is has given rise to a fruitful area of study. For we can ask of a certain geological process: is this process the work of a God who has or has not set out to deceive the world as to the truth of its age by setting it up to look older than it is? Is it possible that God is responsible only for creating those processes, with their developmental forms - however misleading they may subsequently be - adhering strictly to natural laws?

It seems the future of the evolution/Creationism and ID debate may hinge on the creation of a testable distinction between the processes that result in 'true age' and 'false age' geological strata. If it can't be done on theoretical grounds then the debate will never cease.

Mind you - if it can't be done theoretically then it would be impossible to prove ANY theory of origin - whether scientific, Biblical, or even both. And the nature and justification of faith within these theoretical and practical considerations would be open to further exploration. Dave

Good for you Dave , some

Good for you Dave , some people just come on here to 'have a go' but you are very fair . One thing which has an effect on our view of creation is that the Bible claims that all living matter was created ready to go . Fully grown creatures , plants etc . So , to whatever extent God created the world with appearance of age , he isn't tricking anyone because he made it quite clear in Genesis. Some christians believe in evolution , I don't personally . The problem is that agressive atheists use it as a means of attack .

If you have a seeking heart I'd recommend some books : 'The Truth is out there' by Steve Maltz (he runs this site so why not plug him) , also 'God's Undertaker' by J .Lennox at Oxford University . I'd also recommend anything by Chuck Missler or David Pawson .

reply to Stephen Brown 'My worldview'

Sorry to disappint you, Stephen. I cannot give you a 'brain-washed response'. I am me. I wish you well. Enid.

What is the Christian

What is the Christian understanding of dinosaur fossils?

Free box file distribution

Hi All,

I have a good friend who has a ministry closely linked with the Creation Science Movement based in Portsmouth, U.K., that may be of interest to some reading this article and replies.

He has set up a substantial amount of box files, all containing a whole range of information leaflets on a whole array of subjects, many of which devoted to subjects such as the one above that create concerns even for the believer.

All articles are written by recognised scientific experts in the fields they write upon, but all are written in terms that make it easy for most non scientific people to understand.

Each box file is sent out to those requesting one, and then the files is held for a set period of time, in order that they may digest the material contained. Then the box is passed onto the next subscriber, and the previous holder is added to the updates mailing list, where latest news and updates will be received on a monthly basis. Plus the opportunity given to offer their own comments etc., about the service in general.

I used to have many concerns on some of these matters, many of which I didn't even realise until being challenged, but pretty much all were answered through the contents of this file, or the avenue of information that opened up for me to explore for myself through contact information included within the articles themselves.

If you would like to know more, please email me: john@faith-defenders.com and I will put you in contact with this person directly, should you wish to pursue this service for yourself.

God bless,

John Dunning.

A word of encouragement

Just to say 'hi' and that looking on your website, 'How deep the Father's Love for us' is one of my very favourites! Thanks ! If Our Father ever chose to remove the Holy Spirit from his people - whether there be just a flickering spark or fully light - what a terrible place this world would be to live in. when the real character of unregenerate mankind would have no restraint. It would need rules for everything, every 'i' dotted and every 't' crossed, for there would be no inner moral compass for individual discretion. And who would be good enough to make those rules ? Our own government has shown what a failure 'rules' can be. God Bless. Enid.

How can you be so blind to reality

Religion is a form of brain washing. If children born into a christian family were switched into a muslim family and vica versa they would grow up with opposite beliefs than if they were left alone. How can their be 80+ different faiths coexisting around the world and any of them believe that theirs is the one. How can religions die out and exponents of modern religions look back and think how ignorant those people were. How can people continue in their religious beliefs despite so many obvious contraventions of obvious scientific facts. How in this day and age can people be so lacking in understanding that religion was manufactured by man as an early form of law to control the masses. How can people not understand the catholic church is a business seeking land power and income. Man created God not the reverse. Stop wasting so much time on this farcical behaviour and get on with peaceful productive coexistence without all this useless baggage. Try have some faith in yourselves as your saviours.

How can you be so blind to reality

Dear friend, you end your paragraph with 'Try have some faith in yourselves as your saviours'. The UK is full of people with great faith in themselves which has led to the mess we are in. ! In Christianity it is the heart that is regenerated and ego is gradually but finally removed. .

Many Religions; Why?

I am not surprised that there a lots of religions. You imply that this is a symptom of them all being wrong. There is one "religion" that stands out. It is rooted in the Bible narrative and explains why there are many false religions.
As a Christian I am certain that I was not brainwashed, but came to a rational decision that the Bible is correct. Any Christian will know that that is the shortened and incomplete version of becoming a Christian.
I assume that you hold to a religion which informs your worldview. I think I can name it; it is called "Secular Humanism". It says that there is no God, I am king of my life and answerable to myself, my fellow human beings and nothing or no one else. Most people would not call this a religion, but that is what it is. I also see that you put your trust in science. Make sure that what you call a scientific fact is a provable by experiment. Many so called facts are not facts but opinions which support a particular worldview. An example of this is the belief in evolution. The fossils tell a different story to you compared to what I hold to. Neither of us can prove our position scientifically .
My worldview is informed by the Bible. I know that there is a God and I know His name. There is also an evil being called Satan. His objective is to divert worship away from God. Part of his strategy is to have lots of worthless and false religions.
I have a savior and thank God it is not me.

"The fossils tell a different

"The fossils tell a different story to you compared to what I hold to."
I would be interested and grateful to hear what story the fossil tells you as a Christian.

Reading the Fossils

Fossil formation requires rapid burial. A fossil is a bone turned to stone. Bone is living tissue and is biodegradable in many but not all conditions, albeit slower than muscle. The requirements are normally met only in water plus burial by a material that turns into a substance like limestone.
Non marine animals die on the surface of the earth. If you are a much loved dead cat, you will be buried along with a cuddly toy and some bedding, but most of a dead animal is recycled by scavengers and very little is left by them. My view is that fossil formation is a rare event today.
Here is a fact; there are lots of fossils in the earth. Here are 2 possible, but unprovable explanations. Possibility one; creatures evolved, lived and died over millions of years. The fossil record is a story of evolution. Possibility two, God sent a world wide flood to totally destroy His creation because man's sin was so bad, however, saving 8 people and 2 of each creature. protected in a boat. The fossil; record is a story of God's creation and His awesome judgment by flood, a few thousand years ago.
Now, in this mini discourse, I cannot tell you all the reasons that I think that the fossil record supports explanation two, far better than explanation one, but I cannot prove it. You see if you took the view that there was no intelligent creator who sustains and judges his creation you would have to believe explanation one, unless someone came along with a different story that clicks with you.
I think that the fossil record (and life) screams out loudly that there is an intelligent creator. But there are totally illogical voices saying otherwise. They are the ones that appear on TV as scientists, they are not, they are philosophers. Richard Dawkins, and David Attenborough's arguments have such huge holes in it, it is a wonder that the world hasn't fallen into them; or have they.
Try this web site for a reasoned opinion.

Thanks for taking the time to

Thanks for taking the time to explain your position. I personally have no exhaustive scientific understanding of fossil formation. From the tenor of the final parts of your argument it sounds like both religious and scientific explanations are equally viable. But this appears to me quite an unsettling equality. If science can be viable thus far with its position on the fossil record, is there not a possibility that only a little more unearthed evidence would suffice to support evolution's claims? How would Christianity fare in the face of compelling evidence? Would it become a matter of ignoring a decisive fact to the extent that its denial would appear absurd even to the denying Christian? This is a hypothetical question of course, but I do wonder what such a situation would mean to a follower of scripture.

The great creation experiment

In the beginning God created types of plants and animal which he called "kinds". We cannot possibly know the scope or extent of a "kind", but what we do know is that different animals and plants can change in response to environmental pressures. Survival of the fittest happens. As an example, look how many ridiculous sizes and shapes of dog you can have, but a dog is a dog and will never become a cat. This shows that there is a considerable amount of information in the dog genome given by the creator. Most domestic dogs would not survive in the wild, and require big vet bills. This is an example of man-made selection. Nature does the same by natural selection. The preferred term for this process is "micro-evolution". Macro-evolution, however, is the theory (never proved) that a dog or what ever can become another species. The fossil record at least proves that there are boundaries to species. The fossil record does not contain transitional forms although if you are an evolutionist you find them by the eye of faith only. I remember David Attenborough looking at cows grazing on a beech and saying that they "decided" to grow fins instead of legs and become whales. If this were true, then as they gradually swapped their legs for fins the transition would not work. What faith he has.
Some things are simply not scientifically provable. Science has a method of proof which is testing theories by repeatable experiment. Many think that the theory of macro-evolution is science, but it is not science as we know it. To prove it you would have to try to recreate the supposed conditions on earth 400,000,000,000 years ago and wait 400,000,000,000 years and see what you get. If you got nothing you could also try repeating the experiment in different ways until you got a result of sorts. The findings would be published in a well known science journal, and other scientists would try to reproduce the result. Not practical. The next best thing is to treat the creation like a crime scene (forensics) to try to discover how "it" happened. This is a different sort of science which of necessity has to contain a lot of assumptions that are unprovable.
It has been said that belief in evolution theory requires more faith than believe in creationism, and I believe that to be true.
The argument is not science v religion. It is evolution theory with its scientific aspects v creationism and its scientific aspects.
You say what if some compelling evidence comes along. Have you thought that if someone dug up a missing link, this would create 2 more missing links, one up stream and one down stream on the evolutionary tree. The fact that these people call these things "missing" shows their faith. I cannot envisage any evidence that I would find compelling that would shake my faith in God.
A lot of stuff that is said to be evidence is in fact a particular interpretation of the evidence, and as to whether such is compelling is the judgment of intellect which is informed by my faith, and the Word of God.

If faith informs intellect,

If faith informs intellect, isn't there a possibility that the reasoning process could be compromised when dealing with scientific data that contradicts its claims?
Your notion that the discovery of the missing link would problematically lead to the creation of two more missing links, pre and post- dating its appearance, has not pre-affected the existing human fossil sequence. The argument is reminiscent of an infinite regress (in particular Zeno's dichotomy paradox), and I wonder whether the argument is an example of a compromising of reason in the face of an existing, and rationally collated body of artifacts. Is this a fair point?

If evolution is fact , then

If evolution is fact , then we have the right to expect plenty of fossil evidence showing transition , not just a few disputed examples . There are simply loads of fossils to be studied , to be displayed in museums for all to see and yet where is the evidence for transition . If evolution was a fact I would expect the Natural History Museum to ably demonstrate it , I would also expect naturalism to be able to stand up for itself without resorting to censorship of other views and hurling insults .

Time is running out for all of us , Jesus offers eternal life , Darwin offers nothing .

Fossils preceded and led to

Fossils preceded and led to evolutionary theory whereas Christianity preceded and led to creationism and ID. In evolution's favour the theory emerged from an objective collation of artifacts. Importantly, it is the best fit for the data and not vice versa.
Creationism and ID, on the other hand, have not only accepted it partially (in several significant senses of the word), but also have simply injected faith into the sequential gaps of the theory. In this context faith has ‘discovered’ nothing by submitting gaps as evidence of divine design. Quite literally - the evidence in support of ID is, specifically, that which does not exist.

You're wrong . Creationists ,

You're wrong . Creationists , I.D proponents and others who oppose the evolution myth do not use gaps as evidence . That is just the sort of 'straw man' argument that atheist evolutionists use .

What good will evolution or atheism do you when you are dead ?