Creationists E-mail Messages

From time to time I receive disparaging comments from creationists. They are reproduced below as received, without editing. They provide no scientific evidence to refute evolution, but merely state a dogmatic belief. Although they claim to defend the Christianity, they ignore Jesus's commandments, as spelled out in Matthew, Chapter 7.

Billy Forsee

You are an idiot. Next time you attempt proving a theory, try using using phrases othe than " we can assume..." or "....that's irrevelant - the fact is that evolution is fact." Answer the questions posed to you - do not beat around the bush by giving people hogwash answers that completely avoid the question asked of you. Evolution is a farce - and you know it. So does Darwin! He never even believed in it fully himself. There were more assumptions in his book "On the origin of Life" than there were facts. And please, don't try telling me that you evolutionists believe that God created the evolution cycle - it's just your way of covering up the facts that you don't understand! Quite trying to prove everything - have some faith that maybe, just maybe, there is a higher existence than us - his name is God. He designed things with a purpose and form. None of this chance crap. Read the bible - don't pick it apart for scientific validity; there has been more events from the bible that were proven fact than there are from your theory of evolution. Quite making assumptions about your dumb theory. You know what it does - it makes an ass out of you.....

James Hatt

You are WRONG. Science has many great discoveries and deserves a place in our society for the overall good it does for everyone. However, everything you attempt to disprove about creationism uses weak, faulty, irrational thinking and cannot be substantiated with any sort of proof whatsoever. Science has tried for years to find evidence that the world just came into existence by accident, even though it has been proven time and time again to be a mathematical impossibility. Evolutionism is nothing more than pure science fiction and has no rightful place in our public schools. You mention that Creationists believe that their views about the origin of the universe are being censored because teachers and school administrators fear for their jobs if it is taught. You say that fundamentalist parents will be outraged by this teaching. On this point, you are also wrong. The small minded public at large has no idea what fundamentalism is and probably doesn't fit into this category at all. Anyone who as you say "has a scientific background" and does not believe that evolutionism is nothing more that a giant hoax should go back to school and question their educational background. This country is full of atheists, that is why the theory of evolution dominates the public school system. That is right, atheism, not fundamentalism rules this country, anyone who would not allow the truth of creationism to be taught in schools is an atheist, or worse, someone who believes in God yet refuses to believe his word. Either way, they will all receive their just reward in the end. Keep on trying to prove what you know your scientific background and weak or non-existent evidence cannot. I find the denial of what will never be disproved to be very entertaining.

James Hatt

Mr. Steiger,

All the evidence anyone needs to believe that God created the Earth is in the book of Gneiss. The burden of proof to the contrary rests with science. From looking at your website, it is easy to tell that you are knowledgeable about all the scientific theories I would use to refute the theory of evolution, so I didn't see the point of using them. I was not condemning you or your opinion as you suggested from your reply. I was merely expressing my disagreement with your beliefs. I am not the judge of man and you are free to believe whatever you want. In doing so however, you must be willing to accept that you will be questioned by others who do not share your beliefs. My disagreeing with your belief in the theory of relativity is no excuse to use a biblical reference against me. How can you quote scripture as if you believe in it while at the same time defending your belief that there is no God? Is it up to man to pick and choose what they want to believe out of the Bible and refute the rest?

[It should be noted that all I said in my reply was to suggest that he read Matthew, Chapter 7. Nowhere in this web site do I state that that there is no God.]

J. Bussard

I was just recently browsing through your website when I found some information that you have obviously been misled by. First, is the "fact" that evolution is true. Evolution is, always will be, and always was a theory, that's it. Darwin himself said that he never really believed it, and I'm sure today that it would surprise him how gullible humans are to accept anything except for the existence of an all powerful God.

Second, I am only eighteen years old and I can honestly answer those ten questions that creationists "can't answer".

1. The water came from the water canopy that surrounded the earth at that time, and from pockets of water geysers inside the earth at that time. The Bible clearly states this in Genesis. Where the water went is a mystery to me too. From all of the erosion that took place, I'm sure some of it drained into the ground, more evaporated in the air, and the rest was up to supernatural intervention, possibly.

2. If you've ever seen the results of what fast flowing water can do to anything, by way of erosion, you would understand perfectly. Consider this, if a little trickle of water did start the Grand Canyon, the Canyon would in no way be as wide as it is today, but very narrow and deep.

3. Radioactive decay makes these tests unpredictable and unreliable.

4. At the rate of decay in the ocean floor, the floor of the ocean should be kilometers deep (according to your theory), in reality, it is only meters deep. Also, people are finding biblical evidence everyday that proves the Bible right. Check out . They have just discovered where the Red Sea was parted, and they have already found cities that prove the Bible to be more than a book. God says that he will perserve his Word, so all of the Bible is right, not just a little bit or parts.

5. Is there really evidence, like in your meteor cloud theory?

6. I have no mathematical proof. I do have faith, though, and I believe the words of a being that is infinitely more intellegent than I.

7. We are miraculous structures in ourselves. I can not explain the development process myself, as I am not a scientest or such.

8. The book of Genesis is a reference and part of the basis of Christian belief. God is the ultimate authority over all.

9. He could have if He chose to do so, but the Bible says that he did not.

10. How do you explain the placing of fossils on top of mountains and the finding of human footprints inside of dinosaurs. Yes, there is scientific evidence of this.

I do not say these words out of hate, maybe pity. The bible says that we must become as little children to believe. This also means that in some things that we do not know, we have to just believe what the Bible says as a child believes their parents. I hope you are not deluded by knowledge or drawn away from the wrong path, my friend. These things are just tools by Satan to draw people further toward Hell, and you can see how effective a simple theory has been toward this. I hope you stay well and consider my words.

[If young Mr. Bussard taken the time to do more than merely "browse" through this web site, he would have discovered that none of his statements is supported by scientific evidence. "Explanations" like the "vapor canopy" THEORY are simply impossible, based on well known, and repeatedly verified, physical constants. Others, like the Paluxy "footprints," are merely outright falsehoods.]


How I managed to get your site once again, searching for revelations is beyond be - Yet here I am. So I wicked through several more areas of your site and got astounded twice in the same year.

My my my. I see you are still proud of your credentials as well. Sometimes I believe one of the problems with Science and Space nowadays, is the Scientist. Yes, he/she/it believe that unless you have an eLiTe education to post or banter about, and have been published several times...That your ideas are wrong by default. That is why the space program is going nowhere...NASA wishes everyone to believe only THEY can deal with space. Tsk Tsk, perchance to dream as well.

Anywho, the kid who you posted on your site(18yrs old), you replied at the bottom saying had he read your entire site, he would've known that the "footprints" are fakes. Hmm, why? You negate to mention that a lot of evolutionary garble has been proven fraudulent as well, upto and including the recent half-bird-half-dinosaur from China. I believe Evolution is like belief in an Alien :) Neither exist in the real world. But that's why you want comments :) From us stupid religious folk, to post and attempt to look witty.

Bottom Line Baby:

If evolution is fact, there'd be no argument. Sky is up? Correct, no argument. Tornados kill? Correct, no argument. Bill Gates worth 97B dollars? Correct, no argument.

Nothing...Explosions.....Matter created from nothing...Process of heat generation from nothing... Primordial pool....Aminos...Life? With no help? Pisha...Not correct, plenty of arguments.

Is this is a pro-evolution site? Or An anti-christian site? There is no argument :) You are intelligent, well spoken and educated. Problem is, you believe like Darwin did...You believe you are too smart for God. You also believe that as a Christian, I cannot judge you...On both counts, you are erroneous. I cannot judge your SOUL...But man CAN judge mans actions in any way shape or form. I judge Evolution to be a trivial joke played against Christians by science thumpers who hate the fact that they have to answer to someone for their actions. Which is cool by me, cept don't tell me I gotta pay for it. And don't tell me, my kids have to believe in it.

Believe as you will...After all, you have nothing to fear from a God that evolutionists claim does not exist...Nothing at all. I mean, miracles, plagues, etc...That can all be explained, can't it? Evolution can be proven 100% beyond a resonable doubt, right? Science is king right? Eternal damnation is hokie and so gothic, right? Beast out of water...Sillyness, right?

[The writer should be aware that sarcasm and personal attacks don't prove his point. With respect to the "half bird-half dinosaur," AS SOON AS legitimate scientists had a chance to examine it, it was pronounced a fake. Creationist leaders know that to be the case, but why spoil a propaganda opportunity with the truth?]

John Lopez

hello, my name is john. i was just looking up sites pertaining to the debate between evolution and creationism, when i happened to come upon your site with a cartoon comparing the two methods of thought. now many people today believe the ones proclaiming the genesis account for the creation of life to be bias. and ya know what, they are. but, honestly, who isn't. can you honestly say that you are not bias. what came first atheist/agnostic belief -or- the theory of evolution? the philosophy or the theory? and yes i believe the theory of evolution is the product of a philosophy or religious belief. why? because in order to accept it one must have tremendous faith in the lack of the fossil record that would say otherwise. faith not very scientific sounding is it. the theory of evolution is today accepted by the general public, which unfortunately includes the writers of the high school and college text books. this, if i'm allowed to have my own opinion, is not right. i believe that kids maybe should learn about the theory but it should not be taught like it was the law of gravity. THAT would not be scientific. science, when boiled down to it, is the accumulation of knowledge and application there of. acquiring this knowledge is done through tests and experiments, with measurable quantities, that can be done many many many times over again all with the same conclusion, thus ending in an observable fact or law. that has yet to be done with the theory in question. again one has the right to have their own bias opinion of the origins of life but just because biased experts cling to the theory and try to prove it AFTER believing it still does not not make it scientific in its true sense.

a science teacher was asked by one of his student once if the process of evolution happens today. the teacher said, "yes but the process is so slow that we can't see it but it's happening." see the problem? the science teacher stepped out of the boundaries of science by saying that despite the lack of a measurable quantity (not being able to see the process) and thus a testing of the theory it can still be accepted. this is not science rather it is opinion. up until God saved me, one and a half years ago, i loved the idea of the theory of evolution. i had completely put my faith into this idea why? i now know why it made God go away. it served my needs. personal preference and convenience dictated my idea of truth. "science" dismissed God in my mind and that settled knotted feeling of guilt. i was no longer accountable to a higher being and that empowered me.

the theory of evolution and creationism are both in the same boat: neither can be scientifically proven. the genesis account of life, despite heated skepticism, has not been scientifically proven false. no evidence has been brought forward to satisfy the atheist view. can the same be said about the theory of evolution?

doctor huxley, one of the most ambitious and earliest propagators of the theory, was interviewed years after the introduction of this theory about why, despite the lack of any proof or fossil record, did the scientific community embrace it so? he was quoted as saying, "The reason why the theory of evolution took so well to the scientific community is because we didn't want God to interfere with our sexual mores."

this is not hate mail nor was it written in the spirit of hate. if you wish to respond, i would love a healthy, mature, and honest response. thank you for your time and God bless.

respectfully in Christ, John Lopez

[Mr. Lopez's comments are based on his religious beliefs, not on the observable facts. The facts of evolution (radioactive dating, fossil record, geological formations) are so well established that they can not honestly be refuted. Creationist leadership therefore resorts to dishonest methods, using distortions, half-truths, and outright falsehoods. This is well documented in my web site and in links to other sites. His last paragraph tells it all: any discussion regarding the facts of evolution has to be on his level, with the implied position that the scientific approach, as outlined in this web site, is dishonest!]


I read your website about evolutionism vs creationism, and it is flawed. Your knowledge of it is not up to date. Do you know the bible has never benn proven wrong? I hope you accept jesus into your heart so you can be saved, and visit this site

James G. Miller

Dr. Kent Hovind has issued a challenge to anyone for the taking. He is offering $150,000 to anyone that can produce even one ounce of empirical evidence that evolution is real. To my understanding he has assemble an international panel to judge the evidence in a fair and objective manner. So far, NOT a single I'm sure you could use this money so if you are this confident in evolution, go for it!

[The fact that he was able to send me this e-mail indicates that Mr. Miller had logged on to my web site. Too bad he did not take the trouble to check out the background information on "Doctor" Hovind's phony offer, as described in detail in the "other web pages" listing in my web site.]

Ian Macnaught

I thought these would be difficult, but I found them quite straightforward to give answers to. Incidentally, I am not a scientist, just an ordinary guy who used to believe in evolution and an old earth. Thinking these creationists were a bunch of nutters I decided to honestly try out some of their arguments so I could prove them wrong. Boy was I wrong, these guys are spot on in a lot of their thinking. True, some of their theories are hard to swallow, but on most of the majors they score 100%. I think you should come off your high horse a bit in your criticism of them. They deserve some respect as they are as genuine as you. And in any case if you are right and we all go to dust in the end, why get upset. On the other hand if you are wrong and they are right, you've got a major problem on your hands when you die. You will have to meet this creator guy they believe in and explain yourself. Like how you spent your life disbelieving and opposing Him.

1. Where did the water come from ? Obviously , the canopy. When earth was first formed " The Spirit moved over the deep" there was no dry ground. God then separated the waters from under the earth and over the earth thus creating a canopy, a vapour barrier between the earth itself and outer space. This barrier absorbed the harmful rays emitted by the cosmos and the sun. This was until the time of Noah. No wonder no one believed Noah when he said it would rain as there had not been any rain on earth up until that point. We are told that the whole earth was watered from "streams that came up from the earth and watered the ground" i.e. groundwater.

Where did the water go to ? After the flood, God's first action was to "send a great wind over the earth" this created the ice caps and polar regions thereby locking up huge quantities of water. Ice caps were not in existence at the time of Eden due to the influence of the canopy. This is why we find tropical plants buried in these regions and coal and oil under the permafrost. The earth's climate was uniform a bit like being in a conservatory on a winter's sunny day. Adam and Eve were, of course naked, as there was no need for warm clothing then. Another result of this was that plants and trees could grow to enormous heights and sizes, insects were of a much larger size than today because of the lack of high winds and extremes of climate. Both of these are well preserved in the fossil record and it has been admitted that they could not survive today in even the deepest Amazonian jungle due to the wind currents. More water was stored in the deep ocean trenches which were not present at the creation as God said everything was good and deep sterile waters do not produce abundantly. Scientists have found subsea river beds which defy explanation as no existing currents could have created them. But the draining waters of the flood would as they made their way to the deeps. Incidentally have you ever looked at the very long ages claimed for men before the flood and compared them with ages after the flood. These tie-in precisely with the collapse of the canopy, possibly caused by an asteroid, falling as rain on earth. All that cosmic radiation which had been stored up there in the canopy filter system suddenly coming down. Soaking into the rocks and earth giving the radiation readings you seem so fond of. The earth was no longer protected from the harmful effects of the sun's radiation and death started to occur much earlier than before.

2. Grand Canyon formation. If the Grand Canyon was eroded gradually where is all the material that was removed ? Why are rocks on the summit of the canyon older than those at the bottom ? Why are there no erosion layers between each strata ? Sectarian scientific opinion is now sharply divided as to how the canyon came into being, the majority view now is that a catastrophic flood caused it's creation. Guides there now give both explanations as the Colorado river never cut it's way through, even in million years.

3. Radioactive Dating Consistency. Do you realise that most rocks cannot be dated radiometrically ? As any geologist will tell you, we cannot date sedimentary rocks, only volcanic and similar materials. As fossils are buried, largely, in sedimentary rocks this means we do not know how old they are. As to other radioactive results they are certainly not consistent. A wide band of age ranges can be given, for any sample , and it is established practise to discard all except the one which fits your own particular theory. Take coal for instance, we are told that, if found in the Carboniferous period, it is around 300 million years old. So by testing we should find it is this age. Since carbon-14 should have decayed away by 100,000 years the coal should not have a carbon -14 age. But coal gives a carbon-14 age of about 30,000 years. This must mean that the surrounding rocks are the same age. Similarly, rocks formed within human history have been found to have radioactive dating of between 160 and 3,000 million years. There are many well documented cases showing the total unreliability of the use of radioactive dating for gaining any opinion into the age of the earth's rocks.

4. Scientifically Factual Information. Try magnetism. At current rates of decay of the earth's magnetic field will peter out in 8,000 years. Going backwards 100,000 years, the earth would have had the magnetism of a neutron star. Only 20,000 years ago life would have been impossible on earth due to the heat generated by the earth's core. Alternatively how about Helium. If the world is billions of years old where is it all, it's certainly not in the atmosphere. This lack of helium indicates a young earth. There are so many other measures which do not point to an old earth such as ;sea salt, erosion of continents, sediments in the sea etc.

5. Astronomical Evidence. Ever seen the star chart of the birth date of Jesus Christ ? Suggest you do. The Magi were not following any visible star as we know it, that is why King Herod and his merry men could not identify what these strange men from the east were guided by. Forget supernovas and satellites, astrology is in the Bible, ok it has been corrupted by charlatans but I know one person who became a believing Christian through searching for Jesus in the stars and was astonished by what she found.

6. As I said, before, I am not a scientist or a mathematician. But I do know this, order does not come out of explosions like the big bang.

7. Evolution ? I cannot answer this myself and am puzzled by your chicken problem. By the way, which came first, in your book, the chicken or the egg ? Perhaps you can help me believe in evolution. Can you name one new species which has evolved in the lifetime of man? Can you give one example of where information was added to the genepool during reproduction ? Can you give one example of where a mutation has improved upon the original design? Can you tell me where the missing- link fossils are?

8. Book of Genesis. You too easily dismiss this book. You should give it a try. One thing's for sure it wasn't written by wandering tribesmen in the desert. It could be the true history of earth , if you gave it a chance. I have some mathematical data on the Hebrew it was written in which demonstrates it was not possible for any human being to think it up. In fact all the computing power in the world would be needed to come up with what is written in it, and that might not be enough.

9. Evolution Why God Didn't Use It. "In the beginning everything was good, there was no death, God gave all living things green plants to eat". All creation was made perfect and mature, there was no upward struggle to survive by the fittest, involving the death of millions of animals and creatures. Hence , incidentally, the reason we haven't found the missing link fossils. Death came into the world through the sin of Adam who make God out to be a liar by choosing to believe satan instead, who said that Adam wouldn't die after eating of the forbidden fruit. At that moment death came into the world, not only for Adam but all creation. The earth was cursed and continues under this curse, as is evidenced all around us today. God only allowed the eating of meat after the flood and this was because earth's climate had been drastically altered by the loss of the canopy and the formation of the ice caps. It was also to accomplish the plan that God had to populate the ends of the earth.

10. The Standard Creationist Explanation. I think you are referring to the evolutionists Geologic Column here ? This is a hypothetical column of fossils, the ancient ones on the bottom, more recent ones on the top. This does not exist in a complete form in nature, except as a trend. As 95 % of all fossils are marine invertebrates, particularly shellfish, all living at the bottom of the sea , at the time of the flood, it is no suprise that they appear at the lowest levels, as they were already there. The fossil record is best understood as the result of a marine cataclysm that utterly annihilated the continents and land dwellers. Virtually all fossils are found in sedimentary rocks, these have to laid down by masses of water i.e. a flood. Scientific evidence is now available which shows that there is no such thing as the cretaceous, jurassic and triassic periods, that they were all formed at the same time. This can be demonstrated by studies of polonium halos in coal seams in each of these supposed periods. Every sample shows the same age, in fact possibly the same year of deposition. While we are on this subject could you explain how can it be that scientists have found unfossilied dinosaur bones containing blood traces recently, this demonstrates a young earth, not one where dinosaurs were supposedly wiped our 65 million years ago. Any scientists will tell you that it physically and chemically impossible for animal bones to have lasted, even for a fraction of this time. The population at the time of the flood was relatively small and concentrated around the Iran/Iraq area. The flood waters covered all the mountaintops then existent, this was before major mountain- building during the continental shifts. All the population drowned. Studies have been done on dinosaur tracks laid down in the coal measures which clearly show the paths the dinosaurs took whilst trying to get to higher and higher ground. Their footprints are fossilised into the coal seams made up of millions of floating tree and vegetation debris. Large animal objects when drowned, float, ever seem films of hippos and cows bloated by gas being moved downstream until trapped inrapids etc. Naturally they would be fossilised later than smaller organisms. Dead fish float and yet they are found in great numbers well preserved in the fossil record, some are in process of giving birth. This would indicate a sudden cataclysm, such as was created in a great flood.

Any more questions?


Ian K Macnaught

Glasgow, Scotland

Although the information refuting the above statements is readily available in this web site and its links to other web sites, I will briefly comment on each response:

The atmosphere can hold only a limited amount of water. It would have to be a thousand times thicker and heavier to hold enough water to cover the earth with liquid water. Such a cloud cover would completely block out the sun, creating total darkness. The ice caps do not contain enough water to cover the earth. Do the math.

The idea that a surge of water would cut, into a solid rock plateau, a mile deep Grand Canyon channel that follows a meandering course for more than a hundred miles, is simply preposterous!. We are talking about hundreds of cubic miles of solid rock! The material was actually removed by continuous slow erosion over millions of years, and carried into the Gulf of California by the muddy Colorado. (named by the Spanish explorers as "colorado" meaning "red" because of its muddy appearance) The majority of scientists do NOT believe that the canyon was created by a catastrophic flood. The rock strata at the top is younger than that at the bottom.

Radioactive dating must be done carefully. Improper technique can result in gross errors. Before accepting creationist "evidence" I suggest Ian investigate the specific background of each creationist claim.

The creationist argument that the earth's magnetic field has undergone a continuous unidirectional decay is refuted by the magnetic bands of the Mid-Atlantic ridge magma that show at a periodic reversal. The periodic reversal is consistent with what is known about the earth's core; the creationist unidirectional magnetic decay theory is not.

The "Astronomical Evidence" argument is sectarian religious dogma. Ditto responses to questions 8 and 9. Whether true or not, they are nevertheless not scientific arguments..

No, you don't "know" that the "big bang" could not create order. . You only think you know. Study thermodynamics.

Question 10. Just about all the claims here are simply wrong, and there is no evidence to support them. When one examines the factual data, it simply does not support these creationist claims. Check out my web site and its links to other web sites. For example: the world petroleum production is 76 million barrels per DAY, day in and day out, year in and year out, with no end in sight. Creationists claim that a few dead animals that were trapped in a single universal flood could create this enormous reservoir of oil. Preposterous!

Aaron Essary


My name is Aaron. I will not call you an idiot or make fun of you in any way. I do in fact believe in creationism not just because of "religious" beliefs. I do know however that one cannot know the whole picture until you have studied all areas of science in great depth. One cannot fully understand biology without understanding chemistry, again not chemistry without physics, and the loop continues. A person has to know all areas in order to make a valid opinion. I do not know you, but if you do not already know all the areas of science, educate yourself and study BOTH sides of the debate. I suggest for the creation side you check out I also recommend attending a seminar with Dr. Grady McMurtry and spending some time after the session talking (not arguing) with him to find out what his years (21 years as an evolutionist) of learning have given him as evidence both ways. This man is a deep thinker and knows both sides of the debate and knows the evolution side better than even some evolutionists do as I seen at one of his seminars (when a professor tried to argue his point during the students question and answer time, the professor used 30 year old evidence and arguments that even the greatest of evolutionist scientists threw out a long time ago)Anyway, this woul be a great place to start. Really though, THE absolute best place to start is by doing the following: When you're all alone at night communicate with God and ask him to show you the answers. I know God answers prayer and if he does not respond to you then believe what you want. God will respond to a heart that seeks the truth. God Bless You. I will check out your site all the way through. Thanks for your time.


I did check out the above referenced web site and found it to be a promotion of sectarian religious dogma, with some standard creationist claims which have been repeatedly debunked in this web page and others. It is a shame that Aaron did not actually peruse my web site first before forming an opinion. Perhaps he should communicate with God and ask Him to explain why dogma claiming to be God's word should be so full of false information.

Cody Coltharp

Hi- i just recently visited your web site and have some comments-

first of all, Christianity is a religion of faith, not facts. but i am sure you already have heard this line before, so i have a few facts to share- scientists have proved that there is a constant flow of space particles or "dust" building up on the moon. they have calculated the constant rate and if in fact the earth was formed many years ago then the layer of dust on the moon would be several feet deep. when the first lunar module was sent onto the moon the scientists found that in fact there was actually only a few inches to the rock surface and calculated the moon to be about 6000 years old.

The Moon Dust argument was refuted many years ago, yet it still crops up. Details are in the "Moon Dust" section of Other Creationist Arguments section in this web page.

personally i don't believe that the earth was created only 6000 years ago- the ancient hebrew word for day is the same as year, month, week ect.. it is just used to show time passed... so when it says the first day it could mean much much longer.

another thing- why are the insects found in amber the same as they are now? dinosaurs are found in full skeletons, how come scientists only find small fragments of so called primitive men?

Evolution is a branching process. Evolution states that modern species have branched off from some earlier pre-existing species. It does not require that earlier species be replaced by new species. There is no reason why some primitive insects could not have survived unchanged. Dinosaurs were around for 50 million years. Humans less than one million.

sorry this is so long- just a little more- you believe in the theory of evolution. in other words you believe in someone's educated guess. you dont believe in facts, you believe in factual guesses. they sound right, true, but are still only guesses. where were you when the earth was created? how do you KNOW what happened? i sure wasn't there. the bottom line is that there is no way to prove God exists. he wanted it that way, because it is all too easy to believe in something you can feel and see. you are obviously a smart man- open your eyes for just a squint- and look around for once in our eyes.

Where were you when the earth was created? How do you KNOW what happened? Evolution does not deal with the question of whether or not God exists. You are assuming that those who do not accept your sectarian religious dogma are atheists. This is unfair, unreasonable, and unscientific.

Jill Quillen

The "Gas Cloud" theory involves hydrogen and helium correct? If there is a beginning to everything may I ask where did the hydrogen come from? Scientists have also tried to create life in a laboratory. They designed a Pyrex apparatus containing methane, ( which the earth supposedly was made of when it was formed) ammonia, and water vapor, but no oxygen. Then they passed electric sparks to simulate lightning strikes. What was their result? NO life was was produced. And amino acids and simple chemicals is not the right mixture for producing life. ( amino acids and simple chemicals were produced from the experiment) Evolutionism has not yet produced a scientifically credible explanation for the orgin or such immense complexities as DNA, the human brain, etc.

It is very premature for materialists to claim that all living things evolved into exsistence, when science has yet to discover how even one protein molecule could actually have come into existence by a natural process. And since I am a Christian I believe that we are not to take nor add to the word of God. God says that I was created in his image, so therefore I did form out of single celled organism from, the ocean, in a little pool of water on the beach. I was created by the Almighty himself. I look like my Father in heaven.

I cover the results of the Miller spark experiment in a section of this web page. Evolution does not require an explanation of how the original life form came into existence. The evidence which supports evolution is the evidence that existing life forms are descended from primitive ancestors. Unless they can disprove that evidence, creationists have no case against evolution. They are not able to do that, so they resort to false reports and distortions like the above.