Uh Oh: Rick Perry Gets Popped With The Dreaded Evolution Question. (Click For Answer)

[Lonestar_logic]

The spelling and grammar appear to be correct in this post^. Other than those items, every single thing is wrong and based on incorrect assumptions.

Every piece.

I can only assume you never took biology and got your information about evolution from a creationist.

And just your saying so proves it.

I was happy to see that others have demonstrated the errors, saving me the trouble.

This is what the evolutionist has said:

"Approximately 15 billion years ago, life began..."
"No, it was more like 7 billion years ago..."
"Uh, well, the earth probably began about..."
"The strata may show..."
"Well, we evolutionists don't exactly agree about when, why or how the world began, but...evolution is a fact and you are unscientific if you don't believe it!"

Quotes About Life Fully Formed In The Fossil Record

"All the larger groups of animals, e.g. fishes, amphibians, reptiles, mammals seem to have appeared suddenly on the earth, spreading themselves, so to speak, in an explosive manner in their various shapes and forms. Nowhere is one able to observe or prove the transition of one species into another, variation only being possible within the species themselves" Evolutionist, Max Westenhofer as quoted in Dewar's More Difficulties, p. 94

"The evidence of Geology today is that species seem to come into existence suddenly and in full perfection, remain substantially unchanged during the terms of their existence, and pass away in full perfection. Other species take their place, apparently by substitution, not by transmutation" Geologist, Joseph Le Conte

"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?
Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

Charles Robert Darwin,
The Origin of Species: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, 1st edition reprint. Avenel Books

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology (study of fossils). In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors, it appears all at once and fully formed."

Dr. Stephen J. Gould, Prof of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University. Mentioned in one of his regular columns in Natural History Magazine (1977) and also in The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182

"different species usually appear and disappear from the record without showing the transitions that Darwin postulated -- we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- We have fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwins' time" Dr. David Raup, a paleontologist at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. Field Museum Natural History Bulletin 50:22- 29

"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them" Dr. David B. Kitts, Paleontologist

"The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition" Evolutionist, Dr. Steven M. Stanley

"The record certainly did not reveal gradual transformations of structure in the course of time.
On the contrary, it showed that species generally remained constant throughout their history. New types or classes seemed to appear fully formed, with no sign of an evolutionary trend by which they could have emerged from an earlier type."
~Bowler, 'Evolution: The History of an Idea', 1984, p. 187~

Quotes Regarding Mutations

"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutation seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts.
These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."

Sir Ernest Chain,
Co-holder of the 1945 Noble Prize for developing penicillin.

"Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts.
This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species."


Dr. Etheridge,
World famous palaeontologist of the British Museum



"...the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutation plus natural selection – quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a tautology."


Arthur Koestler,
Soldier, writer and philosopher


"With the inability of mutations of any type to produce new genetic information, the maintenance of the basic plan is to be expected....
There are limits to biological change and these limits are set by the structure and function of the genetic machinery."


L. P. Lester Ph.D. and R. G. Bohlin Ph.D,
"The Natural Limits of Biological Change"


"Variation is one thing, evolution quite another; this cannot be emphasized strongly enough...
Mutations provide change, but not progress."


Pierre Grasse,
Editor of the 28-volume "Traite de Zoologie," for 30 years the Chair of Evolution, Sorbonne University, and ex-president of the French Academie des Sciences, "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.88



"To improve a living organism by random mutation is like saying you could improve a Swiss watch by dropping it and bending one of its wheels or axis.
Improving life by random mutation has the probability of zero."



Albert Szent-Gyorgi,
Nobel Laureate (Medicine, 1937)



"In 10 million years, a human-like species could substitute no more than 25,000 expressed neutral mutations and this is merely 0.0007% of the genome — nowhere near enough to account for human evolution.
This is the trade secret of evolutionary geneticists."

Walter James ReMine,
The Biotic Message : Evolution versus Message Theory

Quotes Regarding Natural Selection


"I may be permitted to say, as some excuse, that I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change...
Hence, if I have erred in giving to natural selection great power, I have at least ... done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."

Charles R. Darwin,
"The Descent of Man," bound in one volume with "The Origin of Species: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life," [1871], Modern Library, Random House: New York, nd., pp.441-442




"If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection."


Charles Darwin,
''The Origin of Species: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life' A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 302



"'Survival of the fittest' and 'natural selection'. No matter what phraseology one generates, the basic fact remains the same: any physical change of any size, shape or form is strictly the result of purposeful alignment of billions of nucleotides (in the DNA).

Nature or species do not have the capacity to rearrange them nor to add to them. Consequently no leap can occur from one species to another.

The only way we know for a DNA to be altered is through a meaningful intervention from an outside source of intelligence - one who know what it is doing, such as our genetic engineers are now performing in the laboratories"

I. L. Cohen,
Officer of the Archaeological Institute of America. Member New York Academy of Sciences. "Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities" New Research Publications, Inc., p. 209




"No one has yet witnessed, in the fossil record, in real life, or in computer life, the exact transitional moments when natural selection pumps its complexity up to the next level.
There is a suspicious barrier in the vicinity of species that either holds back this critical change or removes it from our sight."


Kevin Kelly,
Executive Editor of Wired Magazine, "Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines," [1994], Fourth Estate: London, 1995, reprint, p.475



"But how do you get from nothing to such an elaborate something if evolution must proceed through a long sequence of intermediate stages, each favored by natural selection?

You can't fly with 2% of a wing ... How, in other words, can natural selection explain these incipient stages of structures that can only be used (as we now observe them) in much more elaborated forms?

... one point stands high above the rest: the dilemma of incipient stages. Mivart identified this problem as primary and it remains so today."


Stephen Jay Gould,
Prof of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University


"The non-utility of specific characters is the point on which Natural Selection as a theory of the origin of species is believed to fail"
Professor D.H. Scott, Extinct Plants, p. 22



"No recognized case of Natural Selection really selecting has been observed"
Professor Vernon Kellogg, Evolution, p.91



It is easy enough to make up stories, of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."


Luther D Sutherland,
'Darwin's Enigma', Master Books 1988, p7,8, 89


"In other words, it's Natural Selection or a Creator. There is no middle ground.
This is why prominent Darwinists like G. G. Simpson and Stephen Jay Gould, who are not secretive about their hostility to religion, cling so vehemently to natural selection.
To do otherwise would be to admit the probability that there is design in nature—and hence a Designer."


G. S. Johnston,
The Genesis Controversy, Crisis, p. 17, May 1989

Quotes Regarding Transitional Forms


"Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?
Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?"


Charles R. Darwin,
The Origin of Species: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, first edition reprint Avenel Books, p. 205


"But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?"
|
Charles R. Darwin,
The Origin of Species, Ch 6, p134



"Instead of revealing a multitude of transitional forms through which the evolution of the cell might have occurred, molecular biology has served only to emphasize the enormity of the gap. We now know not only of the existence of a break between the living and non-living world, but also that it represents the most dramatic and fundamental of all the discontinuities of nature.


Dr. Denton, Ph.D (Molecular Biology),
An evolutionist currently doing biological research in Sydney, Australia



"Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record.


Dr. Colin Patterson,
Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London "Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems," [1984], Master Book Publishers: El Cajon CA, Fourth Edition, 1988, p89



The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated." Newsweek, November 3, 1980




"We now come to perhaps the most serious of defects in the evolutionary theory (belief) - the complete absence of transitional forms. If life has always been in a continual stream of transmutation from one form to another, as evolutionists insist, then we should certainly expect to find as many fossils of the intermediate stages between different forms as of the distinct kinds themselves.

Yet, no fossils have been found that can be considered transitional between the major groups or phyla! From the beginning, these organisms were just clearly and distinctly set apart from each other as they are today. Instead of finding a record of fine graduations preserved in the fossil record, we invariably find large gaps. This fact is absolutely FATAL to the general theory (belief) of evolution."


Scott M. Huges. PH.D

 

[Sallow]

You are evading.

If the steps can express themselves in one or two generation, as the 500,000 year theory implies, we should see some evidence of that today...yet we don't.

And evolutionist have box themselves in a corner by proclaiming the "convergent evolution" of the octopus eye.

So yes, I've shattered your point. Evolutionist claim that the two species eyes followed the almost exact evolutionary track for the camera eye, separated by millions of years.

You didn't "shatter" anything. All biological structures on an animal are formed as a reaction to the environment and as an adaptation to survive. If there was no light..there would be no need for an eye..and animals simply wouldn't have them. That's why earthworms have no eyes. They don't need them.

And we can see the results of "evolution" through our own domestic animals. We "forced" results of animals we are trying to modify through selective breeding. The results have been startling to say the least..and this is during a much shorter time then natural evolution.

Why you guys cling to this religious crapola is beyond me. But heck..keep it out of science..for pete's sake.

 

[Missourian]

That just says something we've observed with eyespots only have eyespots and don't evolve anything else. And? Do you have anything else to shatter my point, or just point out the obvious? Do you not get the point of why something with an eye is not automatically destined to develop an eye like we have? Because that's what your article seems not to get.

I suggest you stop wasting my time and read a biology book.

You are evading.

If the steps can express themselves in one or two generation, as the 500,000 year theory implies, we should see some evidence of that today...yet we don't.

And evolutionist have box themselves in a corner by proclaiming the "convergent evolution" of the octopus eye.

So yes, I've shattered your point. Evolutionist claim that the two species eyes followed the almost exact evolutionary track for the camera eye, separated by millions of years.

Vertebrates and octopuses developed the camera eye independently. In the vertebrate version the nerve fibers pass in front of the retina, and there is a blind spot where the nerves pass through the retina. In the vertebrate example, 4 represents the blind spot, which is notably absent from the octopus eye. In vertebrates, 1 represents the retina and 2 is the nerve fibers, including the optic nerve (3), whereas in the octopus eye, 1 and 2 represent the nerve fibers and retina respectively.

​

Funny, right wingers feel if they can just disprove one itsy bitsy tiny thing, then the entire theory of evolution falls apart. Only they can't prove even that one itsy bitsy tiny thing.

Then refute it Dean.

 

[Sallow]

You are evading.

If the steps can express themselves in one or two generation, as the 500,000 year theory implies, we should see some evidence of that today...yet we don't.

And evolutionist have box themselves in a corner by proclaiming the "convergent evolution" of the octopus eye.

So yes, I've shattered your point. Evolutionist claim that the two species eyes followed the almost exact evolutionary track for the camera eye, separated by millions of years.

Vertebrates and octopuses developed the camera eye independently. In the vertebrate version the nerve fibers pass in front of the retina, and there is a blind spot where the nerves pass through the retina. In the vertebrate example, 4 represents the blind spot, which is notably absent from the octopus eye. In vertebrates, 1 represents the retina and 2 is the nerve fibers, including the optic nerve (3), whereas in the octopus eye, 1 and 2 represent the nerve fibers and retina respectively.

​

Funny, right wingers feel if they can just disprove one itsy bitsy tiny thing, then the entire theory of evolution falls apart. Only they can't prove even that one itsy bitsy tiny thing.

Then refute it Dean.

Refute what?

 

[Missourian]

You are evading.

If the steps can express themselves in one or two generation, as the 500,000 year theory implies, we should see some evidence of that today...yet we don't.

And evolutionist have box themselves in a corner by proclaiming the "convergent evolution" of the octopus eye.

So yes, I've shattered your point. Evolutionist claim that the two species eyes followed the almost exact evolutionary track for the camera eye, separated by millions of years.

You didn't "shatter" anything. All biological structures on an animal are formed as a reaction to the environment and as an adaptation to survive. If there was no light..there would be no need for an eye..and animals simply wouldn't have them. That's why earthworms have no eyes. They don't need them.

And we can see the results of "evolution" through our own domestic animals. We "forced" results of animals we are trying to modify through selective breeding. The results have been startling to say the least..and this is during a much shorter time then natural evolution.

Why you guys cling to this religious crapola is beyond me. But heck..keep it out of science..for pete's sake.

By what mechanism do they adapt?

And don't say evolution...evolution is random mutation perpetuated by natural selection.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

That's abiogenesis, not evolution.



That's false. We have. Have you ever heard of Tiktaalik roseae?

I'm gonna guess you haven't.



The rate is about 70%. Keep in mind, that's when mutations happen, that itself varies with the species. For the most part, evolution via mutation is a long slow process, which is what the theory of evolution states. It takes a long time for something to evolve. Mainly because generations of an organisms last years.

It doesn't take observation simply to make something fact. Otherwise stars were never born. You see where this line of thinking goes.



Thank you for not understanding how the fuck humans evolved. It's just aces. Look up something called geographic isolation in terms of speciation, and you'll see just how one species can evolve into another.



Hm? It didn't just happened randomly. One minute basic single celled organisms the next BOOM multi-cellular organs. This stuff took a long time to evolve (we're talking billions of years) to get where we are.

It also isn't random. The mutations that cause a change in an organism randomly happen (also random is if they are beneficial or not). Natural selection filters the bad ones out (something with a negative mutation won't survive to pass on it's genes, that's why it's a negative mutation), that isn't random.



And this math is relevant how? it proves.... what?

I suggest you also take a trip down to your local library and ask a librarian to direct you to the biology section, perhaps even the evolutionary biology section. I can recommend you one or two if you'd like.

A fossil of a fish. that's about all you got.

You're free to beleive as you wish. Just don't say it's fact.

LOL. Okay dumbfuck. That's just one of the many we have. I thought it was the most interesting, since if I recall correctly that's one of the first ones that went on land. Since I posted one, that must be the only one I have right?

Wikipedia has a list. You could find more I'm sure at your local library if you bothered to pick up a science book that didn't have the Bible labeled on the front.

By the way, no response to the rest of my post? What a surprise, you don't understand the thing you're criticizing. Move along please, people who actually understand science are talking.

It went on land? And you know this to be fact how? From everything I've read the fins could not have supported it's weight on land not being connected to the main skeleton.

Seriously your list of alleged transitional fossils prove nothing.

The rest of you post needed no response. I have heard i tbefore and I still think it's a load of BS.

Face it, you are going to believe whatever scientist tells you.

To that I say read Psalms 118:8 for my response.

 

[Sallow]

You are evading.

If the steps can express themselves in one or two generation, as the 500,000 year theory implies, we should see some evidence of that today...yet we don't.

And evolutionist have box themselves in a corner by proclaiming the "convergent evolution" of the octopus eye.

So yes, I've shattered your point. Evolutionist claim that the two species eyes followed the almost exact evolutionary track for the camera eye, separated by millions of years.

You didn't "shatter" anything. All biological structures on an animal are formed as a reaction to the environment and as an adaptation to survive. If there was no light..there would be no need for an eye..and animals simply wouldn't have them. That's why earthworms have no eyes. They don't need them.

And we can see the results of "evolution" through our own domestic animals. We "forced" results of animals we are trying to modify through selective breeding. The results have been startling to say the least..and this is during a much shorter time then natural evolution.

Why you guys cling to this religious crapola is beyond me. But heck..keep it out of science..for pete's sake.

By what mechanism do they adapt?

And don't say evolution...evolution is random mutation perpetuated by natural selection.

Evolution.

And your definition of evolution is incorrect.

Evolution (also known as biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of individuals.[1] Inherited traits are distinguishing characteristics, for example anatomical, biochemical or behavioural, that are passed on from one generation to the next. Evolution occurs when there is variation of inherited traits within a population. The major sources of such inherited variants are mutation, genetic recombination and gene flow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Mutation is one factor..it isn't the whole story.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You could. But you'd be wrong.

And you have to rely on Darwin, essentially, to disprove his theories.

You know what a crackpot notion that is?

I rely on no man.

I simply used the science you hold so dear to disprove the "random process" of evolution.

And it doesn't work.

Unless you hold onto false logicals and a very warped interpretation of science.

So the science you believe isn't warped. but the science I provide is.

Proves my point that science isn't very reliable.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Can you carve out a Grand Canyon in 6000 years?

Who said anything about 6000 years?

That's about how long most right wingers feel is the age of the earth.

I've never heard any "right winger" make that claim.

 

[Missourian]

Funny, right wingers feel if they can just disprove one itsy bitsy tiny thing, then the entire theory of evolution falls apart. Only they can't prove even that one itsy bitsy tiny thing.

Then refute it Dean.

Refute what?

Are you following the thread?

Read the article.

 

[Sallow]

It went on land? And you know this to be fact how? From everything I've read the fins could not have supported it's weight on land not being connected to the main skeleton.

Seriously your list of alleged transitional fossils prove nothing.

The rest of you post needed no response. I have heard i tbefore and I still think it's a load of BS.

Face it, you are going to believe whatever scientist tells you.

To that I say read Psalms 118:8 for my response.

Try reading some new books.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KurTiX4FDuQ]‪Amazing animals - Mudskipper‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Sallow]

Then refute it Dean.

Refute what?

Are you following the thread?

Read the article.

The article is ridiculous.

And I did refute it.

 

[Sallow]

I rely on no man.

I simply used the science you hold so dear to disprove the "random process" of evolution.

And it doesn't work.

Unless you hold onto false logicals and a very warped interpretation of science.

So the science you believe isn't warped. but the science I provide is.

Proves my point that science isn't very reliable.

Naw.

It doesn't.

It proves that like fire anything can be used to either destroy or enlighten.

You are doing the "destroy" thing.

 

[Missourian]

You didn't "shatter" anything. All biological structures on an animal are formed as a reaction to the environment and as an adaptation to survive. If there was no light..there would be no need for an eye..and animals simply wouldn't have them. That's why earthworms have no eyes. They don't need them.

And we can see the results of "evolution" through our own domestic animals. We "forced" results of animals we are trying to modify through selective breeding. The results have been startling to say the least..and this is during a much shorter time then natural evolution.

Why you guys cling to this religious crapola is beyond me. But heck..keep it out of science..for pete's sake.

By what mechanism do they adapt?

And don't say evolution...evolution is random mutation perpetuated by natural selection.

Evolution.

And your definition of evolution is incorrect.

Evolution (also known as biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of individuals.[1] Inherited traits are distinguishing characteristics, for example anatomical, biochemical or behavioural, that are passed on from one generation to the next. Evolution occurs when there is variation of inherited traits within a population. The major sources of such inherited variants are mutation, genetic recombination and gene flow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Mutation is one factor..it isn't the whole story.

That's fine...but without natural selection, evolution doesn't work.

Do you get that?

Without natural selection, it's all random. It's a tornado through the lumberyard, leaving a house in it's wake.

And...natural selection requires an advantage.

So if that photon sensing cell evolves without any of the other evolution required to make it useful...it has no selective advantage.

Now you are back to the crap shoot. 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1 against.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

It went on land? And you know this to be fact how? From everything I've read the fins could not have supported it's weight on land not being connected to the main skeleton.

Seriously your list of alleged transitional fossils prove nothing.

The rest of you post needed no response. I have heard i tbefore and I still think it's a load of BS.

Face it, you are going to believe whatever scientist tells you.

To that I say read Psalms 118:8 for my response.

Try reading some new books.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KurTiX4FDuQ]‪Amazing animals - Mudskipper‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

Perfect example of what I was saying. The fins must be connected to the main skeleton or it would not be able to hold up the weight.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Refute what?

Are you following the thread?

Read the article.

The article is ridiculous.

And I did refute it.

Yes he refutes it. He picks and chooses which science to believe in.

 

[Cuyo]

I don't why evolution disturbs people on the right, but it does. No wonder America ranks up their with Turkey in denying evolution.

Evolution has never been proven. It is only a theory and believing that theory requires just as much if not more faith than Christians have in their beliefs. IMO

That little gem is going to make it difficult to ever take you seriously again.

 

[Missourian]

Strange that the only science in the thread comes from the creation side.

The evolutionist...not so much.

My belief in God comes from personal experience. I wasn't always a Christian, there was a time I also believed that God was a myth. But I saw the light, almost literally, and I feel a connection with God, I see and feel His hand at work in my life, in nature and in the world.

You all believe evolution as fact because you've been told it is true.

Do some research like I have, and you'll see the holes.

Now I have some work to do, but I'll be back later.

 

[Sallow]

By what mechanism do they adapt?

And don't say evolution...evolution is random mutation perpetuated by natural selection.

Evolution.

And your definition of evolution is incorrect.

Evolution (also known as biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of individuals.[1] Inherited traits are distinguishing characteristics, for example anatomical, biochemical or behavioural, that are passed on from one generation to the next. Evolution occurs when there is variation of inherited traits within a population. The major sources of such inherited variants are mutation, genetic recombination and gene flow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Mutation is one factor..it isn't the whole story.

That's fine...but without natural selection, evolution doesn't work.

Do you get that?

Without natural selection, it's all random. It's a tornado through the lumberyard, leaving a house in it's wake.

And...natural selection requires an advantage.

So if that photon sensing cell evolves without any of the other evolution required to make it useful...it has no selective advantage.

Now you are back to the crap shoot. 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1 against.

Yeah it is pretty random.

Life itself is random. It's a crap shoot. That's probably why we haven't seen all that much around the galaxy. As far as we know, we may very well be it.

And that's what you guys fear most..that life is random, chaotic, meaningless and pointless.

You like neat little stories and easy answers. That's why religion works so well. It gives you comfort that there is a "Heavenly Father" that really cares about your every move and "Guardian Angels" are taking great steps in crafting your destiny.

Well..it's nice. It's compact. And it's comforting. But it's not reality.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I don't why evolution disturbs people on the right, but it does. No wonder America ranks up their with Turkey in denying evolution.

Evolution has never been proven. It is only a theory and believing that theory requires just as much if not more faith than Christians have in their beliefs. IMO

That little gem is going to make it difficult to ever take you seriously again.

I understand. I know how allergic you are to facts and opposing opinions.