April 24th, 2018

Hard to deny creation, easy to debate evolution

By Letter to the Editor on January 7, 2018.

In answer to John P. Nightingale’s letter Jan. 4: thanks, John, it is an honour for me to get responses from highly educated people like you and many others like you.

Let me start with the end of your letter – “flying dinosaurs.” I took a picture of one with a telephoto lens around noon over Coaldale, but that is the Air France Airbus A380, Paris to Los Angeles; that is a dinosaur of a plane, not a bird.

Now more seriously, you make fun of living frogs encased in stone, something which had written eyewitness accounts from less than 200 years ago, and as recently as the 1980s. That is enough to make a hoax of the evolution theory; this stone is not 300 million years old, but these frogs and toads became stuck in mud during Noah’s flood 4,400 years ago. The mud became limestone and now once in a while the creatures are seen alive when the stone is broken during excavation.

Who do you think can keep them alive that long? This is more proof from the Creator.

Next, Job was not talking about a crocodile, but “nothing on earth is his equal”; so much bigger yet than an elephant, John; it is a dinosaur. Not a salamander either that makes a trail like a toothpick in mud.

One more comment about Noah’s ark: Ron Wyatt made a documentary, with pictures and video, also about the huge anchor stones near the top of a mountain.

Evolution people will vehemently deny all the above. It’s pretty hard to deny, though. Science is a very good thing; because of it we live a lot better and longer than people in the Middle Ages, but it won’t work for an evolution theory. How will they prove what happened millions of years ago but won’t believe eyewitness accounts from 4,000 or less years ago? And your comment that the “bwahahahahaha” website is not atheist – really? They sure act like it.

And, yes, I have literal faith in the Bible, God’s word. We as a family have recently experienced the peace that passeth all understanding after the passing of our beloved 12-year-old grandson Michael. Only God can do that.

John Van Liere


Share this story:

5 Responses to “Hard to deny creation, easy to debate evolution”

  1. John P Nightingale says:

    Mr Van Liere. I am truly sorry for your loss. I wish you and your family well for the new year and beyond.
    Regarding your explanations and examples, I will let other readers make their own interpretations and conclusions after reading the “facts” presented in your rebuttal.

  2. already extinct says:

    Mr. Nightingale, thank you for an appropriate and civil response to Mr. Van Liere’s editorial.

    Can we ask for continued tolerance of others beliefs, pursuits and goals in 2018, returning this forum to one where we are better informed of differences, we must do better to recognize, and tolerate.

    Our tiny and wonderful corner of the world may just be a bit better to hang out in if you, I and everyone else weighing in on the subject material find in their heart a softer spot from which to view and deliberate on the words of others.

    Sir, you’ve provided a good base from which to begin. Thank You again.

    • Tony Pargeter says:

      Yes, civility is an appropriate tone for a discussion forum, but the point of debate is lost if we feel obliged to smooth over differences of opinion and pretend all viewpoints have equal merit. Just because a person “believes” something doesn’t mean it is true, and it doesn’t mean we have to “respect” those beliefs. I wearily concede the right of anyone to “believe” whatever, (“youth is a frail thing, not unafraid, firstly inclined to take what it is told, with full-jewelled wile and might…”) but thinking is much preferred, is in fact our higher power, speaking to that. So I am certainly going to argue with “beliefs” that are ill-informed, nonsensical, irrational or based on falsehoods. How else do we arrive at a better understanding of reality than through open debate? To keep it civil, argue about ideas, not personalities, religion simply being one of the former. The inherent problem with it is how it seems to have been designed to inveigle its way deeply into human vulnerabilities and identity, blurring the lines.

  3. biff says:

    jvl, sincerest best wishes.
    i understand the feeling of peace which you speak of and generously share in your letter. there is far more to existence than this dear planet that too many seem content to plunder and abuse.
    i see merit in each of creationism and evolution: as it has been said, roughly, you can leave all the components for any device together in one spot, and it will never ever put itself together to make a working whole; nor, can we take all the parts of any body and assemble them into living life again once the life is no longer there ( a la frankenstein); however, as change is inevitable, it is hard to believe that there is no evolutionary process – because we have monkeys does not necessarily mean we have no evolutionary link to them, as not everything evolves at the exact same rate nor may even make the necessary effort to evolve (think of the many levels of humans, for example, in terms of evolution – and please, i do not allude to race whatsoever, but rather to the widely varying physical, intellectual, emotional, spiritual, and behavioural ranges of humanity. put another way, i feel a lot of evolution would require effort by the organism to bring about change, and such change then becomes another piece of the ancestral dna chain that gets passed along to subsequent generations.
    the issue for me, and i think others, is how we approach life – from a frozen in time and space dogmatic approach, such as narrow philosophies/religions that create groups of privilege and others not, or with tolerance and compassion that comes from open hearts and minds that allows people to find their paths, experiences, and ultimate growths. our propensity to divide people: into groups and subgroups; into haves and have nots; into welcome and less than fully welcome, would seem to be – to borrow a religious term that i do not believe exists in reality – the path of the devil.

  4. P Marshall says:

    Mr Van Liere. Could you please cite the sources of information upon which you base the claims you make.

    Your comment about frogs in stone has nothing whatever to do with The Theory of Evolution. This suggests that you know little or nothing about it and don’t particularly care to address the subject with any seriousness or address the scientific rigour and explanatory data with which the theory is informed and presented.
    Surely you are aware all of this is fully contestable. The plain fact is that creationists have failed to demonstrate their disputing of the theory in any convincing way. That does not automatically mean that an alleged God as a causative agent does not exist. The theory of evolution does not engage with that question. While i can understand why biblical literalists become so “exercised” by such a comprehensive and elegantly cohesive body of knowledge that contests their preferred belief based narrative, it does not excuse the intellectually lazy, nonsensical claims so typical of your contributions here.
    Mud does not become limestone. While they are both sedimentary rock they are, as the names applied to them
    purposefully indicate, composed of starkly different materials.
    Mudstone is largely made up of muds and clays which, when compressed over time become mudstone. Limestone on
    the other hand is commonly made up of the hard body parts of marine organisms.
    The two are quite different and the vast deposits that have been identified and in the case of limestone are frequently mined for use as a building material among other things, are part of a clearly articulated geological history that precedes the time scale of the “version of events” you are attempting to privilege with your remarks.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.