Where do Creationists get their Information From?

[Xigano1]

Sounds like Ben Steins' "theory"

of lightningstrike in a mudpuddle

[soulsanctuarymusic1]

Well for a start what the fuck is anything to do with the big bang doing in a book about evolution? I thought that simple thing would of instantly rendered the book invalid bollox!

[RespectMyHate]

@soulsanctuarymusic1 Evolution isn't just biological, the theory of evolution has been applied to the cosmos, chemicals, and life.

[soulsanctuarymusic1]

@RespectMyHate *Facepalm* Although the word evolution can be applied to those things they are completely unrelated to the theory of evolution and should certainly not be covered in the same book. The creation of chemical elements in the universe is actually called Nucleosynthesis and the very first life form arising from those chemicals is called Abiogenesis. If one book/theory could cover all different types of evolution, we wouldn't have so many specialized fields in science would we?

[RespectMyHate]

@soulsanctuarymusic1 Your a fucking retard, eat a dick.

[soulsanctuarymusic1]

@RespectMyHate oh i'm sorry... did i make you feel stupid?

[soulsanctuarymusic1]

@RespectMyHate BTW it's "you're" a fucking retard...

[WiKiDEnT]

I'm talking about how it talks about charles darwins past. How he used to be christian. Something spiritual happend to him and It wasn't godly. What religion are you?

[noelplum99]

@WiKiDEnT

I am an atheist.

I wonder how Charles darwin's past, or indeed his faith position at any time in his life, impacts on the veracity of evolutionary theory?

[WiKiDEnT]

@noelplum99 Well If your an athiest anything I say won't make much of an impact but I believe that satan or a demon possed him.

[noelplum99]

@WiKiDEnT

Even if satan possessed darwin it is largely irrelevant. Let us say Satan possessed Copernicus, would that lead us to doubt heliocentricity? If Satan possessed Fleming would that mean that we would doubt the efficacy of antibiotics?

Evolutionary theory does not hinge on Darwin and hasn't for over a century.

[stinkpuppyohno]

i also tired to contact the people who published this book on one of there breaf blurbs regarding guadaloopa woman. i had contacted the british museam and then a long rought though to where the skeliton realy was. the blurb they had was completely false and in fact is standing in direct oposition to whay thay claim about it. but for some reason i cant get a hold of them. hmmmm

[stinkpuppyohno]

haha i have the paper back copy of that book. it is pure shite. it cant get any subject right. is good for a laugh and that is it

[stinkpuppyohno]

haha i have the paper back copy of that book. it is pure shite. it cant get any subject right. is good for a laugh and that is it

[sciencemile]

It seems to be published/copyrighted by religious organizations....figures that's where the misinformation is coming from.

[rogan71]

I'm a tad confused what the big bang has to do with evolution anyway?

[sciencemile]

Nothing, although it does have quite a bit to do with Evolutionism, Creationism's beliefs about what certain scientific theories supposedly say <.<

[Vogter2100]

Thanks. Mack is stupid as a door nail.

[LiamXaoh]

Here are all the things you need to know to be a creationist:

1. The bible is absolutely true (if you ignore the silly errors, contradictions and stupid non-scientific stuff)

2. Science is just a lot of rubbish as it doesn't support creationism.

3. If you repeat a lie often enough people will believe it.

4. Repeat steps 1 to 3 ad nauseum

It helps too if you stop thinking critically.

By the way this is a wonderful video. Pity it is full of facts; no appeal to creationists.

[begonefilthyhuman]

The funny thing about Ferrell's pathetic attempt to discredit the origins of self-replicators is that the entire process he describes actually sounds *a lot* like what you'd expect to happen if Sky Daddy did it all. Really, truly, amazingly sad that this clown has so little imagination, that even his feeble tries at sullying an accepted scientific theory are little more than what a caveman might have sketched on a wall.

[cryingsoftly]

Technically space itself is frictionless. It is primarily the matter that precipitated out of the energy of the Big Bang that causes friction.

Checked the bibliography section of this work. Apparently Vance Ferrell based his research on the following books "EVOLUTION DISPROVED SERIES" by Vance Ferrell and "EVOLUTION CRUNCHER" by Vance Ferrell.

At least nobody can claim that he did not understand the meaning of the works that were part of his extensive research.

[hugesinker]

Whatever happened to MackQuigley? Is he also GoodScience4U?

[klhcc]

Good video. It's hilarious that references are made to these 'books' but then again, there are no valid works for creationists to reference. We should pity them.

Peace.

[cristop5]

NP99, I admire your ability to have an emotional response to people's ignorance and stupidity.

My response seems to be limited to irritation and mild depression.

Beer helps though.

[awazha]

LMAO..

BANG !!

[dmwalker24]

Aside from the waste of pixels section about lightning and puddles the fact that there is a section about the big bang in an Evolution Handbook is beyond stupid. Proof of a complete lack of any comprehension of Evolution (or cosmology for that matter).

[pindakaas42]

what a pile of shit this book is

[pepertony]

Have you been votebotted? This deserves 5 stars all the way!

[noelplum99]

votebotted twice, first time about 30 one star votes per video second time around a hundred!

[mrmong]

5 starred, votebotters are pretty pathetic

[TheAvengingAtheist]

It reads like a collection of straw man arguements.

[BoneySkylord]

Great video.

Thanks for exposing more creationist lies and propaganda.

That book illustrates perfectly why creationism needs to be fought on every front and at every opportunity.

Blatant lies and misinformation fool the willingly gullible and undermine real knowledge and truth.

[urantivirus]

OUCH! OUCH! OUCH!!!!

I don't know what hurts more. Their discription of abiogenisis giving me a spilting headache. Or me smashing my head against the wall. Trying to comprehend how they became so ignorant. And then they went public with it.

/wrists[target=urantivirus]

[hugesinker]

LOL! It's like he replaced the breath of God and dust in Genesis with lightning and "dirty water" as a strawman. Does the author site HIS sources/research/hallucinogen? Whatever that must have been.. this author felt he needed to add insight to it.

His source must have been this statement, written in crayon on a church bathroom wall: "Nothing blewed-up and make a retarded fish-frog who done teh deed wit a monkie and made us. tee-hee... that junk what evolutionist belivv. I am winnar."

[jgoemat]

Heck, you can tell it's a religious handbook by the bright red scary lettering on the front.  Also the fact that the cover of an "evolution handbook" that has mountains and sky instead of anything to do with evolution is a good hint :)

[PFWoody488]

Since Quigley doesn't know that Darwin's theory has nothing to do with the origins of the universe, or abiogenesis, it is not too surprising that he understands nothing about either topic.

Darwin's theory applies to what happens AFTER life begins, not before.

Creatards that want to throw out evolution because it does not explain the origins of the universe or abiogenisis would do as well to discard the germ theory of disease since it doesn't explain how gravity works.

Hence 'Creatards.'

[Ibitsae]

No wonder the creationists around youtube don't understand even the basics of evolution, or pretty much anything else for that matter, if this is the kind of stuff they try to edumacate themselves with.

[marcluc1988]

Have you got foundation on in this video? Did you borrow it off your wife or girlfriend?

;)

I love your videos. You're a very intelligent guy!

[JonSchaffer57]

I'm typing this AS I watch, so there may be more that I don't know about as ov yet. I just want to say that the second page you show resembles creationism in my opinion...

Creationism is what states that things popped out ov nowhere (with the help ov a god, or creator) but THAT is where you see things popping in as complex lifeforms.

[EricZombie]

Who the FUCK writes this shit? Lightning zapped muddy water, and *BAM*, complex life? What kind of strawman argument is that?!?

[mazdaplz]

noelplum99: intelligent people like you are harder to find/subscribe to. so normally i steer away from these kind of videos but you have made my day. i am subscribing probably i'll even make a video sometime

[rickballance]

Yes, owned.

[NathBonn]

owned?

[lowcomedy]

I just read the handbook. I left this comment;

Did a thousand retarded monkeys, on a thousand retarded typewriters just start taking steaming monkey shits on the keys to produce such a steaming pile of monkey shit?

[wordavee]

I must read this book, I could do with a laugh!!

[gorilla199uncensored]

Expect any better form any creationist liar, let alone a retard such as quigly who can not even see how dumb and biased it is. It must be within his dumbness and bias!

[allan3141]

Is it right to speak confidently about this boundary surface? Does it definitely exist? Has it been observed? How far is it away? How fast is it moving? Is it possible to be a inch from it? What would it be like? Where is the centre of the universe from which it is receding? Which direction? The centre never seems to get discussed but it would be interesting.

[allan3141]

Not too sure the frictionless space concept is that wrong. The boundary surface to which you refer between the universe and nothing is becoming an increasingly smaller fraction of the whole. All concentric surfaces within this boundary are moving though extant space. Indeed we are told the expansion is speeding up!

[12scratch12]

Good job on this vid. I have taken some undergrad courses on genetics and this source that you called out is definitely wack. If people are gonna criticize evolution or other scientific theories take some time to get educated, don't be lazy.

[handofhezekiah]

Looks like this process was also applied to the scriptures several hundred times over the years too! Not forgetting all those books and gospels that were omitted by canonisation, word of god??? hmmmmmm and what about the dead sea scrolls? The book of Judas? Conveniently or DELIBERATELY left out? Word of god or word of man???? Well seeing as gods usual handwriting style is emblazoning into stone me thinks tis obvious!

[noelplum99]

People often read the bible without spending enough time considering, let alone actually researching, the environment and societies in which it was written. It simply astounds me that otherwise sensible people who would be highly sceptical of anything written in these enlightened times somehow cede total credibility to a book written in an age where people happily documented all sort of monsters and magicks, with their low credulity threshold and high religious zealotry......

[noelplum99]

....not to mention putting things into a social context: we know politicians and leaders make things up to control now so how can people be so naive not to think this would have been happening back then (deuteronomy anyone?).

As to the John Lydon thing, hehe, no they haven't but I suppose I can see where you're coming from!

[handofhezekiah]

This is what I have been arguing by saying they werent called MANuscripts for nothing! Look at the mayans and how only the literate had acess to the books, same with christendom too! BTW: Jon Lydon comment meant as compliment!

[noelplum99]

Heh, np, quite like Jon Lydon, especially fond of a lot of PIL stuff.

[handofhezekiah]

Jon Lydon, but with decent teeth!

[primitiveUFO]

I've always thought the evolutionist=vs=creationist debate is a pure waste of time both for science and religion.....there are idiots on both sides...this clip is an example:

7m9Wabr2Va4

Dont be mislead by the title, in the first 3 seconds you'll know what it is about

[acidlullaby]

i saw that... I thought it was a joke, it's freaking terrifying if this guy is being serious

[cansurfer1]

Creationists must attack the Big Bang Theory because it disproves their timescale. The speed of light has been measured to extreme precision. We KNOW that the moon is 1 light second away, the sun 8 light minutes. The most distant object we can see with the naked eye is M13, the Andromeda Galaxy,2.5 million light years distant. You can see what the problem creationists have is. Here is a great link:

kidsastronomy(dot)com

[LittleTruckingBozo]

OMG, is this hand book for real? How can be so badly off?

I want to find the guy who wrote this book and ravage him and his family with my filthy cock before doing the world a favor and smashing their heads in with a huge rock. effectively ridding the world of their stupidity.

[Iced1992]

Well, obviously this resource is made to ridicule evolutionists and regular scientists alike, but is it scientific satire or creationary ignorance?

[Redshift21]

The most telling thing here is the fact that the person who wrote that..... errrr piece of work knows nothing about evolution, evolution has nothing to say about the big bang theory and nothing to say about Abiogenesis (sp), the theory of evolution deal purely and ONLY with what happens with life once it was here, it's a pretty good rule of thumb that anybody who starts talking about the Big Bang or Abiogenesis when trying to discuss Evolution knows less than shit about any of them.

[noelplum99]

What they always say is that for life to evolve it had to have started in some way first. Whilst that is true it can be applied to anything: for you to be able to order a pizza life has to have started in some way; for surgeons to be able to sew peoples limbs back on life has to have started in some way etc, the list is endless. Strange then, that we manage to discuss all these other things that require this same precondition without it getting dragged up each and every time

[Redshift21]

Very true

[Sajuuk009]

I think creationist get hung up on the sciences that disprove their story book, and try to combine both theories cuz both have the words "evolution" or "evolve" in them. sadly this just makes them look dim.

[as702ecs]

I accidentally stumbled upon this video. Nice argument, Noah. I could have maybe accepted creationism several thousand years ago. Today, not so much.

Peace!

[noelplum99]

Noel not Noah.

Noah was the guy who was supposedly the only righteous man left on earth and yet was still so without conscience that he didnt take anyone else on the ark other than his own family.

Even then, the omnisccient god who instructed him failed to foretell the futility of his plan: the world was just as corrupt and full of sin after the flood as before.

[as702ecs]

Gosh, I'm sorry (that was awfully rude of me).

I was of course referring to you, Noel.

(-:

[noelplum99]

Heh, no sweat, no offence taken, just mucking with you ;)

[ShiShirakuku]

I'm starting to believe that this site is meant to be a joke.. But, then, to quote it with serious intentions, that's just laughable.

[freedomsfart]

Sarah Palin is a creationist. She believes in witches, too. She believes we are in the end days. She wants control of America's nuclear weapons.

[entheogensmurf]

That site is comical and embarrassing.

[ReasonablySpeaking]

Fantastic job, you completely owned the guy. He made a big mistake revealing his sources in the first place. He should have known it would lead to further embarrassment. This is what happens when you pile shit upon shit: it just doesn't stand up.

[cansurfer1]

I just finished an extensive search of the author, Vance Ferrell. He claims to have a BA and an MA. This cannot be verified, as he is not listed as ever having presented a thesis(a requirement for these degrees) at any University or College, nor does he ever state the disciplines in which he claims these degrees. Hmmmmmmmm...

[mikefoz]

Probably another creation scientist with a law degree.

[cansurfer1]

no, If he had a real degree in Law, I would have found it. He is a 7th Day Adventist, so his degrees probably came from a degree mill, like Hovinds. Pooflingers Anonymnous are still trying to dig into his actual credentials, more on this if it can be found.

[mikefoz]

I see he has made another ad-hominem attack in his latest video. Seems there's one in every video he makes. Strange that he (falsely) accuses me of this "stupid" tactic and then does it himself repeatedly.

It seems he had nothing to respond to this video with and made a very desperate attempt. How can he consider himself to be "winning", let alone "involved" in any form of debate or argument when he brings nothing but regurgitated fiction and insults?

[noelplum99]

bear in mind that half his response to this video wasn't even a response to this video at all but a response to my latest comments on his 'evil lutionary' video. It is clear that once this guy runs out of things to say he just retires back into quoting scripture which is clearly where he is really at: the science is just a veneer, a badge of convenience that he wears only as and when it suits.

[OminousVoice]

I watched this, then I watched MackQuigly's response. I then checked out his reference.

Words fail me.

This 'Handbook' that Mack espouses isn't even fit to use as toilet paper.

[MichaelOrr1984]

Mack Quigley has posted a response to this video, but he has banned comments on it so I will reply to him via this vid. Mack - I wish I had the patience that Noel has in telling you where you are wrong. Oh my, your counter-argument is weaker than my belief in God...and I'm an athiest.

Your courtroom approach was a joke as well.

Seriously people, I want to make it a mission to find someone on youtube who is worthy of facing Noel in a debate - who wants to step up to the plate??!?! No idiots.

[ReasonablySpeaking]

Yeah I have been keeping an eye on Noel and he is top notch.

[cansurfer1]

the Big Bang has its roots in the work(1927) of Father Georges Lemaitre of Louvain Catholic University. He realized that Einstein's equations implied that an initial "CREATION-like" event must have occured. In his "Primeval Egg" hypothesis, all the matter/energy in the universe existed in a universal singularity.

The only theory I am aware of that postulates "everything from nothing" can be found in a bronze-age textbook that begins with the phrase "In the beginning was the void..."

[noelplum99]

Your last paragraph reminds me of the scoffing creationist reduction of evolution to 'we came from a rock' when they themselves quote genesis 2:7 that humans were formed from the 'dust of the ground'. How can they not see the irony in that????

[cansurfer1]

precicely, my friend. Great video, and keep up the good fight.

[Gisburne2000]

I'm racking my brains and in all the encounters I've had with people who reject evolution, I can't recall a single one who didn't totally misrepresent what the theory of evolution actually describes. Having done that, they then present their proof that what they take to be evolution is not true. Well of course it's not because that isn't what the theory says.

I would love to find someone who knew the science and THEN disputed it, but does such a person exist?

[h8uall66]

I have tried to point this error out to creationists in the past. I have even tried to give an example: Suppose I were to reject the Bible because of a contradiction I found where the book of Luke describes Jesus as commanding his followers to wear a red hat at all times, while the book of Mark describes Jesus as commanding his followers to wear a human skull as a hat at all times. A Christian would reject the notion as total misrepresentation of the Bible. No creationists has understood yet!

[Hooya2]

You stop at 'frictionless space' but not at 'a large quantity of nothing decided to pack tightly together'? rofl

[noelplum99]

That was because the first comment, which you rightly pick out, just seemed like a typically cynical at the BB theory. The comment I stopped on I found more concerning because it seemed to demonstrate a total misunderstanding of the theory as opposed to just a cynical perspective.

I take your point though.

[TordGrip]

I suppose when you are trying to refute a publication, the easiest place to start is the most glaring of errors. It would probably take too many videos to pick apart all of Mr Ferrell's work.

[TordGrip]

Hi mate, I haven't done the same extensive research that Vance Ferrell has done; but I do find this subject of abiogenesis fascinating and at the same time mind boggling.

Am I right in saying the ultimate first evolutionary step has to be REPRODUCTION/REPLICATION be it meiosis or mitosis, or something similar? It seems to me that the start of evolution is reproduction, without it there can be no evolution. So did abiogenesis continue until a something capable of reproduction was created?Thanks

[noelplum99]

We can only make educated guesses but the smart money is generally on some kind of organic replicating molecule, perhaps one that catalyses chemicals in its surrounding to form more versions of itself. This is perhaps more akin to the transcription processes in a cell than anything else.

Whilst perhaps a long way from DNA it would still need the characteristics of a malleable molecular structure (to allow for mutation) but still replicatse with a evry high level of fidelity.

[noelplum99]

Though like you, Tord, my research on this is not on the same scale as Vances' :))

[ThisIsRysta]

Lol that guy doesn't know what day it is!

[a01011399]

the quote is correct is correct, explotion can also meen expantion, LOOK FOR EXPLOTION IN A DICCTIONARY and then make a video apologizing. and the universe was frinction less acording to the big bang dogma.

[noelplum99]

the point isnt taht expansion and explosion are different things you insane creationist. My point is that The Big Bang theory says that the explosion or expansion is of space itself rather than of matter and energy in a pre-existing space.

[TordGrip]

I can't find explotion in my dictionary :sobs:

[mikefoz]

I had a little expansion and explosion in the trouser space watching this video.

I can't wait for him to quote this comment in his response, and defend that book as scientific evidence and fact.

[a01011399]

Acording TO the quote

First there was an explotion/expantion, then gas was form, thne the gas expanded in friction less space ¿where is the problem? During the big bang space and time all ready existed, before the big bang there was not space, but during the big bang THERE WAS SPACE

There is nothing wrong in the quote

[noelplum99]

I'd missed this comment.

Your knowledge of cosmological theory is about as good as your youtube account naming skills.

At the start of the big bang the universe was very very small and since then it has expanded to its present size. Consequently the matter is not flying out 'through space' it is the space that was expanding. Everything is wrong with the quote, it is simply that the author shares the same clueless understanding of the BB theory that you do.

[a01011399]

According to the quote, the gas expanded(moved) in space, the quote is not claiming that the space was not expanding as well, according to the big bang theory matter is literally moving and expanding in space, your analogy with the balloon was used correctly, mater moves and expands.

Besides arent space and universe synonyms in English? Is it possible to change space for universe in the quote? (I am asking because I don´t know)

[noelplum99]

Of course I'm not suggesting that nothing is moving in space whatsoever (and yes, in this case space and universe are entirely interchangeable) but the bulk of the movement - the outward expansion - is of space and the matter is carried away from each other by this process, not from matter passing through 'frictionless space', in just the same way as the dots do not inch across the balloons 2d surface it is the expansion of the surface that moves them apart.

[a01011399]

´´not from matter passing through 'frictionless space'´´

well to be honest I don´t think the quote is suggesting that, it is just claming that gas expanded within the available space.

the quote is not sugesting that the initial ´´dot´´ was in empty space

[noelplum99]

All I can say is that it sums up the nig bang as 'gas flowing outward through frictionless space' and that is not an accurate picture of what happened. Today, distant galaxies are moving away from us not because they are 'passing through frictionless space' but because the space between themselves and our galaxy is expanding

[a01011399]

the quote is explaning what happened with the matter(gas) once space was al ready created, weather if space is expanding or not is irrelevant for that quote,

Well I personally don´t think the quote is suggesting that space is not expanding, but at the end of the day it is my opinion, we can only know the truth by asking the author of the book

[noelplum99]

Ok ok I give in.

Clearly the only way I can get through your rose-tinted specs is to give some more quotes from further down the SAME PAGE. Here we go, from only a few paragraphs down:

Quote 1) "2 - Outer space is frictionless, and there would be no way to slow the particles. The Big Bang is postulated on a totally empty space, devoid of all matter, in which a single explosion fills it with outward-flowing matter."

...contd

[noelplum99]

Quote2) "There is no way to unite the particles. As the particles rush outward from the central explosion, they would keep getting farther and farther apart from one another."

This second quote is even more of a gem. He talks about a 'central explosion' a classic hallmark of someone who has no concept of BB theory which states that there is no central point to the expansion (just like in my balloon example there is no point on the 2D surface which is the 'centre of the expansion'.

...contd

[noelplum99]

Ok then a01011399, are you STILL going to keep backing this article up or have I proved my point to you yet??

[a01011399]

ok, you proved your point, thanks for posting more quotes. You might have some free time, so I invite you to watch my last video and make a reply

[noelplum99]

Invitation accepted, I'll give it a look :)

[StupidCreationists]

"You might have some free time, so I invite you to watch my last video and make a reply"

Is your latest video as stupid as mack videos? Like your other video, that got you into the stupid creationist hall of shame.

[StupidCreationists]

Noel I doubt the author believes what they wrote, its about making lies that other fundies can quote the lies from.

[freedomsfart]

Retard comment. Actually, in the initial expansion, there was no hydrogen or helium as stated in the nonsense text posing as fact. There were elementary particles. These later congealed to form hydrogen, which fueled the first stars and their product was helium. Anyway. Expansion is a difficult concept and during which the universe may have "expanded" by light years in size without actually having travelled such a distance or time. But, ask Sarah Palin; she believes in Fred Flintstone.

[Hooya2]

"and the universe was frinction less acording to the big bang dogma."

Wow... just... wow.

Ignorant, and proud of it.

[TheLoquid]

I thought this would be another Hovind video, but my god I never thought I would see such ignorance dressed up as authoritative fact.

[Alpinex105]

When was space ever frictionless? Plasma anyone?

[NotJames1]

I totally agree

[h8uall66]

Creationists have no integrity. Remember, their religion is not about the love of God and Jesus, but their own masturbatory fantasies about Hell. They love the concept of people that disagree with them burning forever so much that it clouds out all reason. Ever notice that there are a lot of Christian and Muslim creationists but hardly any Jewish creationists? Jews don't have a Hell.

[a01011399]

that is because there are very few jews in the world

[h8uall66]

Yes, but of the Jews that do exist, hardly any of them are creationist. Only a VERY small percentage. Go to a synagogue, see what I mean.

[a01011399]

WELL MAYBE, i WILL TAKE YOUR WORD, BUT IF THERE ARE MORE CHRISTIANS THAN JEWS IN THE WORLD THEN WE WOULD EXPECT TO FIND MORE CHRISTIAN CREATIONISTS THAT IS WHAT I MEANT

[h8uall66]

Why are you typing in all caps?

[a01011399]

because my key board was trying to evolve :)

[edmanrapperu]

That "extensive research" was probably him picking his ass.

[ThetaOmega]

According to the book, "Gamow, a well-known scientist and science fiction writer, that gave it its present name and then popularized it"

Er, no, it was Fred Hoyle who gave the Big Bang it's popular name, in an attempt to UNDERMINE it. What a total fail, just like the rest of the book.

[pandstar]

That book is unbelievable1

It makes Answersingenesis(.)org seem worthy of the Nobel by comparison.

I don't believe for a second the author(s) of that book believe a word of what they wrote. It is obviously an example of "lying for Jesus".

Keep up the great work Noelplum!

[StreetlightEagle]

haha that is the biggest fail i have ever seen, creationists better stick to the Nephilimfree plan: "go research it yourself"

[ThetaOmega]

Should re-title it "The perons who wants to epic fail at evolution handbook"

[Atheistprimate]

/facepalm

Fucking moron who wrote this rubbish book does not even understand that single cell organisms do not need a male and female to reproduce.

Creationists are so stupid it boggles the mind.

[jesuslives57]

Why would a handbook on evolution have a section on the big bang and abiogenesis? This alone should send out alarm bells.How many different disciplines of science has the author shoe horned under this title? The language of the book seems to be aimed at the same level as a Sun reader.

[geffel]

Noelplum, why do you thin kthe creationists are so woefully wilfully ignorant? I'm surprised there isn't some Ladybird book or Dr Seuss book of Evolution that they read.

Oh, shiot, there is - it's called the Holy Bible.