"not. There was a woman who supposably visited Darwin on his deathbed and some things she said about what he was wearing and what his room was like, made people believe that what she said could be true. However, there are a few other things about what she stated that were probably not true as there is no supportive evidence. The issue is a mystery..... "
Darwin was a Christian, there is no debate on this point (there is no debate about any of this, by people with an education, only people who have not studied evolution in any depth debate it, the rest of the world looks on in wonder in much the same way they do the flat Earthers).
"Everything, or so I had thought. Has the theory of the big bang been disproved recently? "
No..... but the big bang has nothing to do with evolution. (and the way I read your posts it seems as if you think, the Earth was sitting there then the big bang came along, causing an environmental change which resulted in life.......... eerrrrrm....)
"Has not been updated since 1997. Much has been discoverd since then. "
LOL, yea, like even MORE transitional fossils, the ones that have been discovered have not been undiscovered!
"During the debate, the most abrasive evolutionist, Prof. Steve Jones, a geneticist at the University College of London, declared that there are a lot of "stupid people" in America who do not believe in evolution, and then quickly added that this applied to Australians as well, a clear dig at Australian guest Ken Ham! So much for British civility! He also declared that he despised people--meaning creationists--who tell "lies to children." "
Yes, he doesn't like creationists telling lies, to children, and he cannot believe the ignorance displayed by people coming from a 1st world country, that "should" have had a decent education, I too find it astonishing that clearly many of the people in this very thread were not taught or did not understand event the most basic of biological principles.
"This same evolutionist, when asked by Ken for specific evidence for evolution, replied: "salmon speciation" in America. Ken quickly pointed out that the salmon ten years later are still salmon"
Which completely missed the point, he asked for instance of species evolution and he was provided with one, what exactly is he expecting? A species of salmon's phenotypic properties completely changing in 20 years!? HELLO evolution takes time.
"and that creationists believe in speciation anyway because no new genetic information was added to the new salmon species, it would remain a salmon! So much for Prof. Jones's academic brilliance!> "
I think what you mean to say is OMG how ignorant Ken Ham, "no genetic information was added to the salmon species" er..... WRONG (see links at the bottom of the post) What is a salmon, is it a species? Do you know? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Salmon does NOT refer to a species, it is a higher taxa, the SPECIES changed, of COURSE the two new species are still in the same Taxa! They were the SAME species only 20 years ago! (see links at the bottom of post)
IF you want a break down of Hams IDIOCY, go here:
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/ham_evidence.htm
and here:
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/h...s_of_years.htm
and here:
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/h..._practical.htm
and here:
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/ham_bible.htm
and i notice you do not respond to any of the points i made in my post to you.... go figure.