Your thoughts on evolution
Researchers found hand bones of an adult female Australopithecus sediba in Malapa, South Africa.
September 12th, 2011
12:56 PM ET

Your thoughts on evolution

We knew our story on a possible human ancestor called Australopithecus sediba would be controversial, but never expected more than 1,900 comments to come in.

The post generated some pretty intense discussions involving readers who do not believe these new findings - or any evidence of human evolution, for that matter - because of their religious beliefs.

blake

Maybe your ancestor, not mine. I was created in the image of God, not evolved from from some lifeless goo over billions of years. The accident of time and chance. I don't have enough faith to believe those kind of fantastical fairy tales.

Religious sentiments such as this received a lot of backlash from readers such as gary, who writes:

Evolution is fact. Deities and demons are pretend. Bible is folklore, myth, superstition and legend.

There's also a large contingent of readers who don't see a contradiction between accepting the facts of science and having religious faith. Judas Priest writes:

Excuse me, but why does believing in god mean denying the wonders of creation that you can see and touch and evaluate? How does accepting that the world is billions of years old, and the universe billions of years older still, deny god? How does observing that things change over time refute god in any way? Why must god, and god's creation, be small enough to be encompassed by your tiny little mind and your tiny little book?

The hundreds of comments that formed these discussions annoyed readers like Pav, who thinks people with religious reasons for denying evolution should take their beliefs elsewhere.

Mathematicians don't have to justify the Pythagorean theorem every time they apply it to a new proof, and scientists don't need to justify evolution every time they talk about a new fossil. So, stop it!

Of course, not everyone sees it this way - earth2loons feels that evolution is a lot more controversial than the Pythagorean theorem, writing:

"...when you must eliminate the possibility of a creator from your interpretation of the data because of your own agnostic or atheistic biases, you will see what you want and need to see."

It's obvious that a lot of people have very passionate views on this topic but, this being a science blog, we are going to report with the assumption that the prevailing, tested theory with the most rigorous evidence - evolution - is true. And CNN has a Belief Blog that fosters conversations about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives.

And there's a lot of misunderstanding about evolution; it's really not as clear cut as you might think. Reader John Hanson writes:

There is always controversy surrounding the "discovery" of fossils that are supposed to bridge apes to humans because they're always plagued by assumptions made by paleontologists. They touted "Peking Man" as the "link" in the fossil chain proving evolution, then came to discover bones of homo sapiens in the same pit. There are too many assumptions and too little PROOF.

The truth is that there is no simple chain of ancestry with a "missing link" that scientists are trying to find. When we talk about the lineage of Homo sapiens, we acknowledge that there were a whole bunch of ancient relatives of various anatomical forms, some of which are more closely related to us than others. Check out this piece from Science 2.0 on the "missing link fallacy" to learn more about the complexity of tracing the evolution of our species.

Follow @CNNLightYears on Twitter

Post by:
Filed under: Human ancestors • On Earth
soundoff (3,534 Responses)
  1. Ian

    Denying evolution is the same as denying the fact that viruses can make a leap from animal to human or that overuse of antibiotics can lead to the creation of resistant superbugs. If you deny evolution then don't coo about how your baby has your eyes and your partner's face.

    September 12, 2011 at 3:13 pm |
    • Faith by Choice

      Intelligent design doesn't deny evolution of adaptation, it denies the assumption that monkeys were our ancestors🙂

      September 12, 2011 at 3:18 pm |
      • imolnar

        You can't have one without the other, not in any meaningful way

        September 12, 2011 at 3:18 pm |
      • Jay

        I would rather believe the scientific evidence that I evolved from an ape than think I came from a clod of dirt.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:20 pm |
      • Horus

        When you start spewing about Monkeys to Humans, and Evolution, you reveal your lack of understanding of the modern theories. You might want to do a little reading.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:27 pm |
      • Sean

        "Intelligent design doesn't deny evolution of adaptation, it denies the assumption that monkeys were our ancestors"

        The theory of evolution denies that assumption as well. Anyone who believes that humans eveolved from monkeys has a serious misunderstanding of the theory of evolution.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:29 pm |
      • cja

        EVERYONE denies Moneys were our ancestors. The biologist thinks they were. But Monkeys and humans share a common ancestors then is now long extinct.

        Long ago people might have debated about evolution. But now we understand DNA. We can see in detail how it works. Now days it's like looking at a the gears of a clock and then saying "mechanical devices can keep time. .

        Most Christians are Catholic and the Roman Catholic Church as accepted evolution for a long time. Only a few radical American sects hold the extreme views any more. What next, argue the Earth is still the center of the solar system?

        September 12, 2011 at 3:29 pm |
      • Martyr2

        Funny you say that actually because if you believe in evolution and we have found just about every evolutionary step all the way back from human to monkeys, it is pretty hard to say that creationism is the answer. When our whole world is seen and proven to be evolving, to claim that man was suddenly created by god is ridiculous. I would give more credit to creationism if we didn't have a scientific record tracing humans back at all to monkeys.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:29 pm |
      • Me

        Nope, evolution doesn't say man evolved from today's monkeys. It says that man and today's monkeys evolved from a common ancestor.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:29 pm |
      • Melvin

        Who likes pie!!

        September 12, 2011 at 3:30 pm |
      • Kay

        Except that Darwin never said we were descended from apes. He said we're descended from A COMMON ANCESTOR. Big difference there.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:31 pm |
      • Rufus

        I like Pudding!!

        September 12, 2011 at 3:31 pm |
      • TheRev

        The Theory of Descent With Modification doesn't state the humans evolved from monkeys, but that we evolved from a common ancestor millions of years ago. So many who disparage and attempt to disprove "evolution" have little grasp of the Theory, what a scientific theory is, or how the scientific method works.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:31 pm |
      • Zeta Reticulan

        Love the name "Faith by Choice" ... that says it all. It's only a choice. A choice I respect as long as one researches into WHY they choose the faith they do .. no respect for the indoctrinated from birth crowd.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:32 pm |
      • Wrong!

        We didn't evolve from monkeys, we evolved from apes. If you donn't know the difference then I suggest you read up on it.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:33 pm |
      • CWBella

        To believe you are created in the image of God is pretty egocentric, don't you think?

        September 12, 2011 at 3:39 pm |
      • Kevin Untener

        I came from a monkey, wish I had it's strength and jumping capability.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:39 pm |
      • Kevin

        Correct. May you be touched by His noodly appendage.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:41 pm |
      • GHale

        Which is an ignorant denial. it is a denial of things that are as much fact as any other fact in the world. By all means, stick your fingers in your ears and stamp around screaming "I'm not listening" if it makes you feel better, but it doesn't change anything.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:41 pm |
      • Bilbo2001

        You are painfully misinformed. This is much of the problem surrounding those who deny evolution. The theory of evolution never states that humans came from monkeys. It states that apes and humans have a common ancestor. Just as dogs and bears have a common ancestor, but bears were never dogs...humans were never apes...though, obviously, our most ancient ancestors had similar characteristics to todays apes (tail, longer arms...). Why do you think we have a tailbone? Why do fish fins and bird wings include structures like hands? You are denying the facts of life

        September 12, 2011 at 3:42 pm |
      • Tutter

        Monkeys were not our ancestors. Monkeys have had their own evolutionary trajectory separate from Humans for over 5 million years (give or take a million or two). At some point in the distant past, Humans and the Great Apes did have a common ancestor; however, since that time, we have been evolving separately. We, as humans, do have primitive traits. If any of you doubt this, then open a book and turn to the page that addresses the pelvic region. We have tails people! And why do we have tails? Because our distant ancestors had tails; however, because of evolution, our tails have significantly decreased in size.

        Evolution does not state that god does not exist. Simply, that species evolve over time, and that we are a product of that evolutionary trajectory. We, as a species, are continuing to evolve, just as every other species is on this planet.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:43 pm |
      • Veritas

        The study of genetics, particularly our understanding of DNA, has contributed much to our knowledge of evolution. Tracing the origins of the human species using DNA as a framework has proven that mankind and apes are genetically related. Human DNA is 98% identical to our closest relative, the chimpanzee.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:51 pm |
      • Mark

        If there is a higher power responsible for how we are designed to think and behave as a species (see: WWII), then why would that same power endow *some* of us with the ability to see the faults in said design? Seems like a sadistic pleasure to me, and I want nothing to do with it

        September 12, 2011 at 4:02 pm |
      • Joey Schmoey

        you are not intelligent.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:03 pm |
      • magnus

        Correction. Apes and humans have the same common ancestor. It does not mean that a gorilla evolved into a human. It means that millions of years ago there was a population of primates that gave rise to different lineages. The problem with uneducated religions people is that they think that we evolved from a monkey. Not the case. Monkeys, apes, and humans shared a common ancestor population long long time ago.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:04 pm |
      • gremlin_us

        Intelligent Design has yet to propose an alternative mechanism through which evolution occurs which is testable or observable. Until intelligent design does something other than deconstruct or deny, it is useless.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:08 pm |
      • Thoughtdog

        If we evolved from Monkeys...Why?..are there still monkeys?

        September 12, 2011 at 4:09 pm |
      • XO

        @Faith by Choice: Agreed. This whole adaption thing is being stretched a little too far. It's just what it is- adaption. It's not macro that or micro this. It's obvious that adaptation is a necessary design pattern for survival. Even the software I write must adapt to different computer environments. We we're created in the image of God... but....

        Romans 1:21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:09 pm |
      • Dan

        Every time I hear someone denying the theory of evolution, I hear the laughter of millions of dogs that are members of breeds that didn't exist just a few hundred years ago.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:10 pm |
      • Gregg

        Yes and no. Intelligent design was created by Creationists to try to wrap their beliefs in something which could be seen as more palatable. They want to make it seem as if it's a catch-all for all religious ideas from fundamentalist Christianity, to those who believe that UFOs have influenced human development. However, when you watch what they say really carefully, they'll even admit that ID is just a way to try to bring Christian Creationism to the public schools. They will readily shut down any discussion where ideas which are not biblical, especially not young earth Creationist are discussed. Even theistic evolution is too much for those people.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:12 pm |
      • milo

        im in school right now.... did the eagles win yesterday?

        September 12, 2011 at 4:16 pm |
      • Bryan

        I don't seem to understand why creationists seem to keep saying we evolved from Monkeys. It is so completely wrong and a complete misunderstanding of evolution. Monkeys aren't going to accidentally evolve into humans, they are evolved into monkeys, their own species. The vast majority of people that don't believe in evolution don't have a working knowledge of it. Note, we also didn't evolved from apes, gorillas, or anything else that is here today. Please, please, please read a book before making statements of objection. You may find the evolution works perfectly well with your belief stucture. Also, it stopped being a theory decades ago.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:17 pm |
      • Ed

        ID is nothing more than creationism couched in scientific terms. Indeed I see it as a partial retreat from creationism in that its adherents do not deny evolution- this is growing more difficult in the face of mounting evidence- rather, they claim God is the selecting agent rather than nature itself. Ultimately, ID adds nothing to our understanding.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:22 pm |
      • Cass314

        First of all, you should at least get your facts straight if you want to be taken seriously. Evolution does not say man evolved from monkeys. One very small part of the theory of evolution, which is in terms of principles inseparable from the rest of the theory including "micro"evolution, explains how humans and the current great apes shared a common ancestor.

        Second, this is not an "assumption", and saying that it is, aside from being false, demonstrates either a profound ignorance or a profound lack of good faith in discussing the subject. It is a fact, and it is one that the vast, vast, vast majority of biologists know. I have seen the phylogenetic trees, both with respect to the fossil record and the sequences of various genes and proteins, myself. I am a biologist, and I have *assembled* some of the latter trees myself. If you go to any natural history museum, you can probably see some of the fossils. If you go online to an open-source journal or go to a university library and use their computers to look at any journal, you can read the primary research articles. To those who actually know this subject, to the experts in the field, this is a non-controversial as facts come.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:24 pm |
      • Charles Darwin

        You're right. Considering the behavior of people today, no way could we come from apes. Apes are nice and intelligent and decent creatures. They have absolutely no similarity to us today. Looking at the days headlines, humans evolved directly from slime and fungus and pond scum.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:26 pm |
      • XO

        @Dan: Pretty evident that you parrot what you hear and read. Adaptions within a specifies and between specifies are two very different things. Each species possess (genetically) the potential to adapt to its surroundings. There's nothing indicative that a species has the ability to change into another species. its never been observed, duplicated in labs– nor has it been discovered in the fossil record. There are too many obstacles for this to occur.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:32 pm |
      • Rob

        If you believe that Evolution means we had monkey's as ancestors then you don't understand Evolution, because evolution specifically says that we did *not* have monkey's as ancestors...

        September 12, 2011 at 4:32 pm |
      • cjn1210

        Clearly "Un-Educated by Choice" as well.... a-Common Ancestor millons of years ago is not the same as being derived from Monkey's. you make it seem as though two chimps one day just gave birth to human kind. Did you by chance go to Wasilla High School in AK??? There is a reason why the brightest, most educated minds in the world all agree on this topic 100%. How the notion that Man (or Woman) came from the literal rib of a man (Adam) is more logical to you then the proven fact that man Evolved over Millons of years (as all species do) is absolutely dumbfounding to me (that word means puzzling for those Wasilla grads)

        September 12, 2011 at 4:33 pm |
      • Nero

        Faith = believing what you choose to believe
        Science = believing the evidence that is right in front of your face

        Nobody knows what caused the universe to come into being. Maybe it was god, but theirs no proof. Belief by faith is a farce. Buddists believe just as strongly in their religion as christians or muslims believe thein theirs. Before christianity was around, sun, moon, earth and all kinds of other worship/religion, was no less believed in than christianity is today, probably more so! People are welcome to believe what they want, but don't force your crap on me. I only believe what is proven or at least what at least makes scientific sense, even if not yet proven and if not proven, I'll at least be a little sceptical. And if you think miracles prove there is a god, think again. Miracles are documented in every religion. If you are a believer in any religion, you usually attribute good things to your god, but just as many bad things happen to religious people and just as many good things happen to non-religious people. Religion to me is insanity. You might as well be delusional. Oh wait... you are!

        September 12, 2011 at 4:37 pm |
      • SpotOn

        Apes and humans share something like 98% of the same genes. Denying that we came from a common ancestor is simply ignoring the facts. Of course, that 2% difference does make a huge difference – no self-respecting ape would ever run for congress or keep alive one religion's view of the creation myth for two thousand years. Especially when there are so many other much more fun creation myths that came before and after.

        Obviously, generations of people have been brainwashed into believing fairy tales about virgin births (not unique to Christianity by the way), and of people who are gods, ghosts and their own father. Yet these same people cannot accept a scientifically (this is a rigorous term that requires verification and questioning) accepted fact.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:38 pm |
      • XO

        @Bryan: Also direct the misunderstood atheist, agnostics, religious evolutionists who are making such claims in this very thread that humans evolved from monkeys,gorillas and apes. All sides are equally ignorant.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:39 pm |
      • XO

        @cjn1210: Not so quick. The Women from rib idea is not far fetched. It's been demonstrated in labs that such a thing can be done. It's totally possible to induce sleep, extract bone marrow- and select sex even. We do this (to an extent) with cloning all the time.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:44 pm |
      • PeteIL

        @XO

        If a specie has the genetic potential to adapt to its surroundings, it has the genetic potential to evolve into a new species. Its through the same exact mechanism, just more time and isolation. This whole micro-evolution vs macro-evolution, adaptation vs evolution argument is a red herring. People don't seem to realize that "species" is a man-made identifier that biologists use to attempt to make sense out of the staggering amount of diversity in this world, and is argued over all of the time.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:45 pm |
      • Andrew

        People, we came from monkeys. You cannot deny that, stop saying "no, we didn't come from monkeys, we share a common ancestor with monkeys", when you do so, you show only a trivial understanding of phylogeny without actually having bothered to go in depth to look at human evolution.

        Consider where our ancestry diverged. We're closer related to old world monkeys than we are new world monkeys, meaning the "ape" branch had to branch off AFTER the "new world monkey" branched off. That means that our ancestor to old world monkeys would have to be a "monkey" as well.

        Now, taxonomically we don't consider ourselves monkeys, we're paraphyletic, but that doesn't change the fact that as far as our evolutionary descent is concerned, not calling us a "monkey" is just human arrogance. The same as a creationist "well I dun wanna be a monkey, therefore I'm not".

        What you SHOULD be saying isn't that "we didn't descend from monkeys", but rather, "we didn't descend from any other modern species of non-human "monkey" (in the monophyletic sense), or any modern monkey (in the paraphyletic taxanomic sense we currently use).

        It doesn't help to try to explain evolutionary ancestry to creationists if you haven't done your homework to understand where the branch offs happen. If apes branched off from monkeys before monkeys diverged, we'd have a very different picture, but that wasn't the case. Our common ancestor with monkeys would reasonably be called a "monkey", and by virtue of us being what we came from, that is, eukaryotic metazoic billateral chordate primates, etc, we are, likewise, "monkeys".

        September 12, 2011 at 4:47 pm |
      • Trevor

        apes people.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:50 pm |
      • jude

        Actually we are apes not monkies and that intelligent design is pretty much creationism

        September 12, 2011 at 4:51 pm |
      • CaliforniaBC

        Intelligent design denies the MASSIVE amount of tested and retested and retested science behind evolution. Study after study after study finds continually end up supporting the theory. Even down to the lolecular level, the findings support the original theory. And you have to remember evolution is not only about where humans came from, it's about how every animal, plant, how every organism on Earth evolved to their current state. And it constant verified. Yes, there are new discoveries made all the time but those only go to further refine the overall knowledge.

        Intelligent design is not science. It cannot be tested because it is based on a supernatural being. There is nothing verifiable about it. There is no evidentiary rigor applied. So, no, it is not an accepted theory because it cannot be subjected to the same processes of verification that science is subjected to.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:52 pm |
      • Scott

        We did not evolve from monkeys; monkeys and humans share a common ancestor.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:52 pm |
      • Dargo

        'Cept Darwin never said apes were our ancestors...he said we shared a common ancestor. How come so many Xtians continually get this wrong?

        September 12, 2011 at 4:53 pm |
      • Mike

        "Anyone who believes that humans eveolved from monkeys has a serious misunderstanding of the theory of evolution."

        Sean, anyone who denies the theory of evolution says humans evolved from monkeys has a serious misunderstanding of reality. This is a specious argument against creationists. While the theory of human evolution doesn't say humans evolved from the monkeys or apes we see in the wild today, if you saw an Australopithecus alive today, you wouldn't call it anything but an ape.

        And it doesn't matter how long you wait. Apes could never evolve into a human because it requires additional genetic information not available in the ape genome. Natural selection only ever results in a reshuffling of information or a loss of information. It doesn't produce novel genes. The same thing can be said of the entire supposed "evolutionary tree". See the book "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome" by Dr. John C. Sanford.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:56 pm |
      • Andrew

        Oh, while I'm at it, lets stop saying "apes and humans" too. Humans ARE apes. Hell, even if you're a creationist, you shouldn't be denying this because it's taxonomy. Carl Linneus was certainly not alive when Darwin came up with evolution, so his taxanomic distinctions are based entirely on morphological similarities and even HE had humans as "apes".

        We are as much "apes" as we are "eukaryotes" (we have a nucleus in our cells). We are as much "apes" as we are "chordates" (We have spinal chords), we are as much "apes" as we are "mammals". We are as much "apes" as we are "metazoans" (animals). This is an issue of classification, as well as lineage. We are what we came from, we didn't suddenly lose our eukaryotic ancestry, or our eukaryotic nature, the second humans show up on this planet. Why on earth do you try to distance yourself from apes when calling yourself an ape is tantamount to saying "I have a nucleus in my cells, thus am an eukaryote".

        Quit treating humans as something so special. We aren't made of magic, we still have spinal chords, we still consume other living organisms to survive, we still exhibit bilateral symmetry. Even if you believe the absurd creation story, reluctance to call yourself "ape" seems startling. It shows you don't know what that word implies period, ignoring the whole "evolution" "creation" non-controversy.

        Seriously only CNN could say "what are your views on the matter". Like a guy on a street corner raving about god would be just as reasonable to ask a question about general relativity as a cosmologist working at the Keck Observatory. Give me a break.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:57 pm |
      • ObvUsername

        Incorrectly interpreting your opponent's argument is dishonest. Evolution, in point of fact, also denies that "monkeys" were our ancestors. If you were smart instead of patronizing, you'd have correctly said "apes" instead. And also, no one is saying that "apes" are our ancestors – just that we share a common ancestor.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:58 pm |
      • pooFlinger

        If we didn't evolve from Monkeys, then why do I like bananas so much?!

        September 12, 2011 at 4:59 pm |
      • Mike

        "We did not evolve from monkeys; monkeys and humans share a common ancestor."

        Seriously, people, this is a distinction without a difference. Look at the fossils of our supposed ancestors, look at the artist renderings of what they would likely have looked like, and tell me they aren't apes or monkeys.

        September 12, 2011 at 5:03 pm |
      • Andrew

        Mike, I suggest you read what I wrote, and then bother to study the subject for yourself. We aren't classified as monkeys taxonomically, but we should be, and even taxonomically, we ARE classified as apes. Thus we're descendant from apes, cause our parents are apes, our grandparents were apes, and WE are apes.

        But again, we branched off from old world monkeys after new world monkeys had already branched... our ancestor with new and old world monkeys would then have to be a "monkey". Just because we are paraphyletic doesn't mean you get to pretend we're an entirely separate branch.

        This "we're not descendant, we share a common ancestor" line is simplistic, and doesn't convey the real picture of what happened. Yes, we ARE descendant from monkeys, just distantly so. We're closer related to OTHER apes, but are also apes (specifically great apes) ourselves. The only reason we don't call ourselves "monkeys" is because people don't apparently like the idea, despite being perfectly ok being eukaryotes.

        September 12, 2011 at 5:05 pm |
      • XO

        @PeteIL

        Not true. Genes only express ability to adapt, not change into other species. Also, to add to this, mutations have never been observed in the most rigorous of time-accelerated experiments. Obstacles present. No smoking guns have been found in the fossil records. I am no saying it's impossible. Just because we have not observed or reproduced this in labs does not make it impossible. So far, all we know is: Each species posses the ability to adapt over short (and long) periods of time. Anything beyond this (at this point) is a stretch if it is taken as fact.

        September 12, 2011 at 5:06 pm |
      • Kevin

        What's so bad about monkeys, anyway?

        September 12, 2011 at 5:16 pm |
      • Mike

        "Mike, I suggest you read what I wrote, and then bother to study the subject for yourself."

        Andrew, I did read what you wrote and I have bothered to study the subject for myself. I'd suggest you not make assumptions about people you don't know.

        I'd further point out that I wasn't commenting on your posts. I was commenting on the myriad people who made the counterargument you call "simplistic". That is, that evolution doesn't say we descended from apes, or that we descended from monkeys. It says both. The theory does not, of course, say that we descended from modern apes or monkeys, but that we both share common ancestors which can only be described as apes or monkeys.

        I understand and have studied evolution, Andrew. I reject it on its merits, or rather, lack thereof.

        September 12, 2011 at 5:17 pm |
      • XO

        @PeteIL: And I already beat you to the macros VS micro remark above:

        "This whole adaption thing is being stretched a little too far. It's just what it is- adaption. It's not macro that or micro this"

        Often, I see on TV and read some far fetched things that are passed as facts when they are nothing more than guesses. It was believed that killer whales never lived far beyond 60 years. They discovered a 90 year old killer whale. But according to a test, a tooth indicated it was only 60. Composition, growth patterns of the tooth remained the same after the age of 60. This is a good example where you can be absolutely right (but wrong).

        September 12, 2011 at 5:17 pm |
      • Andrew

        Not true. Genes only express ability to adapt, not change into other species. Also, to add to this, mutations have never been observed in the most rigorous of time-accelerated experiments. Obstacles present. No smoking guns have been found in the fossil records. I am no saying it's impossible. Just because we have not observed or reproduced this in labs does not make it impossible. So far, all we know is: Each species posses the ability to adapt over short (and long) periods of time. Anything beyond this (at this point) is a stretch if it is taken as fact.

        XO, I'm not a biology major, but I've certainly taken some evolutionary classes in university and I can safely say I have no idea what you're talking about. Nor am I sure you have much idea yourself.

        "Genes only express ability to adapt, not change into other species"
        I have no idea what that means. None. That's because it's not a robust statement, it has no real meaning in a scientific context. Why? Because "species" is truly an arbitrary distinction.

        "Genes can change into other species" is equally meaningless in evolutionary biology. A "species" is not marked just by its genes.

        Consider a ring species, for example. "A can mate with B can mate with C can mate with D can mate with E but E and A cannot mate".
        Well then at a superficial level, "A and E are different species", but what about B, C, and D? Is there some point their genes magically shift from one species to another? No, it's a continuum, and the line for what a "species" is would be very blurry. So then it isn't about "genes changing into different species", it's about "genes changing, period".

        So then what you SHOULD argue is that there is some theoretical or fundamental limit to the diversity genes can take on. To be sure, this would shatter modern evolutionary theory, if you could say "genes are unable to exhibit more diversity than a given limit", because evolution requires that there is no fundamental limit on genetic drift. There are mediating factors which slow the rate of mutations and the like, but nothing fundamental which prevents changes outside of a certain scope.

        Also, to claim mutations have not been shown to exist is blatantly false. Just read Lenski's paper, which was about as through and rigorous as you can possibly ask for.

        And, as far as "smoking guns in the fossil record" goes, that sounds a lot like what the "missing link" article CNN linked to debunks in stunning light. Put simply, if you're looking for a single "smoking gun", you don't understand what the science says. There will NEVER be a "smoking gun", rather, the "smoking gun" is the combination of the hundreds and hundreds of transitional fossils we've already found. No single fossil in a vacuum will ever be a "smoking gun", just many little pieces to build up a much bigger puzzle.

        September 12, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
      • Andrew

        Mike, I made a poor assumption, and I apologize. Sorry. I thought you were on the constant "lets distance ourselves as much as possible from our evolutionary ancestor" camp, which, evidently, you are not.
        (But at least I'm willing to admit it! ... Usually)

        September 12, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
      • Lawson Lau

        A prominent British atheist said lightning caused inorganic matter to produce the original one-cell organic life with its complex DNA - that is an example of atheistic religious belief in miracles.

        September 12, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
      • Andrew

        I should also perhaps add that if someone wants an example of a modern ring species, you could look to the Ensatina salamanders in California. In case you thought I was talking about a hypothetical species.

        September 12, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
      • Andrew

        Lawson Lau, I don't know anyone who says that. As far as I'm aware, quite a few people believe life started near hydrothermal vents under the ocean... but more importantly, no one says "lightning struck and made complex DNA on the first lifeform". First of all, virtually no biologist would say "DNA was the original genetic material". You'd have quite a lot in the "RNA world hypothesis" camp, and probably a few in the "protein synthesis camp" or some sort of equivalent, but because DNA cannot act as a catalyst, it serves as a very poor choice for an original genetic material.

        Second, "lightning struck forming the cell" also betrays another problem with your understanding of abiogenesis. Generally, biologists will say "the earliest protocells formed by fatty acids enclosing strands of genetic material, as they form lipid bilayers naturally in water, thus provide early protection for first generation protocells."

        Then you get into the whole deal about "well how could cell division first start" and the sort, but that requires a grasp of genetics that is admittedly beyond me, though I seem to remember that there are a fair numbers of papers published on the subject.

        So no, I really can't think of anyone who would say your strawman is any realistic explanation of how life on earth came about. Certainly not from biologists.

        September 12, 2011 at 5:31 pm |
      • johann1965

        Faith by Choice: Your post shows astounding ignorance about science and human evolution. Yet another religious crackpot. Discussing this with creationists is boring and tedious, and ultimately, insane. It yields identical results...every time, not matter how you go at it...they will never get it. Their's is faith, which is unquestionable, thus, completely un-scientific.

        September 12, 2011 at 5:35 pm |
      • humanbean

        Intelligent design allows for ridiculous study books to be allowed into school curriculum such as Dinosaurs of Eden, by Ken Ham. A ridiculous book that I noticed recently among a group of study books used by one of my good friend's 12 year old kid. Read it and get a good laugh. Think about it and it conjures up thoughts of sadness.

        September 12, 2011 at 5:37 pm |
      • John

        Believing in evolution doesn't negate the existence of God. It doesn't even necessarily deny that God is the grand creator. It simply explains the process by which God created human beings. Denying evolution is like saying the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. And it continues to grow. You don't have to ignore scientific truths to believe in God. In fact, those scientific truths show the majesty of God.

        September 12, 2011 at 5:46 pm |
      • jim

        Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the "intelligent design" WAS evolution? I can think of no more brilliant, beautiful idea than evolution- allowing life to form from non-life, and ensuring that it continuesand becomes more complesx and advanced as the environment changes. And perhaps its end result after a few more billion years will be a creature that approaches perfection-a creature that can truly "know" God and the true nature of the universe. Now THAT"S intelligent!

        September 12, 2011 at 5:48 pm |
      • Jack

        Aliens altered our DNA

        September 12, 2011 at 5:49 pm |
      • Jon

        It literally astounds me, that as a big fan of science, I can read these comments and think that the people trying to support evolution are idiots.
        Here goes:
        * The theory, as I understand it, is that we, humans, have a common anscestor with Apes.
        * This is a _theory_. Pretty much everyone in the scientific community accepts it as true, but it is a theory, not a fact. Please, please, please stop confusing the issue by mislabeling it. The reason that it is a theory is that the so-called Monkey-to-Man evolution has not yet been scientifically proven.
        * Flagrant hatred and scorn of someone else's beliefs does not make you right.

        Those three points should be remembered at all times when dealing with people who support Intelligent Design, or people who are watching (or reading) the conversation are not going to listen to you.

        As an atheist, who sees evolution as the most logical explanation of how we got here, I'm asking you to please stop making the rest of us look bad.

        September 12, 2011 at 5:51 pm |
      • XO

        @Andrew: I was careless in my remark about mutations not occurring. It's obvious that they do occur.

        At the sake of grossly simplifying (and abbreviating) things, you are also correct with your counters to my other remarks.

        There's no hard evidence for common ancestry between species It's a best guess put forth by believers and non-believers alike, that's potentially wrong. A guess that's being pushed as a fact by those practicing bad science.

        September 12, 2011 at 5:52 pm |
      • Lochlan

        What is God? I am a determinist, since I figured it out before I even knew there was a belief over a decade ago. Is God a man or everything around us including us? I used to be an atheist, since church God is like the tooth fairy to me. But once you understand science to a pretty good degree, you figure out there is no free will, and you can prove it. The future, present and past are all unchangable and when you break things down to their basics you figure out the secret. For example, who will deny that we and everything around us are made up of 3 things. Every single piece of matter is clusters, in different amounts, of Protons, Neutrons, and Electrons and the energy between them. That's all there is. We can talk about 'sub particles' like Gluons and Quraks, etc., but you don't really need to when you can unify all matter into these three basic parts of the atom. Most people lose track of the basics pretty quickly.

        September 12, 2011 at 5:53 pm |
      • Gekaap

        Great, then you're in line with modern biologists, because there's nothing in evolutionary theory that claims humans came from monkeys.

        September 12, 2011 at 6:03 pm |
      • H in VT

        Humans are not evolved from apes...humans and apes had a common ancestor, which is different. We're evolutionary "cousins" of apes. The common ancestor produced at least two lineages of offspring, one that evolved into apes, another that evolved into humans, and any others apparently became extinct.

        September 12, 2011 at 6:10 pm |
      • Andrew

        XO, what do you mean by "hard evidence"? To me, matching phylogenies created independently via gene conservation, endogenous retro-viral markers, and even paleontology serves as fairly solid "hard evidence" for evolution by common ancestors. It is the culmination of many many pieces of "hard evidence", from tiktaalik to lucy, to form one rather coherent picture. It sounds a lot like saying "there is no hard evidence for the weak force just because we have never physically seen, with our own eyes, a W boson".

        It's not like, after all, we start randomly digging to find fossils either. We know roughly ages branching events happened, and could search in those geologic strata. We then look for organisms that match our predictions, and lo and behold, we find them, thus helping confirm our predictions. That happens with each new transitional fossil found, and to me that certainly qualifies as "hard evidence", so I'm not sure what context you are using the word.

        I'd imagine your use would set the bar rather impossibly high. If you deny evolution, then I could almost certainly get you to deny general relativity.

        September 12, 2011 at 6:13 pm |
      • Andrew

        And just because I feel this point got lost, again, we are not the "evolutionary cousins of apes", we are the "evolutionary cousins of non-human apes". Humans are a type of ape, a specific instance. "All balls are red" does not imply all red objects are balls. Just like "all humans are apes" does not imply all apes are humans.

        Same with monkeys, we are descendant from monkeys, but share common ancestry with other non-human modern monkeys. The reason why this distinction is harder to grasp is because as arrogant as we are, we tend to not classify ourselves as "monkeys". Butttt, since new world monkeys branched off from old world monkeys prior to apes branching off from old world monkeys, our evolutionary ancestor with new and old world monkeys would be a "monkey".

        People are being very imprecise with their words. "We are descendant from apes, are classified apes ourselves, and share common ancestors with other apes. We are descendant from monkeys, should be classified monkeys ourselves, but we don't, and share common ancestors with other monkeys".

        September 12, 2011 at 6:18 pm |
      • NoGod Just MEN

        It still amazes me that in this day and age, there are still grown individuals disputing the facts of evolution. It is sad, delusional and scary to witness this kind of XII century ignorant rhetoric at the dawn of the XXI century. Perhaps you should read a bit more on evolution, and you will realize it never says anything about modern humans descending from monkeys, but that modern apes and humans share a common ape-like ancestor. Do this, even at the expense of self-ridiculing.

        Face it, there is no God, no Satan, just humans, and those that have it in them to do harm, and those who don’t because we choose a more civilized evolved way to live in a society. How can you explain God with horrendous events such as the Holocaust, or 9/11? Why would God allow such murderous acts to take place? for his personal amusement? Oh wait, it was the Devil right? No, it was humans doing these things to other humans just because they found it justifiable in their twisted sick minds.

        September 12, 2011 at 6:19 pm |
      • RevolutionaryGenetics

        No one in science claims monkey are ancestral to humans. The term monkey refers to a collection of groups of primates. We (human beings) share a common ancestor with the extant chimpanzee. Let me emphasize SHARE a common ancestor, this does not mean we are descended from monkeys.

        September 12, 2011 at 6:37 pm |
      • HolyAlienApe

        People need to understand they are both theories, and not facts. Evolution is still a theory because it lacks the key evidence that establishes ancestral connection between species. Creationism have little credibility as it rejects the notion of hard facts such as creation of different races, cultures and languages, and religion. What if we were all brought here, animals and humans, by aliens from all over the galaxy? Who knows? All I know is we don't have to accept just one theory or any.

        September 12, 2011 at 6:43 pm |
      • Katie

        We are not evolved from monkeys. Everyone who understands evolution understands that. Monkeys and man evolved from the same beings which were neither man nor monkey.

        September 12, 2011 at 6:52 pm |
      • Chris

        Intelligent design is based on an un-provable premise. That premise is that there is a "creator intelligence." Basic university logic 101 shows clearly that unless you can prove the premise of an intelligent creator, you can not base an entire theory of a design based on that initial premise.

        Come talk with me when you have mastered basic logic. In the mean time, intelligent design lies in the same pile of fantasy as things like the loch ness monster, leprechauns, and the tooth fairy.

        If you choose to believe it out of faith, at least have the common decency to openly admit that it is logically an indefensible position.

        September 12, 2011 at 6:53 pm |
      • Andrew

        Will people please stop confusing colloquial theories with scientific theories? Scientific theories are large explanatory bodies supported by rather large amounts of evidence. Consider: Quantum field theory. Theory of General Relativity. Theory of Special Relativity. Theory of Plate Tectonics. Germ Theory of Disease. Atomic Theory. Theory of Evolution.

        If you say "it's just a theory", you might as well be saying "gravity is just a theory", after all, our "theory of gravity" is GR.

        PS. WE'RE F-ING DESCENDANT FROM MONKEYS! I cannot make this more abundantly clear. Think about it, if old world monkeys are closer related to us than new world monkeys, and new world monkeys branched off from old world monkeys before apes did, then what on earth would you call our old world monkey common ancestor? "Not a monkey, despite new world monkeys having already branched off?"

        We're paraphyletic! We're monkeys as much as birds are dinosaurs. They're not taxonomically classified as dinosaurs, but they certainly are descendant from dinosaurs. I can't make it any more clear. We both share a common ancestor with other monkeys, and are descendant from monkeys ourselves, just like we share a common ancestor with other apes, but our apes ourselves, just like we share a common ancestor with other eukaryotes, but are eukaryotes ourselves, just like we share a common ancestor with other (now extinct) hominids, and are hominids ourselves.

        "All wood burns", doesn't mean "all things that burn are wood". "Ape" and "monkey" are much larger groups than "humans".

        September 12, 2011 at 6:57 pm |
      • newsreel

        Whoever our ancestors were, You cannot deny that they could not go to the moon 100 years ago, you cannot deny that they could not travel faster than a horse 1000 years ago, you cannot deny that they could not write books 10,000 years ago, you cannot deny that they could not communicate with an intelligent complex language 50,000 years ago. Wait a minute....what kind of human ancestors that cannot express themselves clearly, live in caves or trees ? some sort of apes, no matter what you want to classify/name it ?

        September 12, 2011 at 6:57 pm |
      • Steve

        I am an evolutionary biologist. I would like to comment on those who essentially say that they did not come from a monkey or from an ape. They are correct but not for the reason they think. They ARE an ape too. We are a highly evolved ape with diverse ancestors that may or may not be in straight line evolution to us. There are likely many branches such as the fossils from Flores. Perhaps this new discovery is an ancestor in straight line to the past. It is found and we give it a name. It is like taking a slice out of time and perhaps naming the fossils is inappropriate. Evolution is a continuum going back in time. We see glimpses of what organisms look like in these fossils We even compare our DNA with theirs in some cases to follow how our genetics has changed. I feel sorry for those who inject religion in this attempt to learn about ourselves. We are a rather naked fancy ape...get over it and leave the religion out of it. The fact of evolution cannot be denied by anyone with a rational mind. Those who suggest otherwise have been brainwashed from a young age to follow their religious beliefs.

        September 12, 2011 at 7:07 pm |
      • Saffrondog

        I beg to differ. Intelligent design doesn't say anything specifically about the relationship between monkeys and humans. I don't subscribe to intelligent design by any stretch, but at least get your philosophies/theologies straight so you can decide which ones you subscribe to.

        Intelligent design incorporates and accepts all anthropological and archeological research that demonstrates the process of evolution. Where intelligent design strays from science and becomes philosophy is where its proponents find evidence that evolution is not simply the process of random gene mutation and adaptation via natural selection as per Darwin and believe they can see evolution as part of a master plan put in place by an intelligent entity (i.e., a god) that is leading us in some inexorable direction to a higher plane. Since it is essentially impossible to conduct any scientific research to test this hypothesis, it becomes more of an aesthetic reaction to the cosmos – but ultimately a post hoc ergo proctor hoc line of illogical reasoning (correlation does not imply causation) and not a scientific theory in the true sense. That is where the debate starts, because people that advocate intelligent design claim that it is a scientific theory. I think it is fair to say that most real scientists disagree with this position because intelligent design can't be tested. It can only be admired. It doesn't mean it is incorrect. It just means it can't be subject to testing using the "scientific method" and so isn't real science.

        September 12, 2011 at 7:09 pm |
      • Sailor

        No scientist has ever claimed we are descended from monkeys. You aren't descended from your cousin, even though related. The other primates & humans have common ancestors. Geez, I wish lack of education wasn't so prevalent–

        September 12, 2011 at 7:09 pm |
      • hardy

        who or what is the name of our common ancestor we share with the apes/monkeys, thanks guys

        September 12, 2011 at 7:10 pm |
      • Zeynep

        You say "Intelligent design doesn't deny evolution of adaptation, it denies the assumption that monkeys were our ancestors" – then, do you agree with the "ancient astronaut theory" which clearly combines the intelligent design (literally) with evolution? It theorizes according to the recent archeological findings across the continents that "intelligent extraterrestrial beings have visited Earth in prehistory and made contact with primitive humans and enhanced our dna. Such visitors are called ancient astronauts or ancient aliens. Proponents suggest that this contact influenced the development of human cultures, technologies and religions. This suggests that deities from most, if not all, religions are actually extraterrestrials, and their technologies were taken as evidence of their divine status" ? It's a very interesting subject that is worth researching.

        September 12, 2011 at 7:28 pm |
      • Dan

        @XO – Pretty evident you have no idea what you are talking about. The morphology of a species change from generation to generation. When these changes are adaptive these changes in morphology impart a tendency towards successful reproduction and, thus, they get passed down to the next generation. Given enough generations a species is born (which, BTW, is a construct. It is simply a way to name and classify things.) This is as true if the changes are adaptive to changing environmental circumstances as it is if the changes are adaptive to human whims, as it is with dogs. Dogs have changed dramatically in the last few hundred years because humans have bred them to change. The biological mechanism by which they changed is identical to how they changed in nature before we got into the game.

        September 12, 2011 at 7:33 pm |
      • Warchild

        I like pie

        September 12, 2011 at 7:42 pm |
      • Juicexlx

        1- Intelligent design is NOT a science.
        2- The correct name is: Theory of Evolution of Species.
        3- Humans are Primates and they have at least one common ancestor(s) with the Great Apes.
        4- You Sir are a spectacular turd! Remove that Smiley face of yours, because it's not even remotely funny.

        September 12, 2011 at 7:46 pm |
      • aatami

        You call yourself faith by choice but the fact is that your ignorance precludes any choice, if you were capable of critical thought and research you would realize that all religion is nothing more than a tool of control. You've bought it hook line and sinker, I hope your children are brighter than you are.

        September 12, 2011 at 8:15 pm |
      • Ian

        If you had taken an biological anthropology course, you would know that we did not evolve from monkeys. The extant (living) primates are divided between the great apes, the monkeys, and the prosimians; each having a unique evolutionary past. The last time that a monkey and a homo sapien shared an ancestor was very very very long ago. We did not evolve from apes or monkeys, rather, we diverged from a common ancestor evolved along with them.

        September 12, 2011 at 8:18 pm |
      • QuietChild

        @Jay: Where did the clod of dirt come from?

        September 12, 2011 at 8:48 pm |
      • satanbug

        Fool by choice would be the better name...the two "belief systems" are mutually exclusive...one is based on science, research and scaffolded knowledge, the other is based on ancient mythology, a primitive understanding of the natural world and a desperate to desire to live after death...you guess which is which

        September 12, 2011 at 8:55 pm |
      • Charlie

        who among us can look at a any other creature on earth and not feel the connection as if looking into a mirror? be it a fish or a mouse or uncle Joe. every creature is so obviously of single origin. Monkeys? they are 99.9% the same as each of us. Anyone who denies evolution is just an idiot.

        September 12, 2011 at 9:26 pm |
      • Michael Lohr

        Those that claim there isn't a connection are denying the DNA evidence. More of our DNA is related to Apes then not.
        Now this doesn't mean we evolvled from apes
        . It only means we had a common linegage. If you went back 2 million years the "apes" would have a different relationship to the apes of today.

        September 12, 2011 at 10:00 pm |
      • Lee S

        Monkeys are simians and primates but have tails and a skeletal structure similar to dogs and cats(quadrapeds) while chimpanzees and other APES(is the word you were looking for) show signs of more human features such as intelligence and advanced social behaviors.

        September 12, 2011 at 10:20 pm |
      • BobfromNY

        How about the fact that in certain southern states, the government elite is voting down the instruction of evolution in favor of teaching creationism in classrooms? This is clear evidence that some of our politicians are, in fact, monkeys. Does this mean we have evolved from southern politicians? I'm confused.

        September 12, 2011 at 10:36 pm |
      • crusader12

        faith is a see-through disguise for thoughtlessness

        September 12, 2011 at 11:03 pm |
      • Humanoid

        @Jay – according to science, you DID come from a clod of dirt.

        Big bang > MUD > Pond > Fish > Ape > Neanderthal > etc etc. ........................................Hmmmmm

        September 12, 2011 at 11:24 pm |
      • hillman

        if we evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys we are a super race not from monkeys

        September 12, 2011 at 11:42 pm |
      • SpikeVFR

        Evolution does not say, that we descend from Monkeys, one of the many un-truths spread by religious zealots. What it does say is that we have a common ancestor with them. That is a very important difference

        September 13, 2011 at 3:01 am |
      • Bill

        Heck, monkeys are more peaceful than humans and have an automatic entry to heaven as are all non human creatures because the bible said so. On a more serious note, nothing wrong with evolution theory or religious theory, both written or passed on by man, what matters is, does your belief it makes you a better being.

        September 13, 2011 at 3:58 am |
      • Robert Sud

        OK, evolution never said that we are the descendants of monkeys; what is says is that humans are the descendants of the same species which APES descended from.

        September 13, 2011 at 6:29 am |
      • tumiejf

        You obviously know nothing of science.

        September 13, 2011 at 7:25 am |
      • Trixie

        No scientist has ever claimed that "monkeys were our ancestors." Get your facts straight. Oh wait, that's probably too much to ask ...

        September 13, 2011 at 7:41 am |
      • Jorge

        Faith, in case you didn't reread your own statement, you just said six of one and a half-dozen of the other.

        September 13, 2011 at 7:52 am |
      • Sara

        It is a known fact that we, humans, are animals and to be exact we are primates. We evoled from earlier primates whether you like it or not. You cannot say it is not true if science proved it. Christanity itself was a way for Romans to control the people and the existance of "Jesus" cannot be proven. Almost by searching for a man that was amazing, you can prove he did not exist nor did his so called artifacts. Its science and how science works is if one part of the facts does not work than the whole thing is not a fact. Well this is a fact because its more than one scientist finding the facts. How about scientists who found dinasours or were those lies too? We have museums to prove them not your God. The bible was meant to teach morality. Good luck with your imaginary friend in the clouds who constantly watches you. If you want answers I suggest you look for it instead of believing what others tell you to believe. Science forces you to search not your religion. Zeitgist will tell you if you chose to look for truth. But ignorance does not excuse you if you refuse to listen.

        September 13, 2011 at 8:06 am |
      • Sue-helen

        Where is the evidence of God? Is it not enough to believe in the wonders of nature and strive to be a good, responsible human being? Religion in all it's forms is responsible for so much evil on this planet. And which religion is right? They can't all be right, can they? Alone the development of a human embryo is evidence of the evolutionary process. If there is a God, then I pray he protect us all from the madness of religion!

        September 13, 2011 at 8:25 am |
      • ohwow

        You mean apes, right? LOL
        And, by the way, the idea is that apes share a COMMON ancestor, but I guess it would be unreasonable for me to expect you to understand that; you don't even know the difference between monkeys and apes to begin with, right? LOL

        September 13, 2011 at 8:57 am |
      • Chris

        There are so many misconceptions about evolution that stem from pure ignorance and lack of research into the topic. Here are just a few correct statements about evolution.

        1) Humans did not evolve from monkeys... we share a common ancestor.
        2) Evolution is a fact – change over time is a fact.
        3) The Theory of Evolution is the best fit model for our set of facts and observations. It explains the diversity of life as the non-random selection of randomly varying replicators.
        4) Evolution does NOT attempt to explain the origin of life or the universe, it simply explains the diversity of life. Cosmology and Abiogenesis deal with the origin questions.
        5) "There is no evidence or proof of Evolution" Wrong: we have viewed real time Micro and Macro evolution in both laboratory conditions as well as natural conditions. Micro evolution is seen yearly with mutating flu viruses. Macro evolution is viewed most commonly with selective breeding. Domestic dogs and cats, Belgian Blue cows and market Bananas are all the result of random variants (evolution) and selective breeding.

        September 13, 2011 at 9:01 am |
      • KEETO

        Evolution, the big bang, all follows very closely to creation's model. The difference between the Bible and the scientific explanation is that the bible was written to explain the world and how to live in it to a bunch of goat herders and people barley out of the stone age..

        those that denie this are not much farther advanced then those goat herders

        September 13, 2011 at 9:42 am |
      • humanbean

        In the time of chimpanzees I was a monkey...

        September 13, 2011 at 9:51 am |
      • CraigD

        Oh, please...not that old "monkeys are our ancestors" chestnut again? Evolution doesn't claim that "moneys were our ancestors." What it does claim is that homo sapiens and modern-day monkeys SHARE a common ancestor, rightly confirmed by an analysis of the gene pool.

        September 13, 2011 at 9:59 am |
      • ben

        stop saying monkeys. monkeys run around on all fours and have long tails. you are trying to sound intelligent but you sound ignorant because the argument would be that we evolved from apes..not monkeys.

        September 13, 2011 at 10:28 am |
      • SunnyGuy53

        Evolution in no way rules out creation. The original Creation is the spiritual realm. The material worlds developed subsequently from out of the original creation.

        Creation and evolution are both true. This is not so hard to understand.

        Where do you think your spirit goes when your physical body dies? This world is but a temporary place of learning. The fact that we're flunking repeatedly is a separate issue.

        Why do you think Jesus allowed Himself to be crucified, rather than hightailing it? So we would become convinced in the Truth of His Message. Just try for a minute to comprehend what that act would take. That's pure conviction.

        Sunny Guy

        September 13, 2011 at 11:41 am |
      • John

        GOD invented evolution. Argue with GOD.

        September 13, 2011 at 11:43 am |
      • Howard

        Evolution DOESN"T claim monkeys are our ancestors. That's a gross canard put forth by the same simple-minded fools who refuse to believe in evolution. Evolution does assert that there is evidence that humans and monkeys had a common ancestor. That evidence is the 99% commonality of their DNA.

        September 13, 2011 at 11:49 am |
      • isolate

        Monkeys are not our closest ancestors. Apes, specifically chimpanzees, have DNA 98% identical with ours, making them our closest living relatives. All the various sorts of hominids and bipedal apes which followed the divergence of chimps and bipedal apes/hominids from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago are proof. There are 27 other members of the human genus, each more or less as human as we are, and more are being discovered every day. ID usually ignores all those other intelligent, tool-using, fire-making social hominids because they can't imagine God needing to practice for millions of years before getting it right.

        Secondly, science does not work by assumptions. It's like the difference between astrology and astronomy: both involve the stars, but only one is based on science. Science works ONLY on evidence and proof. Science begins with a hypothesis, like Darwin's classic work on speciation. Then it is tested, duplicated by others, used to make predictions about future finds in the field which are true, and challenged by other scientists every step of the way.

        Science gives up traditional ground grudgingly, and only accepts proofs when all other explanations have been tested to extinction. Darwin's hypothesis had to stand up to nearly a century of scientific challenges before it was granted the title of theory, then confirmed beyond doubt with the advent of DNA analysis. That means it has been accepted as true based on the solidity of the evidence, like the heliocentric theory, electrical theory, quantum theory, and all the others you come into contact with every day without being aware of them.

        I have never met an IDer or a Creationist who had read Darwin's classic. I suggest you do it now. Darwin is a very clear, expressive writer, and his book is still a pleasure to read. Be the first on your block to reject the superstition of astrology for the truths of astronomy

        September 13, 2011 at 1:13 pm |
      • Steve

        Who made God?

        September 13, 2011 at 2:34 pm |
      • Clyde M

        This is a dodge, though.

        There is NO mechanism–known or proposed–to allow "adaptation" while preventing "speciation." The whole concept of "micro"evolution is a creationist dodge and the ONLY distinction between "micro" evolution and "macro"evolution is the amount of time and number of generations involved. Creationists just pretend there is a line allowing one and preventing the other when in fact there is none and no one has ever proposed a valid mechanism to support such a claim or explain how it might happen (i.e., how nature might "know" when to stop adapting because any more will make it a different species or "kind" of thing).

        September 13, 2011 at 4:41 pm |
      • jay

        the theory of evolution is a mixed idea of random chance and adaptation.
        im not a professional, but i believe that evolution is the cause of no longer being able to sustain life in current cercumstances, wich furthermore indicates that if we did come from ape's that there would have to either be a difining moment of change caused by an event or a prolonged cercumstance in wich they had to ADAPT to their new set of cercumstances or surroundings in a manner of wich change is needed. saying that, it further leads me to believe that the ape's would have evolved with us or show some remnent of change coorasponding to human physiology to date, and would not be here today.further more ther is the matter of wich scales evolution. lets examine some animals that unless tevolved in a split would have died off before we knew they existed.

        Giraffe- Has massive heart that pumps blood powerfully up neck. When it brings it's head down, blood should burst it's brain, but there's a sponge-type thing that stops the blood. When coming back up, giraffe should faint with lack of blood to brain, but sponge releases blood into brain and special valves keep it there. Question/claim – How would it manage to evolve all that, each long necked giraffe would die when it went to drink water or when it brought it's head up and ran from a predator.

        Eggshells are very complicated with their porous system that allows entry of air and disposal of water/wastes created by chick inside. "How do you explain all the intricate mechanisms and the perfect timing that it takes for an egg to develop"
        now knowing the egg cannot be monipulated by the parent chicken or the baby chicken it would lead us to believe that scientists cannot prove the evolution of an egg...

        September 19, 2011 at 3:33 am |
    • Observer

      Intelligent design cannot explain all the different half human/half ape fossils we have found. That sums it up.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:25 pm |
      • Mike in NYC

        Sorry buddy but there have been absolutely NO half human/half ape ANYTHING found ..... ever. There HAVE been humanoid skeletons that could be classified between ape and human but that does not make them half-and-half.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:34 pm |
      • cja

        Intelligent design is NOT a falsifiable theory. Unless it makes predictions that canbe tested and can at least in priciple be disproved it is outside the realm of science.

        I think this is the big problem. People don't understand what is and is not science. Philosophy, art, religion but they all address questions that are not science. "Intelligent design" is a religious doctrine that one accepts on faith and for no other reasons. If you want it to become science then you must do two things (1) show that it makes better predictions than standard biology and (2) show us how ID might be proved wrong in principle.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:39 pm |
      • JSBlanch

        That's because none have ever been found. There have been fakes presented as multi-species hybrids, but they're obviously easily explained.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:42 pm |
      • Andrew

        The beauty of intelligent design is that it can explain anything you want it to. Found a fossil? God made it. Found a new plant? god made it. Someone points out a virus or bacteria has a mutation? God made the mutation.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:45 pm |
      • Bassaball

        If there's no such thing as half-ape and half-human then how do you explain Patrick Ewing? Huh!!? That's what I thought.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:51 pm |
      • MillieNeon

        If we were intelligently designed, we would have three sets of teeth, the third set coming around age 40. I do believe in Intelligent REsign. Like if Perry and Bachman resigned their candidacy for president. That would be intelligent resign.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:54 pm |
      • gremlin_us

        cja-I completely agree with everything you said except that "intelligent design" is inherently religious. There are those (including some atheists) that adhere to some arguments of extraterrestrial origin and seeding. It's not testable at the moment, but still remains an alternative hypothesis in some form. It can't be considered viable until someone comes up with a test for it. Intelligent design gets picked up by the religious as a safe haven and from there I agree with your statement.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:13 pm |
      • ep heidner

        I find it odd no one mentions the intelligent design theory offered by Zacharia Sitchin and Graham Hancock, the more contemporary amongst many others who conclude, based on Biblical, Vedik, and Sumerian texts, that man is a genetic development of a higher power created, intelligently, from mammalian and reptilian DNA to work in the mines for the "angels", also known by many other names. The evidence is there...you just need to look with a new set of eyes.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:17 pm |
      • Jesus

        Intelligent design is a feeble attempt to ascribe some logic to that Bronze Age nonsense called the Bible.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:31 pm |
      • If I only had a brain

        Intelligent Design is an oxymoron: it is neither intelligent, nor is it a design.

        Like "birthers", it's interesting that we still have people who GENUINELY believe that Darwin's theory is something about evolving from monkeys (and similarly, that the universe was created in 6 rotations of Earth around the sun).

        September 12, 2011 at 6:13 pm |
      • Daniel

        Since humans are classified taxonomically as Great Apes, there are no half-human/half-apes. Only apes. So the statement that you evolved from apes is correct: your parents were both apes, and you evolved from them.

        September 12, 2011 at 7:51 pm |
      • isolate

        Get your facts straight before you post them. There are no half ape/half human fossils, any more than there are half cattle/half giraffe fossils even though cattle and giraffes are both even-toed ungulate mammals sprung from a common ancestor.

        Chimpanzees and humans evolved from a common ancestor some 5 million years ago. At first they looked pretty much alike, since the important changes were mutations at the genetic level. Both faced the same problem of changing climate in Africa at that time, with the jungles in rapid retreat and grasslands becoming more widespread.

        Chimps stuck to the trees; what would become hominids evolved to meet the challenges of the grasslands. Mutations for an upright stance and wider pelvis to allow human-style walking and the easier birth of bigger-brained offspring were selected for over a million years and hominids came to dominate the grasslands.

        At some point evolving chimps and humans became unable to interbreed, and at that point they became different genera, Pan and the hominins. Chimps continued to evolve toward the arboreal, mostly vegetarian forms we see today. Hominins evolved to better deal with the challenges of the grasslands. This led to the rise of tool-using, then tool-making, the taming and use of fire for a variety of uses, the construction of artificial shelters, the wearing of clothing to better adapt to cold weather when they began to spread out of Africa, and social groups that stressed mutual cooperation and shared resources.

        Anti-evolutionists are always saying that, since half ape/half human fossils are never found (nor ever will be, since they are different genera like the imaginary half cattle/half-giraffe fossils mentioned above), then evolution is a fraud. They cannot or will not understand the actual process of speciation. Their way of thinking died a century and a half ago, but they still think it's alive if only they shout loudly enough and shut their eyes to reality. EVERY biology textbook (apart from those used by reactionary home schoolers and Bible colleges) in use today is based on evolutionary biology. There is simply no alternative. That's why Darwin id considered to be the greatest biologist of all time, since he figured out the answer to a question that had plagued humanity for millennia.

        September 13, 2011 at 2:13 pm |
    • Essie

      When people say they deny evolution they likely mean macro-evolution, one species changing into another. That is simply not observed. Of course viruses, humans, animals, all living things change...we are all subjet to mutations. And sometimes these mutations are beneficial and help the species to survive longer. But the vast majority of mutations result in a loss of information, not the addition of loads and loads of new information that can change monkeys into humans.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:25 pm |
      • CharlesD

        Actually, it is observed. Most recently, a new species of plant evolved in Britain, and the genetic details of the event are known with precision. The ancestors are know, the exact mutation is known, and the plant meets every definition of a new species.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:34 pm |
      • Keep Reading

        Essie, you clearly don't understand evolution and DNA. Actually, when a mutation allows an individual to survive, it often ends up with "extra" information. Look into "vestigial organs"... sometimes these become other things... sometimes they get repeated and you get extra limbs...sometimes these "extra" limbs and organs slowly find new utility and will change. The tendancy is to go toward increased complexity and NOT reduced complexity. Evolution tends to add features and not take them away. You would probably not see a planet where a bird "evolves" into a single celled organism... although, that's technically not really "impossible", it is highly improbable.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:49 pm |
      • Gregg

        What happens when you take a bunch of microevolution events and put them together? It's simple mathematics. Take 1+1+1+1 (done 1 million times) and you still wind up with a macro-number (i.e. 1 million). I think creationists who believe in microevolution are themselves compromizing a bit, much like when they gave up on the belief of the geocentric model and the whole idea that the stars are attached to some kind of firmament inside a large vault or sphere. This is in the bible spelled out clearly. If you're going to be a biblical litteralist, stop picking and choosing. Some of us "heathens" know the bible better then you think.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:50 pm |
      • Ouka

        Well, first off, it's not loads and loads of new information. The DNA differences of the closest primates to us is very slight. 95%+ identical. The biggest difference comes with the expression of certain proteins/hormones during early development. More-or-less Chimps have the same toolbag we humans have, but different expression patterns.

        Second off, it is a failure of the human imagination to think on geologic time scales required for macro evolution to occur. The under-educated seem to group human time scales with geologic time scales, which is completely invalid. Human civilization is only 5000 or so years old, even in that time we've seen as a species significant genetic drift in our populations. But for macro evolution you need millions of years. Hundreds of thousands at the minimum if environmental selective factors "fast-track' the changes.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:52 pm |
      • cja

        No. I think they are just ignorant. Mostly they were taught science wrong. They had teachers who just gave facts to be memorized and basically they treated science as like some religion where you were told stuff you just had to accept. You'd be surprised at how many people this applies to. So of course these people think there is a possibly of conflict.

        A poor teachers says "The Earth is round, test on Friday". The Scientist says "I think the Earth must be round, If I'm right you should be able to go in any direction and end up at the staring place. If I'm wrong you will fall off the edge." Every theory he makes is predictive and has a way that you could prove it wrong.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:52 pm |
      • Bilbo2001

        Essie, you are correct, but incomplete – but you also seem to define "macro-evolution" improperly. Most observed mutations are not beneficial (obvious disformities for example)...however there are many mutations we don't "see" – these are minute changes over time (loss of body hair...increased brain size...loss of tail...smaller canine teeth) that occur over thousands of generations. A simple mutation does not cause a species to become another just as a river does not make a canyon in a day, week, or year. These changes occur over eras...or do you also deny the easily observed changes in dinosaurs and reptiles over so many millenn?ia

        September 12, 2011 at 3:52 pm |
      • Michelle

        Charles – While the plant may meet all the definition of being a new plant, that plant did not come from a fish. Evolution within species is fine, but evolution involving one species changing into another is not.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:54 pm |
      • Keep Reading

        ...and it's VERY IMPORTANT to know (when discussing evolution) that monkeys DID NOT evolve into humans. Evolution holds that humans AND monkeys had the SAME ANCESTOR. We are all primates. So, though it may scare you, this IS the Planet of the Apes. Any intelligent extraterrestrial species that evolved from some other type of creature (say, lizards, perhaps) would probably call us that.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:58 pm |
      • Lisa

        But the point is that the plant is still a plant. Fish in eternal dark waters sometimes devolve to have no eyes, they are still fish. Finch families have never been documented to evolve into birds of prey and so on ad nauseum. Our sizes, and looks can change on a micro level but nobody has supportable evidence for incredible leaps of evolution.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:09 pm |
      • Lisa

        Correction, incredible leaps of evolution outside your family of origin

        September 12, 2011 at 4:14 pm |
      • Keep Reading

        Lisa, yes, you are correct that plants don't evolve into birds, nor do "current" birds evolve into other "current' birds. However, the finch and the osprey both share an earlier ancestor. The point is that the change is gradual. For example, there is an answer to "which came first the chicken or the egg" if you ask the question correctly. Basically, the "chicken egg" came first. Two things very similar to a modern chicken mated and produced a slight (very slight) mutation that became known as the modern chicken.

        BTW – did you know that most (yes, MOST) species of dogs that you see today DID NOT exist only a mere two or three hundred years ago? Thanks to the guiding hand of humans, we helped them to "evolve" into the species we wanted based upon desirable traits. All "domestic" animals are like this... have you ever seen a "milk cow" in the wild?

        Also, human beings pretty much created "corn" as we know it today. It started as more of a wheat like plant. Over centuries of continued cultivation, humans slowly altered it to grow faster, taller, need less water, and produce large kernels.

        So, not only does Evlolution exist, but through selective breeding, humans have been tampering with it and benefitting from it for centuries.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:21 pm |
      • REad a biology book

        It is called GENE DUPLICATION!! A common event. Duplicate a gene you can then evolve a new gene with a new function while still maintaining the function of the old gene!! THis common ID argument is based in ignorance!!

        September 12, 2011 at 4:27 pm |
      • Cass314

        Actually, speciation has been observed. It also operates on the same fundamental principles as so-called "micro"evolution. Rationally speaking, to say you believe in "micro" but not "macro" evolution is like saying that you believe that gravity makes objects fall to the ground, but not that it holds the planets in orbits. It's the exact same principle writ larger.

        As for specific instances of observed speciation–several new species of primrose have arisen out of others during the time they were being cultivated by scientists, as well as several hybrid plant species in groups like the hemp nettle. Yellow monkey flower has been observed to shoot off a new species after being stressed by copper. Maize has been observed to speciate. So have fruit flies and house flies. Speciation in the natural environment was observed in a population of island lizards. You can look these things up quite easily.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:32 pm |
      • REad a biology book

        Michelle and Lisa our tiny human brains can barely comprehend 100 years much less 1 million! Actually it is very possible a finch evolves into a bird of prey or a fish evolve into a bird of prey for that matter. All that is required is mutation, selection and time. Lots and lots of time. Wake up!!!
        If you were from another country and you saw a Chihuahua and a St Bernard you would deny up and down that they evolved from the same ancestor or that a chihuahua is even a dog at all!!. However, you know (or should) know that both chihuahuas and st. bernards were bred by humans over only hundreds of years to their current form. Imagine millions of years and nature's selection. MUCH MORE POWERFUL!!!!

        September 12, 2011 at 4:39 pm |
      • Daniel

        One, there is no 'macro-evolution'. All evolution is the same process measured over differing time spans. And yes, even speciation has been observed in the wild. Two examples: orcas (killer whales) and the African mosquito that carries malaria. With regards to the latter, can you deduce why acknowledgement of speciation is important to our well-being?

        Two, most mutations do not result in a deletion of information. Most mutations are benign – they result in a simple change of a base pair or two, which results in little or no change in phenotype (a change in gene expression). A change in existing information. The average person has around 200 unique mutations – changes to their genome that cannot be found in either parent. If MOST resulted in deletion of material, you'd have to try a LOT before you're able to make a baby, and that wouldn't be very beneficial to the species. (Mutations CAN result in deletion of information, as well as an increase in information [material can be removed or duplicated]. However, most mutations are a simple change in the existing information.)

        September 12, 2011 at 7:59 pm |
      • DF

        As has been pointed out, there are many examples of speciation-in-progress (I'll throw in Arctic char), all of which satisfy scientists, none of which satisfy the creationist/ID folk. One can define "species"- and "micro"- and macro"- evolution in such a way that the criteria for observation can never be met. It's essentially the "missing link" fallacy in another guise. The "observation" of these pedantic criteria is, however, quite irrelevant. Science is not about a bunch of labels and post-hoc explanations, it is about deriving simple, predictive, explanations to how the world works. Making an arbitrary distinction between "adaptation" and species origination doesn't increase explanative power, much the opposite. There is no real point to making these distinctions when there is one over-arching concept that explains the continuum of observed events.

        September 12, 2011 at 10:01 pm |
      • Clyde M

        Not only has speciation been observed in both the lab and natural contexts, but there is no mechanims–known or proposed–that would allow for "adaptation" while preventing "speciation" (i.e., all for "microevolution" while preventing "macroevolution"–terms which actual scientists don't even really futz with as it is ALL just evolution).

        September 13, 2011 at 4:44 pm |
    • john

      jay. evolution pretty much says you came from a clump of dirt. so many people like you believe in evolution because, hey, if a scientist says so , i dont need to think anymore..

      September 12, 2011 at 3:26 pm |
      • Observer

        john,

        "evolution pretty much says you came from a clump of dirt". That's exactly what the Bible says, too.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:33 pm |
      • tffl

        As opposed to believing some magical force made a clump of dirt directly into a human because some 2000+ year old book says so?

        September 12, 2011 at 3:36 pm |
      • madcow

        John, seriously, read Darwin. It isn't difficult. When you try to present an argument against it without knowing anything about evolution, it just makes you appear ignorant.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:39 pm |
      • john

        i was replying to someone but it got lost. he said he would rather believe he came from a monkey than a clod of dirt. i simply stated that evolution says we came from, well, a clod of dirt. they both sound ridiculous to me. see how you guys jump on me as a bible thumper, when i never said anything remptely close to religion. so if i dont believe in evolution i believe in god? you are that closed minded and biased?

        September 12, 2011 at 3:40 pm |
      • ReasonableXX

        You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:41 pm |
      • john

        madcow. i have. ive read every theory known to man. and evolution doesnt hold water. Just because you are scared of the other options doesnt make evolution the only theory. Even darwin admitted huge problems with his own theory. Our adaptation of evolution as truth is, well, religious. Blind acceptance in the face of opposing theories. even evolutionary scientists dont state it as fact. but i guess you guys need something to hold onto, kinda like a religious fairy tale.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:43 pm |
      • Rob

        Really John? A found text provides you all the answers you need? A doomsday cult at that! You want to mock modern science?

        Study the necronomicon. The answers are there!

        September 12, 2011 at 3:44 pm |
      • john

        rob. what found text are you speaking of? If you mean the bible, i never once said anything remotely close to the bible or God. are you that scared of something that you would attack me and make something up?

        September 12, 2011 at 3:46 pm |
      • john

        a magical force created life. it took a clump of dirt and formed it into a human. that is the basis of evolution. sounds eerily familiar huh..

        September 12, 2011 at 3:47 pm |
      • rivstyx

        In a choice between believing an uneducated priest/preacher or a highly educated scientist I thnk I am pretty safe with the scientist and my own rational mind.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:48 pm |
      • john

        rivstyx. educated scientists once stated the earth was flat. they change their minds every two years. when i took biology that claimed by FACT that it took millions of years to fossilize bones. then they found a cowboy boot on a fossilized foot. wow, scientist are so smart. you go on and keep trusting them. they are discoverers and explorers. you shouldnt be putting your TRUST into a scientist any more than putting your money in a mailbox.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:51 pm |
      • Horus

        John, you've "read every theory known to man"...wow, just wow. And it's ironic that you pose the argument that people just believe because scientists say so. Actually, people believe scientists because they can test, re-test, review, question, test some more, and see for themselves. Religions rely purely on "because 'x' says so", and there's no way to test it; how convenient.....

        September 12, 2011 at 3:55 pm |
      • Ouka

        Actually, it doesn't. Evolution, by definition, only concerns itself with living systems. Proto-life, whatever it may have been, is the domain of the molecular biologists and chemists. Evolutionists don't concerns themselves overly much with where life came from originally, they concern themselves with the forces that shape already-existing life.

        Evolutionary principles may or may not be relevant in the discussion of how the earliest proto-life proteins were formed, but only academically.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:56 pm |
      • Joey Schmoey

        you are not intelligent

        September 12, 2011 at 4:05 pm |
      • cja

        I think you are right. many people do think one must "believe" in science and take what you are told on faith. All those people are simply ignorant.

        Take for example Einstein's Special Relativity. One does not choose to "believe" it or not. No, you think about it and then decide that "wow he really was right" If the speed of light really is constant then he has to be right. But at the same time you remain open to an even better theory.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:06 pm |
      • Keep Reading

        John, who, exactly, is afraid? What do you fear, John? Hmmm... and you've read "every theory known to man"? That is simply amazing and quite frankly it's unbelievable. Keep to your sheepish fears, John. They will protect you.

        And I suppose you've also studied comparative religion so that you could find the "one" that is "true"...or did you just accept what you were told when you were young?

        September 12, 2011 at 4:08 pm |
      • N2DaVoid

        John, your assertion of a fossilized boot betrays your beliefs. The boot was "discovered" by a couple of fundamentalist creationists and conveniently served their interests in dispelling evolution and fossilization. Unfortunately, they never let anyone (of scientific repute) examine the boot or "fossilized remains". I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:35 pm |
      • REad a biology book

        Evolve a brain John! Please!

        September 12, 2011 at 4:52 pm |
      • Humanoid

        @Observer – But with God all things are possible.

        With Science all things are theories. That's the difference.

        September 12, 2011 at 6:18 pm |
      • Atheist

        John, you "don"t need to think anymore'? When did you start?

        September 12, 2011 at 6:39 pm |
      • The Josh

        John, in your reading of every scientific theory, did you realize the fact that the origin of life is nowhere in the theory of evolution? I guess not. Sort of hurts your "lump of dirt" argument. Next, evolutionary scientists do talk about evolution as the fact that it is. You have nothing to back that up, youre just ranting. Also, regarding Darwin admitting faults in his own theory. If you think that current evolutionary theory is the same as Darwinian evolution, youre a bit behind the curve. Did you really think that no scientific progress in evolutionary biology had been made since the 19th century? Finally, I love your comparison to the geocentric universe theory. It parallels in many ways. The mixture of ego and religion mirror the creationism argument. Whether you are religious or not, youve succomed to the effect those views have had on culture. For example, teach 9 out of 10 6 year olds in a classroom that red is blue, and the 10th will eventually buy in too. Even though outside the class they hear different, they are weakminded children.

        For the history deniers like yourself, there is no hope. Youve chosen to ignore the overwhelming observable evidence, probably in many aspects of your life. If you had told Darwin how complete the fossil chain would eventually become, he wouldve called you a liar. What we have on record is far more than we need to establish evolution is a fact.

        September 12, 2011 at 7:46 pm |
      • Alan

        @John I agree with your posts on evolution, and the absurdity that its is 100% fact. So rock on man, although it appears we would differ on religious beliefs, I do believe that God created "everything", Quite honestly I think that think the reason people grasp onto evolution as if it where some perfect fact, is that man really doesn't like to think that there is something bigger and better than we are. Were too hung up on ourselves to think that we where "created".

        September 13, 2011 at 8:22 am |
    • OldGuy1

      These people who deny evolution suffer from delusions of grandeur!

      September 12, 2011 at 3:45 pm |
      • Thera

        Imagine insisting you are made in the image of God! I hope that if there is a God, he punishes them for unmitigated arrogance.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:01 pm |
    • Rufus

      I like puppy dogs in pink dresses and Kale!!

      September 12, 2011 at 3:46 pm |
      • Metatron

        I once ate pie with Charlton Heston. Now there's a theologian.

        September 12, 2011 at 7:23 pm |
    • csmith

      Evolution is an interesting theory, but if studied, it is found to be science fiction. What caused evolution to stop? Why do apes still exist? If you lay out in chronical order the fossil findings, apes and man have come and gone as man supposedly evolved from them. Very interesting theory, but the theory fails time and time again....

      September 12, 2011 at 3:50 pm |
      • Ouka

        Evolution didn't stop, it's an ongoing process on all living organisms. As for why there are still apes, that would be because 1) evolution doesn't occur concurrently in lock-step across all members of a species at once. Changes happen to an individual and are bred into the species' genetic pool over time if useful. 2) Apes fill a different environmental niche than humans do. Even early humans different in territory, food sources, etc than our current ape cousins. So there is no reason to expect that we would have driven all other ape-like critters to extinction. 3) Since we diverged from the great apes, apes have been evolving on a different path. They have evolved traits that are very useful to them but would be rather useless to us. Humans are not the apex of evolution that all other species are seeking to become. 4) Species can and do go extinct. The "proto-human" lines have indeed all gone extinct. They did share enough of an environmental niche with homo sapiens sapiens that they were out competed by our (presumably) better intelligence. You don't see any of the plethora of human-like apes running around nowdays, do you?

        September 12, 2011 at 4:04 pm |
      • Joey Schmoey

        you aren't intelligent

        September 12, 2011 at 4:07 pm |
      • gremlin_us

        One, you apparently don't know the scientific definition of "theory." Two, evolution DOESN'T stop.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:17 pm |
      • opheliaout5

        What on earth makes you think evolution stopped? Evolution doesn't just stop. An example of a somewhat recent genetic mutation in humans is the trait for sickle cell anemia. You'll notice it occurs mostly in tropical environments, such as portions of Africa and India. Although sickle cell anemia is somewhat detrimental to its host, the sickle cell trait is actually protective. Mosquitos don't like people with low-oxygen blood. People with sickle cell anemia have less oxygen in their blood. Therefore, mosquitos prefer people who don't have sickle cell anemia to people who do, making people who have sickle cell anemia less likely to develop malaria, a far more serious (and mosquito-borne) disease.

        Assuming that evolution "stops" is ridiculous. There is no perfect type of human and never will be. We'll probably continue to mutate (for good or for ill) until our species is wiped from the face of the earth.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:24 pm |
      • no

        OMG you're an idiot!

        September 12, 2011 at 4:30 pm |
      • physics

        @cs – "if studied..." You obviously haven't studied evolution – there is nothing related to evolution in your post.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:53 pm |
      • Pastafarian

        Wow. Your post leaves me speechless. You clearly have no understanding of science, the scientific method, or the (scientific) theory of evolution. At the very least, try to google the word theory and compare its uses in science vs. the layman's term. they are NOT the same.

        September 12, 2011 at 5:57 pm |
      • Katie

        Spoken like someone who understands neither evolution nor the term scientific theory. Evolution hasn't stopped.

        September 12, 2011 at 6:54 pm |
      • diane lane

        Actually, all evolution is is theories based on theories! What is the definition of a THEORY; A STATEMENT OR SET OF OPINIONS DESIGNED TO EXPLAIN A PHENOMENA. Not concrete, not substantive, just explanations! Anyone can give an explanation for anything else.

        September 12, 2011 at 7:31 pm |
      • diane lane

        Another thing, scientist today are blending human DNA with ape DNA to prove their point. Now, logically speaking, "How is that argument supportive of the main thesis of their experiment??? You can't prove an argument from a lie, the facts have to be unbiased and independent. You could theorize that man is a pig too, because pigs have a digestible system that is extremely similar to man. But arguably, that doesn't make pigs human does it!

        September 12, 2011 at 7:52 pm |
      • dave

        Plate tectonics and gravity are both theories but no one questions that because it doens't conflict with any thological ideals. There is plenty of evidence of evolution exits. Religeon always wants to interfere with sience ever since Galileo tried to explain that the solar system is helio-centric.

        September 13, 2011 at 12:02 am |
      • Clyde M

        ...
        ...
        just...wow.

        What caused evolution to stop? That sentence alone shows that you haven't bothered to study evolution to even a 4th grade level of understanding. You can't say on one hand "when studied is revealed to be science fiction" and then ask what caused evolution to stop on the other because it only shows you haven't read a damned thing on the subject. Evolution has not stopped, barring artificial interference or total annihilation of life will not stop, and NO evolutionists has ever said, proposed, or even insinuated that it has.

        ...

        just wow.

        September 13, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
    • mytabloids

      I think I can settle this.

      What if "God" happens to look like an Ape? Then everyone can be happey!

      September 12, 2011 at 3:52 pm |
      • Mike in NYC

        What if G-d looks like Charlton Heston? lol

        September 12, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
    • Tom in Canada

      Richard Dawkins for Pope!

      September 12, 2011 at 3:54 pm |
      • Humanoid

        Ugh, I'd rather stick pins in my eyes!

        And I thought Canadians were one step up the evolutionary ladder from Americans. Shame.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:09 pm |
      • Pastafarian

        Dawkins uses well thought-out arguments, and supports them all. That's what confounds so many religious zealots. They don't know how to defend themselves against facts without resorting to fairy tales.

        Read The God Delusion – even if you're a religious person, it will hopefully give you something to think long and hard about..

        September 12, 2011 at 6:14 pm |
    • Gman

      Ian, there is a difference between Adaptation and the Theory of Evolution, which is still a Theory because it has not been proven.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:57 pm |
      • Ivan Bial

        Next time your swing down from your tree, remember it's called "The Theory of Gravity".

        September 12, 2011 at 4:07 pm |
      • RevolutionaryGenetics

        And has adaptation been proven? What is adaptation? Seems to me that populations adapt, not individuals. Sounds like evolution.

        September 12, 2011 at 6:40 pm |
      • Jefferson Kinde

        I admit that there is a colloquial use of the word "theory" that means simply "an idea" or "(educated) guess.” But that is NOT what is meant by the scientific word “theory.” Not in evolution's case, nor in any other.

        Scientifically, the word "theory" has a clear and distinct meaning and it is the only definition meant by any evolutionist who uses the word in regards to evolution. In science, a theory is a plausible framework designed to explain a set of facts, observations, and testable hypotheses. Theories CONTAIN facts, other theories, and even scientific laws. And “theory” is about as close to factual truth and universal acceptance as you get in science. Theories do not somehow "graduate" to "fact" with time, evidence, and acceptance. Rather, theories explain facts and observations already in evidence.

        In fact, virtually ALL scientific principles that we consider to be absolute fact are, in the reality of scientific language, theories.

        Gravity is a theory.
        That your body is made of cells is a theory.
        That germs cause disease is a theory.
        That sound travels in compression waves through the air is a theory.
        Plate tectonics is a theory.
        Heliocentrism is a theory.
        And the list goes on...

        Yet in none of these cases do people say the word "theory" with the same acidic distaste and purposeful confusion that they do when they say "evolution is just a theory." Yet to say that is to also say "electricity is just a theory," or "magnetism is just a theory” and yet those ideas are readily accepted by virtually everyone as the clear facts that they are.

        What's more, a theory must have several additional characteristics above and beyond mountains of evidence gained through scientific investigations—it must also have the ability to make testable predictions and the potential to be falsified should new and contradictory evidence come to light.

        Evolution easily passes all of the scientific meanings of the word, a fact which was even proven legally in the Dover trial.

        There simply is no acceptable way to misunderstand and misuse the word "theory"—substituting the colloquial use of the word for the scientific one to create an equivocation fallacy—any longer. The only reason one might legitimately do so would be from ignorance and that can be permanently cleared up with 2 minutes of reading about what a scientific theory is.

        Continued misuse is intellectually dishonest and purposefully disingenuous—and you should be very wary of people who know the truth, have been corrected on the same issue in the past, and who still continue to misuse the word. Once again, the only reason people who know better might continue to misuse the term is because they are either truly unable to understand a simple word definition or they are purposefully lying to you (and is that who you really want to be listening to for "truth" in either case?)

        September 13, 2011 at 5:03 pm |
    • Chris

      Ian: Your analogy has a fallacy. We have never witnessed an advantageous mutation which was caused by an addition of information in the genome-only a subtraction. So, microbes' adaptation to antibiotics does not support the requirement that additional new, useful genetic information be made available for Evolution of new life forms. So, adaptation by recombining or subtratcing of existing genetic information is not the same thing as Evolution.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:59 pm |
      • Joey Schmoey

        huh wu?!?!?

        September 12, 2011 at 4:09 pm |
      • Humanoid

        Cut and paste has it's uses but do try to write your own posts.

        You remind me of an old Yorkshire man who maintained that his job was "merchandising conflagrational combustibles"

        It's much easier to say "I sell firewood for a living"

        September 12, 2011 at 4:14 pm |
      • REad a biology book

        I'll repost what I already posted since you are repeating the same nonsense as others.

        It is called GENE DUPLICATION!! A common event. Duplicate a gene you can then evolve a new gene with a new function while still maintaining the function of the old gene!! THis common ID argument is based in ignorance!!

        Seriously, just read a biology book. If nothing else it will let you know what arguments not to make while arguing for your position.

        September 12, 2011 at 5:00 pm |
      • Clyde M

        Except for the fact that WE WITNESS GENE ADDITION AND BENEFICIAL MUTATION ALL THE FREAKING TIME, except for that, what you say might be true.

        It's like the creationists aren't even trying any more. It's as if their arguments begin and end with Darwin and ignore the 160 years and countless scientific advances and papers since then. They just blindly cut and paste and never even bother to do a 2 second fact check to see if what they are saying is even accurate.

        "Never witnessed an advantageous mutation which was caused by an addition of information in the genome?" Look up insertion, polyploidation, gene duplication, etc.

        Besides, even the slightest addition mutation can cause beneficial effects *even if the addition itself is not advantageous* by simply causing a shift in the reading frame of the codons in the mRNA. This can cause the amino acid sequence to be altered in the protein translation phase of duplication leading to a beneficial result.

        Does no one take 8th grade biology any more?

        September 13, 2011 at 5:12 pm |
    • K from AZ

      Ian, which are you talking about, 'micro (changes within a species) or macro (one specie into another) evolution. Makes a big difference: micro exists, macro doesn't AND there is no scientific evidence to that effect.

      September 12, 2011 at 4:04 pm |
      • Fred1

        Perhaps you would care to explain the mechanism which prevents a series of micro evolutions from adding up to a macro evolution?

        September 12, 2011 at 5:57 pm |
      • diane lane

        The only change that is evident between prehistoric animals and the same animals today, are environmental changes...that's all....

        September 12, 2011 at 7:54 pm |
    • Jim in Ohio

      I believe that evolution indeed has happened / is happening all the time, and that (my) God is the one helping it along.

      September 12, 2011 at 4:06 pm |
      • REad a biology book

        This is a reasonable argument, although it cannot be disproven, it does not deny the evidence of evolution.

        September 12, 2011 at 5:03 pm |
      • Judas Priest

        I am perfectly down with that. If you want to look for the fingerprints of a maker, then the rules that govern the game are the best place to begin. Sometimes we don't understand these rules, but it is foolish to deny that they exist. This is a good place for believers and nonbelievers alike to agree to disagree, because what is agreed on is observable, and what is disagreed upon is not.
        A lot of scientists do take this position. When confronted with something new they don't scream about how it denies god; they marvel at the wonder and complexity of god's creation.

        September 13, 2011 at 9:40 am |
    • Faith

      Ultimately it all comes down to faith. The discussion is too centered on what is found here on earth. What of the universe? The solid, liquid and gas 'matter' that that makes up the cosmos HAS to have an orgin. To put a scientific fact loosely; nothing + nothing cannot = something.

      September 12, 2011 at 4:16 pm |
      • REad a biology book

        Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. You don't need faith when the evidence is right front of your stupid face. However, you are blind to see it because the fantasy world is more interesting to your infantile brain than reality.

        September 12, 2011 at 5:08 pm |
      • brett

        where did god from?

        nothing + nothing = god

        September 12, 2011 at 6:04 pm |
      • Robert Q

        Read Stephen Hawking. This question of how something can emerge from nothing is a tough one; and this is why Hawking's recent book is so significant. Hawking attempts to explain to the lay person the prediction of quantum physics that something (including entire universes) can spontaneously emerge from nothing.

        September 12, 2011 at 6:53 pm |
    • Ian is a idiot

      Ian your a idiot...anuff said...

      September 12, 2011 at 4:17 pm |
    • BOB

      Its easy to mathematically eliminate a God. We are supposedly created in God's image, however we are not perfect. God is supposedly perfect, so how does a perfect being create something imperfect and still keep its status of perfection??

      September 12, 2011 at 4:17 pm |
      • Mark J

        God did not create an imperfect human being. Think about how God created man. Adam was a perfect human being until the fall. God gave man a free will. However, man fell. We are imperfect because Sin dwells in our flesh. However God gave us a chance to become perfect even as he is perfect. Do you know that God wants to dwell in you? The all powerful God who created the universe wants to make us, sinners who's only destiny was death, the same as He is. God will accomplish his heart's desire. The time is short to believe in the Lord. Would you rather put your trust in evolution and ignore God, thus perish. My hope is in Christ. Do not ignore God, for within all of us is a sense-we KNOW deep within there is a God. God has put eternity into your heart, that is, only He can satisfy your life.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:59 pm |
      • NoGod Just MEN

        Mark, evil dwells in my scrotum lol. Face it, religions were proto-law systems, simple but effective and fantastic ways to control anarquies by instilling fear into igronart minds with the insertion of all-mighty dieties who can see and know your every dirty tought and action. Trully laughable!

        September 12, 2011 at 7:35 pm |
    • Iowajoe56

      Supportive evidence for evolution is very extensive and this example is very persuasive. Chimps, our closest non-human earth mates have 24 pairs of chromosomes and humans have 23 pairs. The question is, if we had a common ancestor, do we have one less pair of chromosomes or do the chimps have one more pair than that ancestor?
      Molecular evidence conclusively shows that one of our chromosomes is the fused product of two chromosomes that are still separate in chimps, giving humans the 23 pair count. Combine that with the fact that we share 90% of the same genome as the chimp pretty much makes us the 3rd ape.

      September 12, 2011 at 4:22 pm |
    • Kevin Untener

      Damn, Planet of the apes must be true. Maybe the second coming is really the apes coming back to take over the earth.

      September 12, 2011 at 4:23 pm |
    • Careful Thought

      It's hard to discuss such an enormous topic in a sentence, but let me make one point. I taught science to science majors at a major evolution-teaching University. I, and many Ph. D's with open minds have serious problems with some key aspects of evolution. They're not based on religion, but they sure do lead to the topic. It is unfair, and unscientific to attempt to silence critics of a theory. It's not fact, and has significant flaws that are no longer debated, but they're their. Many, many times the vast majority of scientists were glibly convinced of something large and serious. Then, 100 years later, the science books all say it's not true, and it's almost the laughing stock of science. For ages, we taught that planets traveled in L-shaped loopdy-lloops through the sky, because we didn't understand that we both circled the sun, so our motion to each other appears like a spirograph. They were called "Epicycles", as asserted by Ptolomey, and were taught as fact for over a thousand years. Now, we know it's a complete farce.

      If enough investigation is allowed to take place, and enough people take the time to learn what I know about the embarrassingly long list of smoking guns that make evolution nearly impossible to continue to believe, then we might get past this embarrassing 100 year old theory put forth when people still rode horses to work, had out-houses and slaves. It was postulated before anyone had ever heard of gorillas, DNA or electron microscopes. All of which really do more to reveal problems with evolution than support it.

      There's sort of this arrogance that if you question evolution, you must be a religious nut afraid to let go of his bronze-age myth, or a flat-earth society member. It's very similar to the bullying that happened when we first asserted that the earth revolved around the sun and not the other way around, and that the earth was round in the first place.

      The truth needs no defending. If evolution is true, every discovery will back it up. But more and more shows the impossibility of it. I'm no dummy. I'm no religious nut, and I have to say, that I've completely discounted evolution as a implausible theory and I'm politely waiting for the rest of society to catch up.

      When you hear top dogs saying that there must have been some external direction in the development of life, and they leap to extra-terrestrial planting of of this planet (then subsequent abandonment, and in ability to land safely here again) That's when you know those Intelligent Design folks have something.

      Ok, one example.

      All life began in the sea, and some made it on land. How? That would have to mean that one day, one particular creature came on land and was able to stay. How? gills and lungs are very different. Amphibeans have both at different times in their life. Is that the link? Are we all, then descended from frogs?

      How about sex? at what point did self-sufficient creatures that duplicated by splitting SUDDENLY split into a male and female (what ever that is- never been one prior) Then, they have to come TOGETHER to procreate. How did they know how to? It had to work the very first time or they would have died off. Did all beings descend from that ONE that suddenly had all the perfectly matching and fitting plumbing? How is this an ADVANTAGEOUS mutation that would cause that sector of the population to outlive others?

      It would seem that developing a bi-gender sexual reproduction system would be the ULTIMATE disadvantage over splitting in half. What ever happened to survival of the fittest? Wouldn't this have just made things 100 times more complicated?

      Finally, missing links. There is no missing link. There are MILLIONS of missing links. In fact, all links are currently missing. If every species resulted in a gradual progress from less complex species, there sure are a lot of missing steps between even the CLOSEST species alive today. On the order of 100-1,000,000 missing in-between steps. Each one of those steps, had it happened would have been an accidental improvement-by-birth-defect on the previous speice. And it's not like its very next offspring would have been better still, no, it would have to develop into a whole population of this slightly improved version. (that in itself is hard to believe, since the only reproduction mates it would have would be the inferior species, so THEIR offspring would not necessarily even have the superiority anymore.)

      There would be potentially millions and millions of this new population if it continues to exist (why wouldn't it? It's an improvement on its ancestor, right? And THEY'RE still here?) Then one day, ONE of them has another accidental birth defect that makes it better. Then that develops into a few million of the new, new improved one. This would have to happen over 1,000 times if not a million, to smoothly bridge the gap between Apes and Man (whom they say are closely related with 99% similar DNA)

      If that happened, (and hey, it might have) then there should be a MILLION or so examples of each of those steps along the way, and they all came with BONES. Bones don't go away. With millions of specimens all over the planet, there should be no problem whatsoever in finding examples of all those intermediate phases. In fact, every school, museum and science store at the mall, should be able to display a complete set of complete, actual skeletons of major milestones along that path., just as they can with skeletons of much, much older animals that also no longer exist. There are dinosaur bones in every city museum.

      YET, that's not the case. All the solid "evidence" for evolution ever even happening can be embarrassingly put on one card table in the British Museum. The mere paucity of fossils (of sanguine creatures who properly buried their dead) is very damning to those would would like me to believe that if I flipped back the sheets on the calendar far enough my ancestors weren't just musicians in Germany, but animals, and eventually amoebas. Burden of proof is on them, and all of them circling the wagons and saying, "Well, WE'RE convinced because, otherwise we'd have to believe in God" isn't working for me.

      September 12, 2011 at 4:25 pm |
      • jerkface

        I completely agree. Evolution has essentially become today's flat earth. It saddens me that the general population and education system has practically raped science and the definition thereof in an effort to obtain all answers (however illusive they may be). True science would point out the very flaws of evolution, and in the name of progress would call on others to help in finding the answers, even if we have to go back to square one, as true scientists would never hesitate. What we have instead, is another religion, where the priests don lab coats.

        September 12, 2011 at 5:02 pm |
      • REad a biology book

        Hmm what is your PhD in? English, history, theology? And from where? a Baptist university? You are funny to say "I and many other PhD" Really? You and the less then 0.1% of PhDs in Biology from creditable universities? Don't give the impression that you are educated about something when you really are not. How can you be? If you were you would know that all biological evidence points to evolution being the underlying mechanism for the existence of life. If there were one single incidence or shred of evidence that refutted evolution and was reproducible then evolution would cease to be a theory and would be religated to falsehood.

        You are a biased, troll PhD who somehow never understood the scientific method!!

        September 12, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
      • Ash. A

        Did you just seriously say that bones don't go away? If that were the case, we'd be drowning in the bones of all the dead animals that ever existed. Fossils are only able to be preserved in sedimentary rock or in some other preserving solution, like tar. The rest disintegrate over time. It is amazingly fortunate we have any fossils at all, and yet you're wanting a complete skeleton of every hominid that has ever existed? What "university" was it that you "taught" at again? The Discovery Institute?

        September 12, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
      • REad a biology book

        Doubt is healthy absolutely!!
        BUT DO NOT POSE AS IF THERE IS A LARGE FACTION OF PhDs THAT AGREE WITH YOU!! BECAUSE THERE ARE NOT! JUST A FEW NUT JOBS LIKE YOU!!

        DO THE RESEARCH PROVE THE WORLD THAT EVOLUTION DOESNT EXIST!! PLEASE!!

        September 12, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
      • REad a biology book

        You are mind bogglingly stupid for someone that holds a PhD. The university or.... community college that your earned your degree at should be ashamed!

        September 12, 2011 at 5:32 pm |
      • Buckeye Nut Schell

        Where to begin? First, the earth is more than 5,000 – 10,000 years old. Demonstratable proof? Light speed is measurable, the distance of stars are somewhat measurable through mathmatics and observations (the only reason I say somewhat is the accuracy and the percent error increases based on the distance and size estimates of the stars) However, it is safe to say that the light from vast majority of the stars we can see are farther than 10,000 light years from us. Our own galaxy is approximately 100 thousand light years across. If the earth was created 10,000 years ago and then the "lessor lights" meaning the stars were created afterwards, the light would not even be here yet.

        Adaption is not evolution as so many of you have kindly pointed out. Adaption happens, relatively speaking, quickly where evolution happens over time (a long time) we see mutations all the time but we have created an environment where we negate the effects of many mutations. By developing drugs to save sick and (for lack of better words) mutated children, we allow them to breed and carry on the trait where a few thousand years ago, that child would not have grown to an age where they can reproduce. Evolution occurs when all of the less desirable traits (traits that do not aid in the survival of the specieces) are all killed off before the specieces can mate. Look at pygmies, the are human but have physical differences genetically inherited that benefit them in their environment that would hinder them in our environment. Left alone for another hundred-thousand-years, they may have been considered another species of human. Not better or worse, just different for a different environment.

        We cannot observe large differences evolving from one species to another because of the time it takes to change but we can find evidence of that change. Intermediate steps such as a dog fish and skeletal markers and we can find cases where isolation has caused entirely different species to evolve such as the duck billed platypus. These "clues" are confusing at times and scientists make mistakes and occasionally corrupt people fraudulantly make claims for fame or profit or just for the hell of it that give legitimate scientists a bad name. However, in the end, science continues to prove over and over again that evolution is as certain as the fact that the earth rotates around the sun.

        Other commenters failed to mention that Ptolemy's geocentric solar models where accepted by the church and everything else was considered heiresy punishable by death. Even with the evidence form Galileo's telescope, the church made him recant his "theories" or face imprisonment or even death. When the evidence becomes undeniable even to the most radical critics, the church's will accept it as if it has always been their position and that is in essence how evolution itself works. When an idea (or a species) fails to meet the nessessities of survival, they either change or die and either way, something new replaces it and so on and so on, ad infinitum. Evolution is the new kid on the block right now and just like we have never went back to a geocentric belief, we have continuously changed our understanding of how the planets and stars move and we will continue on that path with astronomy as well as evolution and everything else. Evolution has always been here. Our understanding of that fact is what's actually evolving.

        September 12, 2011 at 6:17 pm |
      • Gargoyle

        Where did you get your PHD? Oral Roberts?

        – emergence of life from the sea (which in some species happened numerous times back and forth) is well understood, look up Lungfish
        – emergence of sexual reproduction is well understood, genetic recombination is extremely beneficial
        – only a minute fraction of animal bones become fossilized while new traits in a population can develop quickly given sufficient pressure towards adaptation – essentially do or die

        September 12, 2011 at 6:44 pm |
      • Fred1

        I disagree with almost everything you said. But it is possible that you have the credentials you say you do because every group will have its cranks and fanatics; but, I do agree whole heartily on one point. If the theory of evolution is incorrect, scientific study will make that abundantly clear and nothing could prevent it. However until a consensus of modern scientists agree with your speculation about the theory of evolution I will continue my belief (based on your evidence) that you are full of shi-t

        September 12, 2011 at 7:25 pm |
      • Ondoher

        You're call yourself a PhD, you claim you teach science, you want us to believe you have some authority, and then you trot out a list of PRATTs. Seriously?

        All this has been addressed before.

        September 12, 2011 at 8:39 pm |
      • Answer

        It would be best if you didn't hide beneath a fake scientist who posts on a blog to convince others that science is wrong. Have the integrity to post your real name and profession. Background to studies you've completed and have worked on. Your long post -Careful Thought- is a red herring in the guise of pure science. Who can not spot a false scientist?

        The mere fact that you state a vast number of opinions instead of factual links and reason truths speaks volumes that you are a plant to deceive and deny the science you hate. Just reveal your Intelligent Design dogma to us.

        September 12, 2011 at 9:30 pm |
      • oh yeah

        Excellent....well said

        September 13, 2011 at 9:33 am |
      • Clyde M

        Yet again...wow.

        "It would seem that developing a bi-gender sexual reproduction system would be the ULTIMATE disadvantage over splitting in half. What ever happened to survival of the fittest? "
        This sentence alone shows me clearly that even if you taught science ti science majors it was clearly NOT biological science, or that if it were, you were one of the worst teachers of biological science in the field. Sexual reproduction has a LOT of advantages over asexual reproduction. Little things like gene dispersal and recombination for one.

        You claim that there is an "embarrassingly long list of smoking guns" and then don't share a single one of them. You also say that "if evolution is true, every discovery will back it up. But more and more shows the impossibility of it." AGAIN, without sharing what any of these discoveries that don't back it up are.

        Worse, you use questions as "evidence," which no competent scientists would do.
        Scientists not yet understanding or having enough information to determine how sexes evolved (though there are some REALLY robust and well-supported hypotheses out there if you bother to look and it really isn't all that complicated) is not "evidence" or a "smoking gun" against evolution. It is an unanswered question. The fact is that every discovery DOES support evolution, which is why you are reverting to using unanswered gaps to launch your petty assault. Because you don't actually have conflicting evidence, just yet-to-be-explained gaps.

        And that's just your scientific dishonesty. I haven't even spoken about your flat out lies or frightening scientific misunderstandings.
        Like this gem: "Bones don't go away."
        And you want me to believe you taught college-level science courses?
        Bones most certainly do "go away." They decompose just like anything else and fossilization of biological matter is actually EXTREMELY rare–only occurring in specific conditions. Add to this that the VAST majority of animals that died over time did so above ground, exposed to the elements and other animals that eat, scatter, and break up the remains–not to mention chemical and physical weathering processes...and yeah, bones most certainly "go away." In ideal decomposition conditions, they can break down to unrecognizable bits in a few years.

        You also claim that "all the solid "evidence" for evolution ever even happening can be embarrassingly put on one card table in the British Museum," which is laughably untrue. In the last decade alone, in English language alone, there have been around 2 MILLION PEER-REVIEWED scientific papers on evolution published. There are literally MOUNTAINS of evidence. From the fossil record to genetics to comparative morphology to every other biological field under the sun, the amount of evidence is simply staggering.

        September 13, 2011 at 5:58 pm |
    • Sane

      My only question from a scientific point of view is: Why did evolution stop?

      Is not science something you can prove over and over?

      September 12, 2011 at 4:29 pm |
      • RevolutionaryGenetics

        It didn't stop. Its happening right now. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Hip dysplasia in purebred dogs. The evidence that it's happening all the time around is everywhere.

        September 12, 2011 at 6:46 pm |
      • TJ

        Evolution did not stop. It's happened and is still happening. New species of worm, plants, and dogs as mentioned, are being formed and have been formed in as little time as the last few hundred years. The whale btw, evolved from a land mammal before its time. Evolution is a slow, painstaking process. That's why 99% of all the species that have ever existed are extinct. The vast majority of the mutations that do occur on a genetic level are of no consequence. The ones that are helpful and do carry over to the next generation become the engines of evolution. This is coming straight from the mouth of a devout Christian. The Scientific Theory of Evolution is true. Evolution HAPPENED. Abiogenesis (life from non life) HAPPENED. Deal with it. When nutjob Christians take the Genesis literally, they make real, rational minded Christians like myself look bad. God created the perfect symphony when He snapped His fingers and the Big Bang occurred. Everything afterwards has been a perfect, Divine music.... Evolution, Abiogenesis, Big Bang, etc. are not pieces in defiance of God, but a celebration of the science that has always been a part of God's plan.

        September 12, 2011 at 9:46 pm |
      • NoMoreLabels

        Evolution is an ongoing process driven by the earth and will never 'stop'. Look around you–humanity is now in the process of helping the earth evolve. Everything that happens on the earth aids evolution.

        September 16, 2011 at 10:48 pm |
    • Rottindam

      Really this is a simple thing that need not discount the diety of your choice for involvment in all aspects of modification, evolution and development of species through successful adaptions. The one exception is; that your diety is much more esoteric than some bearded dude that looks like us sitting on a on a cloud that manages day to day actions for each individual based on devotional fortituted. The diety(s) of your choice would be required to be planners that since knowing all things could have put in to motion knowing all the laws of chemistry, physics, DNA etc.....a progression that compensates for all natural and unatural occurences throughout the history of all species individually and as they correlate to each other. Fairly simple stuff for an omnipotent being right? Anyway it seems everytime science runs in to some of the harder defenses of religion some folks feel rather threatened. The threat seems to be changing ones long held "beliefs" for a more definable and measurable 'Belief". Throughout human history we have seen the out come of science fighting with the church, it usually invites some bad stuff and wastes 40 – 100 yrs debating the issue until ultimately science is able to proved the facts of testing, measuring, comparing over and over until the 'threat" is no longer percieved that way.

      September 12, 2011 at 4:30 pm |
    • dendata

      How many cave men were there?...Why are there only a few examples in the fossil record? Where are these so called "transitional fossils" of half man half.....?...What?..Why does the record reflect a sudden "leap" to the appearance of life in the archaeological and historical record?...

      September 12, 2011 at 4:32 pm |
    • Phil

      Folks, stop trying to explain evolution to creationists. They've never understood evolution and they don't want to do so. Keep in mind, "You can't teach a pig to sing. It won't work and it just annoys the pig."

      September 12, 2011 at 4:37 pm |
    • Chris

      There is a timeline under the Giza pyramids
      which was shown on TV long ago,
      along with many other things that most people don't remember.
      This arises many questions you may want answered:

      Why can't we see find this timeline now?
      Many theories arise such as:
      – the ones that were tricked to change their calendar tricked themselves into hiding it.
      – the God's are keeping it safe for one day when they will reveal it again.

      What happened after we seen this timeline? or Why don't I remember clearly?)
      Think about the Mayan culture and many other ancient cultures...
      The Gods showed the future to many of us at one point in time, which created temporal paradox.
      Even the Christian culture itself (the ones who changed the calendar to A.D.) claimed to have made revelations which predict a second coming of their son of God after they starve the earth to death and

      How was this universe was created?
      The universe was created parallel to another universe, stretching a 4th dimension to create time to be able to see all of time including the outcome of the world(s) in this universe.

      What is a Temporal Paradox?
      Most scientists call it something similar, but I provide you all with a new scientifically correct definition:
      Temporal Paradox: A dual reality which is remembered once you get to the time you were shown
      when you seen the future when the temporal paradox was created.

      Proof the Gods know the future::
      We are given visions of what happens a split second before it happens when you pray to the real Gods (unwritten Gods)
      to prove they come from the end of this dimension. 
      To my knowledge, they don't allow people to remember far into the future for some reason,
      Probably because this is part of our future, what makes us who we are... they prove to us they are real, and they will share our power some day.

      Why not take us out now (fast forward), and make us now what we will be where they are (the future, the next life)?
      This is very possible, however if we were taken out now, when we go to make our own worlds
      we would think none of it really happened because it happened so fast.
      But since we are created in the past to the Gods, by the time we get there (to the next dimension),
      to them it could not have taken any of their time. (time dilation)

      What are the Gods Capable of?
      Using this same time dimension method, Gods could technically stretch themselves using a 4th dimension (similar to time),
      to make copies of themselves. Technically the original continues their Godly life without ever even having to check on these true copies of themselves. Any God you want can be with you at any time. (not in body, but in spirit.)
       
      Why Religion?
      That's your choice. We are all the same, and not one of today's religion has described anything remotely scientifically correct.
      I think once we stop forcing and fighting over religious beliefs,
      we can start to focus on what is most important: destroyed:
      Working together to restore what we have almost destroyed... humanity.

      Theory?
      Technically anything is a theory until it is proven. Until we are all there (again in some cases).
      New theories arise every day, but are usually proven wrong by new theories.

      Proof:
      I will soon undergo hypnosis along with many others until this it is proven.
      Another source of proof: through meditation, relaxation and prayer, the real Gods
       show you what happens a split second before it happens in time.

      Greatest Idea for Space Exploration:
      Sling shot rocket from underground, using electromagnets, dual length of cables to multiple metal apparatuses, with or without weights and plasma rockets on the underground 'sling'. This space rocket would be faster than current methods used even before it is released at ground level. Of course we have technology thanks to great scientists who were not religious. They however chose to stay quiet about the false hope for a good reason.... Anyway, this idea will be more than likely always be overlooked unless we get rid of religion, the other power has already been to Vega. They know more than me, I am not the only one.

      What is the point of this life before we become a God?
      To prove you are worthy of becoming a God

      September 12, 2011 at 4:42 pm |
      • Kingfisher

        Absolutely Genius!!!!

        September 12, 2011 at 8:07 pm |
      • Knowledgeseeker

        That's not what a theory is. That's a hypothesis. A theory is a predictive set of rules based on observation and facts that is falsifiable (able to be proven false) and testable (able to be tested). Of course you say there's a timeline of the world under the pyramids so I suspect you're probably not exactly "up" on the latest scientific thought. After all, the Scientific Method has only been around several hundred years, you're not very far behind!

        September 12, 2011 at 9:51 pm |
    • freedomdem

      its a more realistic story than the "only one man being able to hear god through a burning bush story".........sorry

      September 12, 2011 at 4:44 pm |
    • imolnar

      Whoa, I make a little comment go and do some work then check again and wow! To the posts mentioning the difference between evolving from apes and evolving from a common ancestor – you are absolutely correct, I should have been more careful in my post/follow-up post.

      1) I'm not a biologist so I might be missing something here, but adaption and evolution/micro and macro changes would be more or less the same thing but only on different scales (ie. one leads to another).

      2) Evolution hasn't stopped. Time-scales required for a large multi-cellular organism to 'evolve' into a different species make it tough for one person to casually observe.

      3) The personal attacks made me lol

      September 12, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
    • rossna

      if evolutionists can explain to me why do we have 3000 different kinds of mushrooms and why do u have that much diversity in species and if they can also explainthe concept of buity in nature ,animals and birds and if the adaptation theory couldn't be applied on humans who live in the desert who might die from thirst 1 meter away from a well of water while his camel companion can smell it 8 kilometers away ?!

      September 12, 2011 at 4:57 pm |
      • Answer

        Clearly shows you want things to come to you.

        Well ask God then for complete understanding. You are human, we are all humans. Each human has to learn to research and study. You want answers then find out what it takes to answer the questions you want to know.

        Wow, isn't that an amazing idea? Of course it is. So if you want to know – go study. You can not pray for knowledge. You can pray to know the answers to life. Actively seek it and study til it becomes known to you.

        Lazy @rse.

        September 12, 2011 at 9:39 pm |
      • Answer

        "You can't pray to know the answers to life" - correction

        September 12, 2011 at 9:41 pm |
      • Jorge

        The proliferation of species and subspecies is a natural evolutionary tendency, It's like a bettor who figures out that the money invested covering the entire spread of a game is less than the prize of the winning number, or when a commander tells his troops to spread out in the face of possible enemy fire in an open field. It just makes statistical sense to have a bunch of subspecies branching out with different survival capability strategies using the available resources in different ways. The more successful and environmentally adapted offshoots will prosper and multiply, while the least successful will wane and fade or produce offshoots of their own which are capable of exploiting some other aspect of the environment. The guy who dies in the desert chose to neglect his evolutionary assets of foresight and planning capacity by going unprepared into an environment for which the camel had evolved, but not him (you don't have that much problem-solving and change permutation challenges in the desert, just a dearth of shade, food and water, which favors a physiology that saves it's energy for sensory perception and energy efficient ambulation, which the camel excells at; a complex brain uses up a LOT of food and water per animal weigh, and it takes a lot to cool, too).

        September 13, 2011 at 8:15 am |
    • UhYeaOk

      Darwin believed in a creator as well as evolution. No reason a person can't be religous and believe in evolution. Fanatics on both sides are too closed minded to hear any rational debate on it.

      September 12, 2011 at 4:59 pm |
    • cbiz

      Both your examples are pathogenic. What concrete examples do you have of a beneficial mutation?

      September 12, 2011 at 5:12 pm |
    • JOregon

      There is micro-evolution (adaptability).
      There is no macro-evolution (a change in species).
      A Genetics Professor, Dr. Maciej Giertych explains that micro-evolution is caused when the creature has fewer alleles. They are genetically poorer than the source.
      He also explains that macro-evolution requires MORE alleles not less.
      For an animal to evolve and advance it requires an increase in genetic material. That has not happened.

      September 12, 2011 at 5:16 pm |
    • Dan, Tx

      There are many examples of DNA changes that gave rise to NEW species of organisms. Some examples have been documented by scientists within the past few years using DNA technologies that tell us exactly what genetic changes led to the NEW SPECIES THAT NEVER EXISTED BEFORE. It's over, evolution has been proven, new species and the changes in the DNA that gave rise to the new species have been documented. It is really the job of scientists as teachers now to inform people of these discoveries. The current movie "CONTAGION" gives a fictional account of the creation of a new species of virus, but the same thing happens to microbes. The mobile genetic elements in humans can also rearrange our own DNA to lead to changes that would lead to several NEW SPECIES of humans, if such species had a selective advantage (and assortative mating would be one such mechanism to help speed the process of speciation in humans).

      September 12, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
    • t

      Romans 1 19 22 They know the truth about God because He has made it obvious to them. For ever since the world was created they have seen earth and sky. Through everthing God has made, they can see His invisible qualities- His eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. Yes, they knew God, but they would not worship Him or even give Him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result their minds became dark and confused.

      September 12, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
    • Dusty

      I think the going back in forth is nasty. I think species can evolve slightly overtime but the leap from monkey to man I don't by. I don't think the world is that old and since carbon dating is theory based anyway you can't scientifically prove that fossils are that old. There is however a massive amount of scientific evidence to support other views against evolution.

      September 12, 2011 at 5:34 pm |
      • Fred1

        Perhaps you can point me to this massive amount of SCIENTIFIC evidence supporting views against evolution? In my 37 years of reading a variety of SCIENTIFIC literature I seem to have missed them

        September 12, 2011 at 7:53 pm |
    • Randell

      I don't deny evolution as an ideal that sparks imagination with regardes to animals, but for humans? I am arrogant, and I believe that we are the cream of the universe. Couple my arrogance with the fact that the whole of the pre-homosapien fossil record can fit in the back of a S-10 pickup truck and it leaves me with more questions then anything else. How exactly do we know that those fossils are our evolutionary ancesters?
      Carbon Date Tests are inaccurate after 3000 years.
      The earliest writtings that we can find are just over 5K years.
      Comparing fossils found to our skeletons seems sketchy at best considering they could be chiped, partial, or the fact that similitude between any two skeletal remains doesnt mean that they are the same, or related for that fact.
      Degrees of DNA simularity are also not meaning of a evolutionary connection considering that we share high percentages of the same DNA as many different animals not just apes. I will leave you with a web-site that was a thought provoking read. http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/apes.html

      September 12, 2011 at 5:41 pm |
    • RichS

      Only the most stubborn and stupidest of people still refuse to accept Evolution as a matter of fact. The more you understand genetics and molecular biology, the more convincing it becomes. The argument that it still remains a theory is in the same context as gravity is still just a theory and music is also just a theory; but who in their right mind would deny the existence of those things?

      September 12, 2011 at 5:42 pm |
      • JOregon

        Rich
        Professor Maciej Giertych, M.A.(Oxford), Ph.D.(Toronto), D.Sc.(Poznan), is head of the Genetics Department of the Polish Academy of Sciences at the Institute of Dendrology in Kornik, Poland:

        -"Many hoped that molecular genetics would confirm evolution. It did not. It confirms taxonomic distances between organisms, but not the postulated phylogenetic sequences.* It confirmed Linnaeus, not Darwin.

        Molecular genetics presented new problems. Genomes [all the genes in an organism] have multiple copies of genes or of noncoding sequences, very homogeneous within a species but heterogeneous between species. Such 'repeats' could not have been formed by random mutations acting on a common genome of a postulated ancestor. Some unexplained 'molecular drive' is postulated to account for these copies. It is simpler to assume there was no common ancestral genome."-

        Dr Giertych IS a Geneticist.

        September 12, 2011 at 7:34 pm |
    • VP

      Ian: The THEORY of EVOLUTION Is just that, a THEORY. Do you not understand that word? It has not been proven, nor never will be. Now I noticed that you did not show your face, probably because you don't look anything like an ape? Some day very soon we will all face our Creator, would rather be on the side of acknowledging His glory than denying His existance. But to each their own all must make that decision, follow what God has spoken or what some man in the 19th century dreamed up. Science points to our Creator 100% of the time.

      September 12, 2011 at 5:47 pm |
      • imolnar

        Everything in science is a theory mate – that's just what we call em. Theory of gravity, theory of relativity etc...

        September 12, 2011 at 5:54 pm |
      • Eyedoc

        VP... please google Scientific law and Scientific theory. These words have different meanings in science then they do for common speech. Or just look them up in a good dictionary, you maybe surprised. God gave you a brain, think. God gave you eyes, see. God gave you ears, listen. To assume that one failable person has definitive answers about questions that God (gods, sorry HIndus) would know is foolish. Science tries to understand things based on what we, Man, can see, think, and hear. Feel and taste too if you are a geologist (inside joke...:)) but all things are considered unproven hence it is a hypothesis. If a great amount of evidence supports this hypothesis then it is considered a theory like Gravity, or Germ theory. A good Theory makes predictions (if i drop this lead weight and this feather, under the right conditions. from the same height, they will hit the ground at the same time) which are testable and repeatable by anyone willing to do them. Ok not everyone has a particle accelerator in their backyard but our country has a few so we let the scientist do that work for us. A Scientific Theory can be disproved or modified if enough evidence makes it impossible not to. When Einstein's theories about gravity were published it made Newton's theories old fashioned. Not because Newton was wrong, but because Einstein explained things better than Newton did for many things, so we have Quantum Physics which is a whole lot of fun to learn much less explain.
        How about this...Man is ignorant and tries to light his ignorance with the lamp of Knowledge. God is allknowing and, just maybe, is waiting for us to know more about this universe so we can grow more like him...(hmmm so we can grow up?)

        September 15, 2011 at 5:40 pm |
    • Dammaged

      Viruses are a parodox, I'm not sure if they're actually a living thing. (You can correct me if I'm wrong)

      September 12, 2011 at 5:53 pm |
      • Eyedoc

        As a science based profession, I agree with ya Dammaged, Virius' are both alive and not alive by many definitions...
        However, as a medical professional, if you have a virus infection in your eye, I will definitely treat you as if they were alive. Mainly to keep you alive too, but other reasons too.

        September 15, 2011 at 5:49 pm |
    • JB

      If you are interested in evolution but not really up on it, a good place to start is the books of Stephen Jay Gould, available in any public library. Gould puts things in practical and understandable terms. Gould is also a believer in God, and points out that the Bible was not written as a science text. It was written by people who thought the earth was flat and the center of the universe, had no concept of bacteria, or disease, or chemistry, and shouldn't be held to the same standard as people who do. There are no valid arguments about the fact of evolution, the scientific community is arguing about the exact workings and path evolution is (still) taking. Mankind understood this when we started breeding dogs and horses to fit our needs.

      September 12, 2011 at 5:53 pm |
    • Larry

      Evolution and religion aren't mutually exclusive. Religion attempts to answer the questions we can't answer today, like "how or why did life begin?" We don't know what created the spark of life, but we know how the environment and other forces work to shape it once it DOES exist. Evolution is fact and shouldn't be viewed as an affront to religious beliefs.

      September 12, 2011 at 5:56 pm |
      • Fred1

        No; but, Christianity and evolution are mutually exclusive. If evolution is correct that means no Adam and Eve. No one to commit the original sin and so no original sin. No original sin, no reason for Jesus to exist of be crucified. No Jesus, no crucifixion means no reason for Christianity

        September 12, 2011 at 8:01 pm |
    • Bon Scott

      Evolution all the way. Your going to believe in something you cant see like god but not believe in something that can be proven by science.

      September 12, 2011 at 6:04 pm |
    • JetBlack

      Hey!!! If Evolution were real, there would be soooo many skeletos from a man losing his tail , or a chicken getting a tail it would be irrefutable, and yet you cant produce one real skeleto!!! Which means it is nothing more than a theory, and not a very good one at that. The vary law of second thermodynamics would prove otherwise. Anything left alone does NOT get into a better state, but rather a worse more decrepit state. Its time to put your antique fairy tale to rest and grow up! I mean really think about it- Jet

      September 12, 2011 at 6:12 pm |
      • Darwin

        I guess you have a valid point. There would be alot of skeletons with the changes to the point that no one could argue the point. But when I dont touch my room for months it always looks nicer then when I left it. There is never any dust or anything falling apart. oh, my mom will clean it for me!?! I guess thats not left alone is it, now you know why I can be an evolutionist. I kinda cheat in the equation.

        September 12, 2011 at 6:25 pm |
    • Corey

      I aint descendid from know monkees, God made me in 6 days...

      (poster thinks, yeah it looks like god rushed it)

      September 12, 2011 at 6:13 pm |
    • David

      The argument you make does not fit the context, If a germ spreads from one person to another or mutates to adapt to a drug, does it mutate into an insect? A spider maybe? or even a mouse? No, it remains a germ, it just takes on different qualities. It has never been proven that a species has ever evolved into a completely different species, they have learned to adapt, so that you have ants that rely on a specific type of plant, and in so doing, protect the plant so that they benifit from each other, but the ants dont begin to grow fur and adapt into a rat, do they? Mankind has adapted to his suroundings and languages and race's, but he still remains a man. Often times scientists have come to learn that what they thought was a new species of extinct life, was only just a known species in a different age developmental stage. Do you remember the last thing you built with your own two hands? Maybe you added more stuff later, or painted it, or removed something from it. but what did it evolve into? Did your steak dinner evolve into a brand new ferrari?

      September 12, 2011 at 6:17 pm |
      • Fred1

        “If a germ spreads from one person to another or mutates to adapt to a drug, does it mutate into an insect?” You’re almost there; you’ve accepted that given a little time (50 years) and the right environmental pressures a germ can change into a better germ. The only part left is for you to understand is with a very very long period of time (millions of years) and the right environmental pressure the germ can slowly change through many intermediate forms into an insect

        September 12, 2011 at 7:39 pm |
    • David in Cincinnati

      Monkeys???? Forget it! The Evolutions are sayin' that we descended from something like our modern amoeba. Evolution is just a theory, like the Special Theory of Relativity, The General Theory of Relativity, Quantum Theory-all bogus!

      September 12, 2011 at 6:26 pm |
      • Joe

        I think I'm going to stop paying my school taxes. It obviously does no good at all. Everyone is still stupid.

        September 12, 2011 at 6:39 pm |
      • Katie

        This whole "just a theory thing" only shows your complete ignorance of science. In science, a theory is based on facts that prove an hypothesis, and can be replicated (demonstrated) over and over until it is as close to a fact itself. It also has to agree with other aspects of accepted science, but itself is not a completely closed topic. Evolution is provable. One doesn't need to have faith in it for it to be acceptable, because there are plenty of facts to support it. Religion, on the other hand, is something one needs faith for. There is nothing scientific about religion. However, it is possible, for the open-minded, to reconcile science with their belief systems. "Just a theory" is an ignorant statement. Yes, it is a theory, a SCIENTIFIC theory, based on facts, based on testing, provable, and tangible. Try doing that with your belief system of a God.

        September 12, 2011 at 7:02 pm |
      • Tim

        Well said, Katie.🙂

        September 13, 2011 at 8:38 am |
    • Scott

      Evolution has nothing do with my the eyes of my baby or its features last I checked science calls that genetics. Evolution is a theory....now spell after me T H E O R Y. You can believe whatever you want and even believe it is a fact, but without scientific evidence and having it pass the scientific method it will still remain a theory.

      September 12, 2011 at 6:28 pm |
    • Dr. P

      Ian, you really need to "evolve in your thoughts.
      It's obvious the answer is intelligent design.
      Ignorance and information manipulation has misguided you and many more to religious and evolution believes. But why can't you accept that when you want to accomplish something, you experiment with it and through this path(think of the making of the first computers to what we have today), you test prototypes(go back to all the fossils you want to mention); and what doesn't work, you delete. (Tha will include prehistoric reptiles....to big for the environment....lets clean up and start again)...eventually, you come up with the most stable product(modern humans); the information needed for our development in all areas you hide it in the DNS and allow generations to educate and unfold information as we are ready to handle it.......This is where we are now; our kids are born knowing how to use all the technology at hand...computers, smart phones, etc, because it was the time for that information to unfold. You all really need to understand this with an open mind. Or not, your choice; same as the one people had over 600 years ago, when earth was flat...wait...it isn't flat....open your eyes and see it.

      September 12, 2011 at 6:37 pm |
    • Mr Wise

      A virus does not evolve it adapts. No matter how you look at it a virus is still a virus and a human is still a human.

      September 12, 2011 at 6:41 pm |
    • Don Camp

      Evolution happens. It is origins that is the issue. Evolution assumes natural origins, an undemonstratied and unexplained assumption. Creation does not of necessity deny evolution, but it does explain origins. The two ideas can coexist.

      September 12, 2011 at 6:47 pm |
    • Uncle Ego

      All I can say is: Where is all the fossil evidence?? It's funny how much plant and animal fossils we have found but not one, repeat one, find that screams out "the missing link"!!! So you evolutionist keep on digging. Maybe one day you will find a funny bone that will go along with your funny belief.

      September 12, 2011 at 6:49 pm |
      • Dingus McGringus

        Uh, there's quite a bit of fossil evidence and absolutely no "evidence" of a higher power. Just because something hasn't been found yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist – and that goes for both fossils that prove a missing link and definitive proof of a higher power.

        September 12, 2011 at 7:52 pm |
      • Answer

        Ego,

        You're one lazy person. Not willing to seek out the displays. Only good with his mouth.

        September 12, 2011 at 9:43 pm |
    • Magilla Gorilla

      I like bananas!

      September 12, 2011 at 6:59 pm |
    • theimmigrant

      if you want to use math and logic, the easiest way to solve a complicated issue is to convert the problem to its simplest form.
      Now, here is the problem in its simplest form, no matter who how you slice this physical universe to its minutest component, that component cannot explain its own existence it has to come from something somewhere somehow, I have not seen anything that came from nothing unless you believe in magic, I don't.
      The reality of once existence demands a source or a cause (we can all agree on this), theists call it Creator, atheist call it unknown, but ignores/rejects/denies this unknown and I wonder why?
      Is the existence of God is a matter of evidence or a matter of pride as far as atheists are concerned? Only an atheist can answer that.

      September 12, 2011 at 7:08 pm |
      • theimmigrant

        excuse the typo it should be "ones existence..."

        September 12, 2011 at 7:11 pm |
      • Robert Q

        Read "The Grand Design" by Stephen Hawking. It is possible for something to come from nothing. In fact, it is possible for an entire universe to emerge from nothing. It is not magic. It is quantum physics.

        September 12, 2011 at 8:17 pm |
    • mike hunt

      evolution is biblilcal. in genisis it talks about god bringing forth the creatures of the land and air from the sea. remind anyone of a fish with feet bumper sticker??

      September 12, 2011 at 7:10 pm |
    • notthatitmatters

      When it comes right down to it, you either believe in the eternal nature of a creator or you believe in the eternal nature of matter. For all you creator must exist to explain creation folks, here are your questions....how many gods did it take to create it all? One? Which one? Yours? Why yours? Don't tell me because of the bible....everyone has their book and frankly yours is no better than theirs. It's still a book. Period. If salvation is the most important thing God wants us to know about, why did he make it so vague in the Bible, which purportedly is his divinely inspired inerrant word? Not vague you say? Then why so many arguments about it? Directions to put together your Ikea table are not vague, why are the directions for your salvation vague? Makes no sense. Your bible says if you have faith the size of a mustard seed you can say to that mountain get up and move. Yet no one is moving any mountains simply by telling it to move. Either none of you has faith even the size of a mustard seed or it's hogwash. I think it's hogwash.

      September 12, 2011 at 7:12 pm |
    • sean

      there are 4 to 5 well known Religion. Study top 3 atleast and see what they have to offer. if you didn't do the research on religion then believing on evolution is like satisfying your heart that there is no super power out there who created every thing. if we came from apes then they have to come from some where.

      September 12, 2011 at 7:24 pm |
      • Ian

        Whoops, just wanted to post that I'm both Ian and imolnar depending on what computer I was using.

        September 12, 2011 at 7:35 pm |
    • tom cox

      Good for you, Ian. I completely agree. I am a staunch Darwinian evolutionist and deeply proud to be so. We did evolve from "more primitive" hominids. The evidence proves that. It is incredibly sad that people like me have to put up up with vicious attacks from the religious right. These people are ignorant, immoral, vicious and profoundly hypocritical. They claim to honor god and then act in an ungodly manner by persecuting people like me who believe in evolution. In some ways they are worse than the inquisition. I believe in god too. I just think his activities on earth are separate from evolution. Every day I thank god for the generally blessed life he has given me. God has rewarded me for respecting the basic fact of evolution. And I know, in my heart of hearts, that he hates the religious right as least as muuch as I do, and will give them the punishment they deserve. If not in this life than in the next.

      September 12, 2011 at 7:47 pm |
    • frontgate

      Ya know, gravity is only a theory also, but does anyone deny gravity exists?

      September 12, 2011 at 7:49 pm |
    • dan

      Denying creation is denying that such a wisely designed universe has laws. How can you believe in scientific laws if you believe that the world appeared by chance. Laws cannot exist in disorder. Does civility exist within an angry mob? NO. How then can you state that law and order exist within complete chaos. Also if creation is a theory then why isn't it taught in school? Atheism is a belief, in fact it's a religion, but their belief about life is taught as a theory and in many cases a fact. All in all creation and the theory of evolution should be taught to all American students as theories.

      September 12, 2011 at 7:55 pm |
      • Eyedoc

        Well, no reasonable person can deny creation. If you do then, this universe does not exist, which is an redongulous position to take as I think, therefore I am. I Agree in education should not be limited if you wish to give children a good education. However, Science should be taught in science classes by those teachers qualified to teach it. Religions, (see plural, don't be hatin.) should be taught in a religion class by a teacher qualified to teach it. A good education teachs many things, not the least of which is the ability to think rationally and reasonably as well as the ability to keep learning. I, for one, have faith in a God and believe in a religion. I also have a brain, God given, and I know I don't know many things about this life, this earth, this universe, but I am willing to learn. And if the facts support a way of explaining things (Germ theory of disease as I am a medical professional is a personal favorite but I like quantum ElectroDynamics too), then I use that explanation to do my job, treat people for disease. But disease is a moving target and what works best can be hard to find out so we try new things IF the evidence support their use. Teach all the children well. But do not put religion in spelling class, because then you have to ask... which religion goes in. If you want to teach ID in a class, teach it in religion class but then you should also include Buddism and Hinduism, Taoism, Shintoism and others. To limit the education a child recieves is mainly a matter of funds in many schools but a good educator will tell you, the more you can expose a child too; whether it is ideas, facts, experiments of science, theories of Philosophy etc.; the better the education. Within limits...🙂

        September 15, 2011 at 7:29 pm |
    • Eric

      That is an interesting reply... consider that the "Theory" of Evolution and the "Germ Theory" are still both considered, in pure scientific terms as theoretical. Evolution because, well, it would simply take too long (or time travel) to conclusively prove it and call it a fact. Germ theory, however, is different - that should be provable now. But for some reason you can have symptoms, and no virus; you can have virus and no symptoms.... there is still something not conclusive about our understanding of disease.

      September 12, 2011 at 7:58 pm |
    • Kingfisher

      God just told me that, those who do not believe in evolution will have their lineage reverse evolve back to monkeys (oh, sorry, the common ancestor – more specifically descendent) going forward.

      September 12, 2011 at 8:05 pm |
    • circadian

      Has anyone considered that evolution is a tool by which God has created man.. Humans today are different today- intellectually and physically- than they were 500 years ago. Everything and everyone changes every day. It is the beauty in us is perpetuated. Why are we so self righteous that we find it necessary to separate ourselves from the world we live in?

      September 12, 2011 at 8:10 pm |
    • truth_stands

      When you stand before God you will not believe in evolution. One day you will die and then you will believe as I do. Get saved please.

      September 12, 2011 at 8:34 pm |
      • Answer

        You'll just die.

        September 12, 2011 at 9:45 pm |
      • Schewps

        When you stand before God after you die make sure to ask him this very simple question. Why?
        Why would he need to create an entire universe that seems to be infanite or if your anywhat like i am and reserach things that puzzle you, why would he create a multi-verse?
        Why would he need the universe to grow and evlove for clsoe to 10 billion years before even "creating" the earth?
        Why would he need the earth to be around for nearly 4 billion years before introducing the "created" humans?
        If God could just make "Adam" out of some dirt and "Eve" out of one of Adam's ribs why did leave the earth and the universe alone to just sit there for 14 billion years?
        Maybe were just another game or science project in "God's" Matrix.
        But what i think you should do is re-think what you posted on here.
        Do a little research of your own. Dont just take what CNN post as fact and dont beleive everything thats in the bible.
        Remember MAN wrote the bible. Man has also decived you in just about every other way possable.
        Remember that!

        September 13, 2011 at 1:31 pm |
    • eatdodo

      My old neighbor's kids (Caucasian) definitely looked like monkeys. I think there's something to that evolution thing.

      September 12, 2011 at 8:47 pm |
    • Dave

      There is a difference between micro and macro evolution. I don't believe the debate is about micro evolution here, but rather something as complex as our universe and human life can just happen by chance.

      September 12, 2011 at 11:16 pm |
    • evoman11

      Lord Jesus , save me from your followers!!!

      September 13, 2011 at 12:14 am |
    • dink

      I believe in god and I believe in science. The problem with religeous fanatics is that they all seem to believe that god believes in them! I'm sure he has better things to do by now.

      September 13, 2011 at 1:49 am |
    • Allison

      people does it really matter? That evolution exists is fact not hypothesis, it could also well be that a creator used evolution to develop humans. There were different humanoid species thousands and thousands of years ago and through natural selection the world now has us (for better or worse). It could have been the hand of a god that guided all of it, it also may not have been. Maybe one day we will know for sure, but that day isn't here yet so I don't understand how anybody on here can argue that they are 100% correct.

      September 13, 2011 at 6:15 am |
    • Lissa

      Wow! Stealing this for sure!

      September 13, 2011 at 7:59 am |
    • Mark

      Evolution is not fact, this is know.. adaption to environment is a fact. The day someone breeds to Lions in a zoo and gets a house cat I'll believe in this BS. Energy cannot be created by us, so who did?

      September 13, 2011 at 9:14 am |
    • 6000 years old

      Ever heard of carbon dating? Fossils? Are you denying that the dinosaurs ever lived? Are you people saying that evolution doesn't exist at all? Do you know what a bottleneck is? How about islands, you know the little masses of land out in the sea? Do you understand why people closer to the equator have darker skin than those at higher latitudes? Evolution isn't a theory. It's a fact. How about dogs?- decended from wolves around 15,000 years ago and now we have chihuahas, terriers, mastifs and everything in between. If god put every creature(species) on earth at one time, the "beginning" of time, then why arent there any fossils of "humans" along side those of dinosaurs? Not to mention that there simply wouldn't have been room for every creature (species) that ever lived to inhabit the earth all at once. The bible was written by a collective of what today would be considered uneducated and flatly ignorant individuals that literally couldn't see beyond the horizon, thinking that not only that the Earth was the center of the universe but was also flat. Ever looked through a telescope? In all "Gods" infinite knowledge and power, wouldn't it make sense for him to populate at least ONE more of the trillions and trillions of other planets out there? What will you think when we find life on another world (this is practically inevitable) Do you know what a light year is? Essentially, blindly believing in a book written thousands of years ago by people who had NO concept of modern science seems a bit silly to me. Thousands of years ago "prophets" were concidered to be people in touch with god. David Koresh anyone? How about Warren Jeffs? Prophets of times past had simply figured out that exploiting peoples misunderstanding and fear of the unknown could be used as a form of control. I firmly believe that the beginnings of religion were a method to instil social order, later to be used as a method of control and even later (Roman Catholic Church) a way to make money (tithes). Believe what you want but in the mean time go read a book, ponder the vastness of space, learn a bit about science and chemistry (DNA), maybe read a bit about Dmitry Belyaev. Then look at your 2-3000 year old book and see if it still makes sense. Don't get me wrong, organized religion is good, if EVERYONE thought that we're just "here" and that when we die we simply snuff out there would be total anarchy. So for the good of the whole, I'm glad that a majority of people simply don't question this book written and rewritten over and over for thousands of years by people who for all we know wrote it for their own intents and purposes.

      September 13, 2011 at 9:58 am |
    • MartyL

      I don't understand why people have such a small image of God. Why can't they understand that God is Spirit, not male or female, and certainly not an old man with a beard sitting on a cloud. We were created in the image of God because we are also Spirit and made to be creators, both male and female. Jesus was only male because in that culture if he had come in a female body he would not have had an audience. End of story. Evolution can be and is part of God's wonderful plan.

      September 13, 2011 at 11:01 am |
    • Southerner

      In my view, the conflict between religion and evolution only exists because some people insist that the bible is infallable and represents the exact word of God. If you consider that the stories in the bible were passed down orally for many years before being written, it seems likely that errors were inserted in the retelling. A primitive human from 2000 years ago would have trouble grasping concepts like "millions of years" and could easily change it to "thousands of years" to make it more understandable. The big bang and the biblical story of creation are perfectly compatible, if you just focus on the process and not the "time frames".

      September 13, 2011 at 11:19 am |
    • CHERRYPIEGUY

      I am a child of God. The world is flat and evolution doesn't exist. The earth is only 5,600 years old and We were all created from a Hundred pounds of clay. HA HA!! That sounds great doesn't it Ian? These are the kind of Morons that actually hold public office and are allowed to walk around without any restraints. It's nice to hear from someone that isn't looking through beer god-goggle glasses.

      September 13, 2011 at 11:23 am |
    • PhysicsPhD

      Denial of science in the name of religion is nothing short of a complete failure of one's faith. My degree in Physics did not shake mine at all. Evolution, the origin of the universe, etc, etc, and all well scientifically grounded. Many in my field see God not in the complexity, but in the ultimate simplicity of the rules of the universe. My faith is not such that I would have to toss it just because religion exists, or something was not as I initially believed. That's the whole point about possessing intelligence and rationale. We learn from what we see, and in no way does it need to violate the concept of the divine. One may choose not to believe in the first place, and that is their prerogative. But for one claiming to be faithful, yet demanding that an all-powerful, all knowing God must bend to their predispositions seems both hypocritical and blasphemous.

      September 13, 2011 at 11:40 am |
      • Eyedoc

        Hear hear! Well said.

        September 17, 2011 at 2:24 pm |
    • Howard

      What none of these articles ever mention is that all such theories are based on fossil discoveries. However, it is likely that a million times more humans have lived in the distant past than the number of fossilized remains that have been discovered. What are the odds that science has a reasonably accurate picture based on 1 example in a million?

      September 13, 2011 at 11:52 am |
    • Tina

      Well said!!!

      September 13, 2011 at 12:05 pm |
    • Chad

      When a bug jumps from species to species, it is still the same bug. It doesn't become a new bug. In your analogy, you describe micro-evolution. I believe that happens all the time. What you're trying to defend is macro-evolution, which I don't believe has ever happened. Science is based on observations and those observations have yielded some widely accepted laws. One such law is that by nature, things go from order to disorder, entropy. This is stated in the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This is accepted to be law and has not yet been disproven. By this law, macro-evolution is not possible. Why, then, do scientists continue to insist that this law cannot be broken anywhere, unless we are talking about evolution?

      September 13, 2011 at 12:12 pm |
    • Watch

      The day our fears of an existance without purpose are quelled will be the day we understand the purpose given to us. To quick are the so called "religous" to judge that science is some kind of perversion of God and religion without trying to understand the life that God has given to us all. You do not question air, you don't question electricity why? Because these things no longer scare the religious fanatic.
      Then there are those that are to quick to say that science is king without understanding everything has a purpose. To quick indeed since every argument each has had over the centuries has been proved WRONG. Continue to FEAR because it is the life you have made for yourselves...The universe will continue to grow and the truth will continue to come to light. When you fail to see the what is front of you will in no doubt be scared when you hit it.

      September 13, 2011 at 12:14 pm |
    • Sam Maxwell

      Listen, all religion is an assumption of how the world works, our ancestors created it as a coping mechanism to give their lives purpose in times where the objective truth of science and mathematics were unknown. To assume something is to believe in it without proof. There is no proof that jesus christ is the son of god and there never will be, and believing this only closes your mind to this assumption, making you reject anything that questions your views, which is the majority of science, evolution, particle physics, etc. Quit fighting against theories that we can test and prove are right by the laws of physics with some old book filled with illogical outrageous claims that we all know has been used for years to control and manipulate the masses. True evil in this world is religion, mainly Christianity. It keeps the rich... Rich and the poor stupid. Question the world we live in don't let any dead guy tell you how to think!

      September 13, 2011 at 1:09 pm |
    • Les

      @Faith

      Evolution does noy say man descended from monkeys. It says that man and monkeys share a single common ancestors. Try educating yourself about evolution before posting opinions about it that are not factual . Further along the chain a common ancestor unites all the homids, of which group hunabs are a part of. They did NOT descend from each other. I am always amazed at how uneducated people are when they have ready access to educational materials about the processes of evolution. Even the Bible confirms it in the second chapter of Genesis where the process from sea creature to man accurately reveals the steps of evolution as described by modern science so get over it. The truth shall set you free.

      September 13, 2011 at 1:24 pm |
      • frespech

        If you are trying to suggest that Genesis is anyway conveys some guided map toward evolution, in the words of that famous Republican Joe Wilson. You Lie!

        September 13, 2011 at 1:34 pm |
    • frespech

      No, I am just coooing that my baby wasn't born with wings or a neck like a giraffe or a nose like an anteater.

      September 13, 2011 at 1:28 pm |
    • J

      Everyone has their reasons. Truthfully, I as a Christian don't believe that Christians should argue about evolution. Truth is, science has more facts. We have the book of Genesis. Christians shouldn't be fighting about creationism vs. evolution, but revealing what it is like to experience the Lord. What it feels like to receive God's full salvation. Once you are filled with the The Triune God, you will just.. accept it (creationism). For me my faith is unshaken when people show me all these theories. God has had a plan for all of eternity, and the Bible doesn't tell EVERYTHING about his mysterious plan. If you do believe in God, what is not known will be revealed in time. He is so mysterious, when it's eternity future it will all be revealed to us. I do this by faith, through my undying love for Him.

      September 14, 2011 at 12:44 am |
    • Jim McGuiness

      From pond scum to ponderer of pond scum, life is a mysterious and wonderful thing. The truth is bigger than people's ability to encompass it, so creationists are short-valuing "god's" work the most.

      September 17, 2011 at 6:26 pm |
  2. Faith by Choice

    The arguments and bickering between the theory of evolution and the intelligent design are drawing to an end. In my opinion, the world has ripened to receive a new theory of intelligent design: life on Earth was seeded by aliens. Just watch this ridiculous video of Dawkins admitting to that! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyT_AOtwHa4
    IT ALL BOILS DOWN TO FAITH: IF YOU WANT TO FIND GOD, YOU WILL. IF ONE WANTS TO FIND EXCUSES FOR A SELFISH SINFUL LIFE, HE/SHE WILL DEVOTE THEIR LIFE TO DOING SO.

    September 12, 2011 at 3:13 pm |
    • madcow

      Rather than blindly accept crackpot ideas, Faith, do yourself a favor and read Darwin. It isn't difficult and will expand your mind tremendously.l

      September 12, 2011 at 3:20 pm |
      • Thera

        She has no intention of expanding her mind, or as she puts it, finding excuses for selfish behavior.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:06 pm |
    • Horus

      Faith by Choice – are you implying that unless one finds God they cannot be moral, just, ethical and good? btw, ID is not a "theory" as defined by science. It is a religious concept. If put to true measure as scientific theories are, it would (and always is) be ripped apart. One can believe in doing good, and being moral without being motivated by cultural tradition.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:23 pm |
      • mvandenhoek

        If we, europeans, are to believe americans, God was an american to start with. Everthing YOU do is good and moral for the world. I am happy to be Buddhist!

        September 12, 2011 at 3:28 pm |
      • Horus

        mvan – not sure I follow you... I don't claim God to be anything, much less American. I also don't care what anyone believes until they make comments that are provably false.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:35 pm |
      • Beaker

        mvandenhoek, Please don't lump all Americans as the crazy religious fanatics that believe God is an American and everything we do is moral and just. Its just not true. I do not hold any European stereotypes. So please don't confuse the fools that make the headlines as the majority of Americans.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:43 pm |
      • Joe

        Ummm... which "god" are you referring to? We've had so very many over the years...

        September 12, 2011 at 5:19 pm |
    • lol

      yo, im trying to talk to god but he's not responding. does his phone get texts?

      September 12, 2011 at 3:23 pm |
      • Michelle

        The problem is you can't reach god unless you have the right number. You obviously don't have it.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:57 pm |
      • Joe

        I just talked to god and asked her what she thought. She told me to tell you that creationists are morons. Apparently, she laid it all out just like the scientists are finding out. She says they still have another 137 years to go before the mathematics prove all this. So, god created evolution and we really did evolve. Go figure.

        September 12, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
    • Evolution rules

      There is a main error in your answer. Interlligent design IS NOT nor ever will be a theory. Theories can be tested religion cannot. Period – there is no further discussion needed.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:25 pm |
      • Kevin Untener

        Uhh, Please put GOD to the test. Find out for yourself. Put science to the test too. You will come up right and wrong in both.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:28 pm |
      • Roy Woodcock

        By that definition, evolution isn't scientific either since it also cannot be tested nor replicated.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:30 pm |
      • Humanoid

        Atheists are weird people insofar as they burble on about how wonderful and intelligent science is and how it proves there is no God. Before you listen to an atheist log on to – http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics. It gives superb scientific data to allow us to presume that the Comos [and earth in particular] was created by a supreme Intelligence. God

        Scientists have are on the verge of proving that there is life after death.

        I suppose our atheist friends will find somethong to argue about with that. But by their own admission Science is not to be argued with.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:47 pm |
      • Atheist

        Humanold, you REALLY don't know what you're saying. Galileo discovered a truth and that Religion "is not to be argued with". Why do you post about something you know nothing? A major difference between science and religion is that science is continually questioned and evolves and advances when contradictions are discovered.

        September 12, 2011 at 6:37 pm |
    • john

      exactly. i dont know why this wasnt taught in school, alongside evolution and creation theory.. theyre all the same and have equal amounts of validity. sometime i think the scientific community is more religious and blind than the religious community

      September 12, 2011 at 3:27 pm |
      • Evolution rules

        There is not a creation theory. Theories arise form hypotheses. A hypothesis is a TESTABLE idea. Creationism and "intelligent" design cannot be tested – thus no theory. The end.......

        September 12, 2011 at 3:40 pm |
      • Ben

        Since Evolution is evidently "fact" and not a "theory" and we are evolving over millions and billions of years, someone please explain why the more we evolve the more we simply kill one another. None of us were there one hundred years ago, so how are we suppose to state for "fact" we know what happened thousands or millions of years ago.... We do evolve of that I have no doubt, but if humans mutated well where are the X men?? I wonder what would happen in the world if people would stop being concerned with blasting the "other guy" and actually try to solve some real world problems, like five million people in the Congo dying in civil war in the past decade. Maybe I'm just an naive college kid but whether we have evolved over millions of years from a Common Ancestor or were created in the image of God six thousand years ago, we really botched up somewhere along the way.
        This is the link to the Congo statistic
        http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/congothedemocraticrepublicof/index.html

        September 12, 2011 at 5:07 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        Ben, while you're at college, ask a science teacher to explain to you the terms "scientific fact" or observation and "scientific theory"

        September 17, 2011 at 6:51 pm |
    • Ron

      Dawkins was not arguing that this is true. He was saying that is has as much evidence as Intelligent Design. Watch the whole interview, not just the edited version that was cut to make it sound like he was pushing this idea.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:28 pm |
    • DustinMyselfOff

      If you want to find god; you probably will find a reason to believe. If you want to find the truth; you will probably find evolution.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:44 pm |
      • Dan, Tx

        True.

        September 12, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
      • Boruch N. Hoffinger

        Dear 'DustMyselfOff,'
        It's time (Long overdue) to debunk the 'Religion of Evolution.'
        This math formula has NEVER been disproven.
        http://chabad.info/index.php?url=article_en&id=20548

        September 13, 2011 at 12:04 am |
    • jay zee

      faith... i dont need god, as well as many others dont need god, or at least not a christian god to have morals and choices that have positive outcomes. i see many people who do "evil" things or immoral things and they all want to say they do it in the name of some god. give me a break.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:45 pm |
    • OldGuy1

      It's you religious types that screw people through the week and then run to church on Sunday and ask for forgiveness only to repeat the process the next week.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:50 pm |
    • Joey Schmoey

      you are not smart

      September 12, 2011 at 4:10 pm |
    • hicupper

      IT ALL BOILS DOWN TO FAITH: IF YOU WANT TO FIND GOD, YOU WILL.
      IF ONE WANTS TO FIND EXCUSES FOR A SELFISH SINFUL LIFE, HE/SHE WILL DEVOTE THEIR LIFE TO DOING SO.

      Interesting options. Are these the only 2. 😉

      September 12, 2011 at 4:11 pm |
    • Scott

      There is a very good chance the alien hypothesis is correct, that we were genetically altered by a more intelligent race.

      September 12, 2011 at 4:37 pm |
    • Cass314

      Mindlessly equating evidence-based and faith-based approaches is an extremely unoriginal and intellectually dishonest tactic. Let's put it this way–gravity tells us that if you step out your window you will fall. Is not jumping out the window an act of faith? Germ theory tells us that if you go around exchanging fluids with people who have transmissible diseases, you are more likely to get sick. Is not licking them an act of faith? How about not sticking your finger in an electrical socket? Because evolution is about as well-characterized as these things, and about as dependent upon faith.

      If you were willing to exert any effort, you could see the evidence for yourself. Google "phylogenetic trees" or go to the UCSC genome browser and make you own, then compare them to a tree generated from the fossil record and see how similar they are. Go to your local university museum or natural history museum and look at fossils. Read about all of the biological techniques we use in the laboratory which exploit the forces which govern evolution. Or about antibiotic resistance, or host-jumping, or host-pathogen interplay, or even Google "observed instances of speciation". Add all of this up, and you'll see that there's very little faith involved. Or you would if you were willing to begin with an open mind.

      September 12, 2011 at 4:39 pm |
    • Lissa

      ID isn't a theory, it's a hypothesis. If you read more about what you talk about and believed in it then you'd know not to confuse the words. In science they are very important and each has different meanings.

      September 13, 2011 at 8:05 am |
  3. Jonathan

    There is no God and never was. But that makes human life all the more valuable and precious. If this life is all there is than we have to do everything we can to love and take care of one another. For thousands of years people have attributed the unknown to a super natural force. The ancients used to think the sun was a chariot traveling across the sky. Mental illness was attributed to demons. Now we know better. And the more we try to learn the more we'll come to understand. Societies that reject science will do so at their own peril. Embracing reality is essential. The rarity of intelligent life on earth makes us more special than if we were designed by a higher force. We need to treasure that and also how fortunate we are to live in a time when we can come to understand that.

    September 12, 2011 at 3:13 pm |
    • David

      Reality, science, religion, evolution, the big bang are all god-given, and were never meant to disprove him to embellish our lives in sin and evil. This also goes hand and hand with free will, as science and religion does.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:31 pm |
      • Seriously

        There is no evil but that which you fear within yourself. To equate "goodness" with religion and "evil" with atheism is, in my mind, an evil all its own. If religious beliefs give you a sense of righteousness over those who don't share your view, you are closer to evil than you are to good – yet too ignorant to ever see.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:44 pm |
      • David

        Jesus also said that true faith is in moderation and expressed by works, not through faith alone. No one can discount the miracles of science through medicine and believe in Jesus, by what you are saying. A common fundamentalist flaw in logic.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:51 pm |
      • Joe

        Jesus never said that. Jesus was just a charlatan. Trust me. In 2000 years they be praising the "Book of McDonalds" and the Quarter Pounder will be delivering the from evil.

        September 12, 2011 at 5:26 pm |
    • Mortalc01l

      Here's the fundamental problem: To the uneducated, science is just as much magic as religion is; because they have no knowledge of Science, they do not understand even the simplest facts. Mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology have infinite capacity to explain the World and the Universe around us, BUT.. only if you are educated and have a grasp of the basics. If you do NOT have the basic education in the sciences, then the whole World must seem inexplicable and indistinguishable from magic (and fairy tales like religion).

      99% of the people who deny evolution are utterly uneducated and most certainly don not have even the tiniest comprehension of the FACTS behind science in general. I suspect that they cannot do even the simplest forms of mental arithmetic let alone explain Pythagorean or Euclidian geometry.

      Scientists provide these undereducated sub-morons with air travel (courtesy of SCIENTISTS who research aerodynamics and boundary layer laminar flows etc), they surf the Internet (courtesy of SCIENTISTS who invented the microprocessor and ethernet and fiber optics).. they get to use medicines to cure their ills (courtesy of SCIENTISTS who came up with penicillin and antiseptics and drugs to cure your headaches)... YET! they decry science ?? With all the amazing wonders created by intelligent Men of science around them, they are blind to it. Where did your big screen HD TV come from?? Did it mysteriously drop from the sky because you prayed for it? No.. it was invented by very clever people using chemistry, physics and mathematics. EDUCATED people who came up with an idea (theory) that they tested until it became clear that they had it right, then they put it into practice and BEHOLD!!!! your HD TV.

      Just because you are too stupid to get educated about science and try to understand it, doesn't mean that science is wrong! It is YOU; the people who wallow in their own stupidity and ignorance, YOU are the problem, NOT science.

      Try picking up a book.. You know, the things made of paper with big, complicated multi-syllabic words in them; I recommend starting with a remedial course in mathematics and move on to something simple, like basic physics.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:44 pm |
      • rivstyx

        Amen to that brother.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:56 pm |
      • Dave

        Why are Athesists so Angry? It is like somebody pokes at a sore tooth every time Christianity is brought up. Do you get so mad at the Tooth Fairy also. Breath in - Breath out... Have a Bananna.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:12 pm |
      • pdavis24

        Just curious, where did you get the 99% Did you just make it up? How much of the rest of your statement was made up too?

        September 12, 2011 at 4:30 pm |
      • Atheist

        Dave, I'll explain for you. Atheists are angry at the declaration that condoms are evil. The thousands in Africa who have died spawn anger. Have you seen the Vatican? How many poor died for this monstrosity? Atheists are angry that Christ has been used as rationale for slavery. We're angry at the pathetic decisions currently being made in the name of Christ-to increase the polarization of wealth in the US, to offer a miracle to our people desperate in personal debt, to justify ridiculous heath care, to justify unnecessary war.

        September 12, 2011 at 6:53 pm |
    • mary

      Jonathan, why are you afraid of God, and you can't open your mind to the possibility? Are you afraid of death? And what proof do you have that there isn't a God that created us? Your too close minded and try to sound so intelligent. I question how bright you really are!

      September 12, 2011 at 4:10 pm |
      • Answer

        Why are you afraid of death?

        You know you will die. Your security blanket will not help you get to heaven. You have to die to get to your supposed heaven.

        September 12, 2011 at 9:49 pm |
  4. DocSirMicDre

    How exactly does this article help me get my lost Bank of America job??? 😦

    September 12, 2011 at 3:13 pm |
    • mdocdoc

      Whiner. Maybe if you'd had soem professional curiosity you'd not be losing your pathetic little job

      September 12, 2011 at 3:24 pm |
    • Ek

      Evolution provides you with the ability to adapt🙂

      September 12, 2011 at 3:30 pm |
    • Me

      Bank of America isn't equiped to compete in this environment and is going extinct. Either it will change its policies and practices (evolve) or willl go out of business. Survival of the fittest, dude.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:38 pm |
    • RichG

      My BOA app on my smart phone took your job.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:46 pm |
      • Mike

        LOL soooooo true lol gotta love the new tech. New tech is invented and or innovated to make for less work. DocSirMicDre you should be happy. Pretty soon, the only jobs that are gonna be left are gonna be for techies and farmers

        September 12, 2011 at 5:42 pm |
    • Genetic codebank

      Reading comprehension and reasoning skills weren't qualifications for your former job perchance were they?

      September 12, 2011 at 4:15 pm |
    • qhapaqinka

      Ha!

      September 12, 2011 at 6:17 pm |
  5. The Jackdaw

    Evolution is not up for debate. It is a fact, end of story. If you dont beleive it, you are just hiding from reality.

    September 12, 2011 at 3:12 pm |
    • TheBossSaid

      Yes, oh Great One. We bow to become your sheep.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:15 pm |
      • The Jackdaw

        I want no sheep, unlike your 13-year-old-boy-groping church. Facts are facts. End of discussion.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:19 pm |
      • Jay

        Well, if the "Lord is your Shepherd", what does that make you??? Shepherds herd what?

        September 12, 2011 at 3:23 pm |
      • Chartreuxe

        Shepherds herd camels, cattle, chickens, ducks, geese, goats, llamas, reindeer, sheep, and yaks. Theoretically, any animal with a herd instinct can be herded.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:53 pm |
      • Southerner

        Technically, a SHEPherd is a sheep herder. A goad herder herds goats, a camel herder herds camels etc.

        September 13, 2011 at 11:32 am |
    • evolution

      All scientific theories are up for debate. The problem is the people debating evolution are using fairy tales rather than scientific evidence.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:19 pm |
      • The Jackdaw

        Please read a scientific journal instead of the 700 Club newsletter and get back to me.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:21 pm |
      • Evolution rules

        Yes, by definition theories can be debated. BUT, that does NOT mean they are wrong. Most scientists do not debate evolution. It is usually lay people and the tea baggers that "debate" evolution.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:29 pm |
      • Tyler

        @TheJackDaw You seem to be confused... it appears you are the one watching religious television programs, not him.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:31 pm |
      • The Jackdaw

        Tyler, please read something and think for yourself. Information is free and all around you.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:40 pm |
    • Nookleerman

      It amuses me when those who choose to place their faith in the shakiest religion of all, science, lambast those who go with a longer and much more established religion. Science thinks it understands how a galaxy works, but it can't explain why it acts heavier than it should be. So they call it "dark matter". They don't know what dark matter is, or how to find it, but it's probably there (FAITH!). Science attempts to explain the inner workings of our solar system, but not one scientist can explain gravity, nor can they reproduce it (FAITH!).

      If we are getting down to brass tacks, ther isn't a scientist alive who knows what a beam of light is (is it a particle, is it wave? Who knows!) or how the atomic structure actually looks (well we think there are electrons circling the nucleus, but they don't actually exist in any one state or locationat any given time)(FAITH!)

      All these ridiculous guesses that they use then give us absolutes like "This star is XX lightyears away, based on the gravity wells that the produced light passed through, not accounting for any dark matter that it encountered." Or "It is not possible to go faster than the speed of light. That is a fact." They don't understand 90% of the stuff they are using to come to that conclusion, but they know it's true (FAITH!)

      I think I'll stick with Christianity. It may be just as untrue, but in it I learn that somebody loves me. That's really the only difference between my religion and yours.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:19 pm |
      • The Jackdaw

        You tout theoretical physics like a cudgel to justify your beliefs in a fairy tale. At least physics is measurable, quantifiable and predictable. Can that be said for the deity of your choice?

        September 12, 2011 at 3:27 pm |
      • Tom R

        Science is not a religion (not at all, and certainly not in this sense). It does not exist to offer those who study it any sort of comfort. Discrediting those who "believe in science" because you don't find it comforting is like rejecting those who believe that the Earth is round because your like Earl Gray tea.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:28 pm |
      • Evolution rules

        Did you sleep through or skip all of your science classes? There are so many false statements in your comments I don't know where to start. Please, do not ever take one of my Biology classes – you will fail miserably.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:31 pm |
      • john

        jackdaw. you know nothing of physics if you think it is predictable and measurable. nothing at all. you have just exposed your ignorance. go study quantum harmonics or string theory. tell me how to bridge quantum mechanics and relativity.. then ill retract my statement. you are just another ignorant know it all who has a loooong journey ahead.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:32 pm |
      • thedoctor

        You are horribly misinformed. You do not understand science. "Belief" in gravity or dark matter is not faith. We can actually see it's effects; measure it repeatedly; understand the way it works even if we don't yet understand it's underlying mechanisms.

        Faith is believing in an invisible man in the sky who twists your fate per his whim. Can you measure him? Is he the same every time? Does he exist? Maybe, but his existence is not a subject science can tackle.

        Faith and science are VERY different.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:32 pm |
      • Trickster

        WTF kinda crazy talk are you spouting!!? Science IS NOT religion. The scientific method is designed to help us fathom the TRUTH. Something religion and "faith" have little in common with. Your "examples" are ludicrous. Statements easily equated with ignorance. You really need to head back to a quality and qualified educational system, really study hard, and this time – don't sit in the back of the class with your headphones on, you may actually learn something.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:33 pm |
      • kaune

        Sorry Nook but I don't know if you got a single claim accurate in your rant. Science is not and cannot be construed as a religion as nothing science claims is based on belief or faith. Science makes claims based on evidence and/or reason. If further evidence or better reason leads to a better understanding of a phenomenon, science moves on to that better understanding. No faith there. More important, scientists are comfortable with their ignorance. Ignorance encourages asking questions, generating theory, testing hypotheses. Ignorance in science is most certainly *not* an excuse for inventing deities to fill the gaps in our knowledge. No scientist never expects to have all the answers. Most would not expect science to yield all the answers. Ignorance leads to studying, investigation, not frustration and fairy tales. No need for supernatural. Just mundane, plodding investigation, pursuit of understanding, and no assumption of closure in that pursuit.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:37 pm |
      • ChicagoTalks

        You are confusing belief and faith. A belief can be a description of the natural world founded on evidence based deduction/inference, while faith is belief without evidence.

        You also need to learn about the scientific method and its use of theories. As you said:
        "Science thinks it understands how a galaxy works, but it can't explain why it acts heavier than it should be. So they call it "dark matter". They don't know what dark matter is, or how to find it, but it's probably there (FAITH!). Science attempts to explain the inner workings of our solar system, but not one scientist can explain gravity, nor can they reproduce it (FAITH!)."

        A theory is a explanation based on a compilation of the available evidence and information about a natural phenomena. The real value of the scientific method is that as new information/evidence becomes available theories can be refined to incorporate and reflect the newest information. The fact that all the pieces of the gravity puzzle, or the evolution puzzle cannot be fully explained does not discount the current evidence that supports the current explanations of these natural phenomena.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:39 pm |
      • André

        You're an idiot. Science is completely able to explain gravity, it is a distortion in the space-time continuum.
        And gravity has been reproduced, just think of what happens when we send an artificial satellite to follow a comet: the presence of the satellite, near the comet, creates a small distortion that can slightly slow down/accelerate or change the comet's trajectory. That's Physics 101 you moron.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:39 pm |
      • Frank

        People also though the world was surrounded in a dark blanket, and then a wall of fire. They thought that the stars were the fire you could see through holes poked in the blanket by god (or a god). I am not saying who is right or wrong, but science doesn't always understand things right away. Sometimes technological evolution is necessary.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:40 pm |
      • Nookleerman

        Kaune, I would be in complete agreement with you if it weren't for all the geniuses on here spouting about how much of science is FACT, when the truth is little of it is based in fact. It's just been undisputed for so long that it HAS to be that way. It's all so ridiculous. We know nothing, but we believe we can disprove your belief with the nothing we know is certain.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:48 pm |
      • John Q.

        There is one more difference that you fail to recognize. The beauty of science is we go in with an open mind and come up with the best reasonable hypothesis (or fact) that relates. This is not possible within religion, there is no open-mindedness, there is only "if you're not with us, you're against us" or "my way or the highway." Start with religion, but change your beliefs as facts come to light and you will eventually get the answers to everything you seek.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:49 pm |
      • Nookleerman

        Thank you Andre, you made my day. Space-time continuum. Good one.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:49 pm |
      • Nookleerman

        I can absolutely get behind that John Q. I wish we were all so open-minded.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:52 pm |
      • KrashUndBurn

        """ther isn't a scientist alive who knows what a beam of light is (is it a particle, is it wave? Who knows!)...All these ridiculous guesses"""

        Yep, those ridiculous guesses that enable you to watch Toy Story 3 on yer LCD TV. Now THAT's a miracle!

        September 12, 2011 at 4:00 pm |
      • FreedomfromReligion

        That's OK, you stick with your ridiculous religion. It is a yoke around your neck, one you don't even need, and when you realize one day you don't need it anymore, you will gladly discard it.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:11 pm |
      • skeeter

        Moron

        September 12, 2011 at 4:13 pm |
      • cja

        Your basic assumption is wrong. No scientist (who is competent) would ever say that he knows anything for a certain fact. All your science teachers did you a disservice if you think that. He would never say "a star is XX light years distant" No, he says "by this method I think the star must be XX light years distant". Poor teachers and poor science writers will say it as an absolute. The most exciting time for a scientist is when a theory is proven wrong. Because he knows one can never be proved true. Everyone expects and even hopes that his best theories will be modified in light of new findings

        September 12, 2011 at 4:28 pm |
      • Nookleerman

        cja, I feel like that is the basic tenant of scientific discovery, but I must have been surrounded exclusively by poor scientists and teachers (up to and including on this dicussion) as all I've heard is absolutes, sprinkled with the faintest hint that there may be more out there that will only augment those things they know to be true.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:32 pm |
      • Dazed not Confused

        Faith is one thing. Religion in another. Faith in a Religion is diffrent from both.

        Science and Religion share alot in common.
        When new theories are discovered they are verified and tested. Then tested again and again before being thought of as fact.

        Wait... no they don't...

        Well both start out with a theory, a question, a need to understand. Difference is science has a habit of being able to back up its claims. Religion however can back up nothing.

        If you like using stories as proof for history then check out the stories by the "profit" (most of us just refer to him as an author) J.R.R Tolkien. Read as he recounts the tale of the savior of all mankind (Froto), and his disciples (the fellowship of the ring). Here you will find tales with amazing creatures (angels) and the evil that would corrupt the hearts and minds of mankinds (devil).

        September 12, 2011 at 4:52 pm |
      • Operator

        The things you mention are not based on faith, on the level that you speak of it. No true scientist "believes" in a theory, because it is almost certainly not absolute truth, if such a thing even exists. It is simply the most consistent way of explaining what we see and predicting what we will see and experience in the future. These theories allow us to use gravity to direct satellites, to use light for lots of things, to enjoy the benefits of electricity. All these theories allow us to predict the actions of the forces in question. They are not perfect, but each succeeding one has explained observations with greater precision. The geocentric model was accepted not because of faith, but because it better fit the observations of the time. To quote XKCD, we accept these theories not because of faith, but 'because they work, bitches." Faith would be a fine thing if it was used like this, or as a source of needed emotional strength, or so on. But for whatever reason, it is almost always abused and attached to certain observations that are simply denied if they turn out not to be true, like the motion of the planets, or the age of the earth, or evidence of the great flood, or evidence of the earth ceasing rotation for a full day, or muhammed flying at night to jerusalem, or a single man beating up everyone in the equivalent of wall street for jerusalem. Now, time for a physics lesson in this light. Now, gravity has been accepted as the best explanation for the motion of the planets since Newton. It was accepted because it worked for calculations for a long time, until it was explained by general relativity. Now the math of general relativity is extremely complex, but rest assured that it is understood by those who work with it, and it is derived from the fact that the speed of light is the same for every observer. This is an observable fact, tested and verified many times. We now adhere for the most part to this theory, because it offers an explanation where Newton had none (the bending of space-time is a simplification of what happens, but works for visualization), and because it explained certain phenomena that Newton couldn't such as anomalies with the orbit of Mercury. It even made predictions about where a star that was supposed to be behind the sun would appear to us, and more recently, how much the perspective of a satellite would drift due to Earth's "bending of spacetime". So we accept it, even though it cannot explain the formation of the galaxy perfectly. So we create a new theory. Now there are tests going on to see if this "dark matter" exists, and if they succeed we'll accept it, and if not we'll try to find another explanation. I do not accept gravity or dark matter on faith. As for light, it is not a question of whether it is a particle or a wave, but a measured phenomenon that it behaves as one or the other depending on how you observe it. Once we didn't understand how it went through nothing, so we created a theory of ether (similar to dark matter) to explain it. Now a theory that it is a moving magnetic field and a moving electronic field (oversimplified) that generate each other allows it to move through a vacuum, among other observations, is accepted, though it still does not explain how both a wave and a particle are possible. Now here you make your most serious mistake. Just because the realm of quamtum mechanics is odd and counter-intuitive doesn't mean that we accept them on faith. The Heisenburg uncertainty is backed by tons of observations, and a mathematically backed theory. Same with Schrodinger's cat. We have observed atoms behaving in a way as if they had electrons orbiting a dense nucleus of protons and neutrons. Likewise, we have observed electrons behaving as if they were in many places at once until we check where they are. From are perspective, they are, in fact. Just because this theory is counter to the physics of larger "objects" doesn't mean we accept it on faith. There is science there, and rest assured that many people understand "how they got there".

        September 12, 2011 at 7:47 pm |
    • Walter Estrada

      true. Lets all hide under the blankets and shield ourselves from the natural wonders of the earth.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:21 pm |
    • rapierpoint

      Natural selection and survival of the fittest are not up for debate. Evolution, on the other hand, is a different story. We don't see these "jumps" in selection that create these completely different species. As for intelligent design, why do so many people question it, when they don't question the fact that man (intelligent or not) create different breeds of animals through selective breeding? Where are the fossil dachshunds?

      September 12, 2011 at 3:22 pm |
      • Jay

        By that argument, you are saying man is god because he created (bred) Dachshunds. Interesting theory, I'll go with being god. I'm going to breed my poodle with my Doberman, and create a beast that is black, fuzzy and will bite your face off. I AM GOD!

        September 12, 2011 at 3:26 pm |
      • Evolution rules

        Evolution occurs by means of natural selection – read Darwin. I guess that means your argument fails.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:33 pm |
      • The Jackdaw

        There are no fossil dachshunds because breeds of dogs were created much more recently than bones could have been fossilized. As far as transitionary fossils are concerned, go ahead and Google them. Or, scroll to the top of this article and you can find a picture of one for yourself.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:34 pm |
      • rapierpoint

        No, Jay, that's not what I'm saying. That is your flippant way of spinning my words. What I am saying is that people have no problem believing that man can create a new breed of animal, etc, yet some people balk at the idea of some form of intelligence behind the universe. It reminds me of all the scoffing at some folk remedies. Then science discovers they actually work and thereafter, the folk remedies have donned the respectable "clothing" of science. Personally, I find it hard to believe that the universe, with all it's wonder, just "happened" by accident.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:35 pm |
      • CosmicC

        I'm guessing your question is rhetorical, but I'll answer anyway: Yes, there is fossil evidence for speciation. It is relatively rare since speciation events are relatively rapid compared to fossilization events. Speciation can occur within a few thousand years, but it would be extremely unusual to have a fossil sequence that was granular enough (hundreds of years) to track this event in detail. It is much more likely that multiple speciation events are typically lost between fossils in a sequence.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:38 pm |
      • rapierpoint

        Evolution Rules – Natural selection is just 1 of a handful of mechanisms that are described together in the theory of evolution. Perhaps you should learn more about it.🙂 Natural selection can and has been observed. I don't see any one actually denying that. It's the further extrapolation of the premise that some people have a problem with.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:39 pm |
      • rapierpoint

        The Jackdaw – the dschshund fossil comment was a joke and the dog breed issue an analogy. As to your other comment, all I can say is that you must believe that Brawndo has the electrolites plants crave.🙂 Blind belief in anything without investigation is not a good thing.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:43 pm |
      • ChicagoTalks

        I would suggest that you change your name to DullPoint- clearly, you have not read about the science of evolution. If you understood evolution you would have been embarrassed to have made the assertion that :

        "Natural selection and survival of the fittest are not up for debate. Evolution, on the other hand, is a different story." Huh?! What?!!

        How can you separate natural selection and survival of the fittest from the concept of evolution?

        September 12, 2011 at 3:45 pm |
      • The Jackdaw

        Rapierpoint – I investigate as much as I humanly can on a constant basis. I investigate all points of view, even those I consider unlikely. The conclusions I have drawn are fairly sound because of this.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:46 pm |
      • Evolution rules

        I don't need to read up on evolution – thank you. You are making a mistaken distinction between evolution and natural selection – which I don't understand. Punctuated equilibrium explains so called gaps in the fossil record and is accepted in evolution. So, maybe you need to read up on evolution!

        September 12, 2011 at 3:48 pm |
      • rapierpoint

        ChicagoTalks – Clearly you didn't understand my comment, yet prefer to ridicule than pursue a discussion. Let me see if I can clarify for you. You go out and make some observations and they can be consistently observed by others (natural selection in this case). That does not mean that some grand and glorious unified theory you cook up to explain it is correct, or even really has anything to do with your observations. The ancients observed various phenomena and came up with their own unified theories. Those are called mythologies today. As much as we know, the amount of knowledge that we don't know about life and the universe is so much more.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:56 pm |
      • rapierpoint

        Evolution rules – you stated that "evolution occurs by mean of natural selection". I said that natural selection is by 1 mechanism of evolution that is accepted. I don't know why that's unclear to you. There are other mechanisms (including mutation) that are said to be responsible for evolution. My original point is that most people don't deny natural selection, etc, but making the jump to say that all of these result in the speciation that we have today is what many people have a problem with. The evidence of speciation is much, much ponderous than the evidence of natural selection itself.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:05 pm |
      • cja

        We don't see the "jump" because (1) we don't live long enough, er can only see remains of dead plants and animals and (2) there never was a "jump". Your kids don't look exactly like you do they? That is as big of a "jump" as any parent has ever seen. Add up a billion of those it makes a huge different and (3) actaully we do see evoltion in species that breed quickly like various microbes, new flue viruses that are different but related ad many other examples.

        If you will allow that DNA determines who we look then then satistical population genetics is close to a mathmatical prrof the evolution must happen. You don't even need natural selection, only an isolated breading group and time for randon drift to do is work. As soon as the DNA of the two popuklation drifes enough they can no longer interbreed. You can actually measure genetic drift in every living population of plant and animal.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:39 pm |
    • john

      wow. not even evolutionary scientist claim it as fact. you my friend are whats called "religious zealots".. blind acceptance is as bad as blind denial

      September 12, 2011 at 3:29 pm |
      • The Jackdaw

        That is incorrect. Evolution has been accepted as fact. The term “theory” in “theory of evolution” takes on a different meaning in science. In layman’s terms, “theory” means “guess”. In science, the word “theory” means “how”, as in “how evolution”. Not “if” or “guess” evolution, but the theory of “how” it works. We know it works, we know its real; the question is in regards to the details. We know cars run, we know gravity is real, the question is in the details as to how these things work. The lack of full and complete understanding does not leave room for it to simply not exist.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:39 pm |
      • Joe

        Wow, Jack. You're stupid. A theory in scientific terms is exactly that: a theory. The "Law of Gravity" is exactly that: a "law". Look, I prefer the theory of evolution over some magic mumbo jumbo just as much as the next intelligent person. But you've got your wires severely crossed, man. Evolution is not a fact. Although there are countless supporting facts that support it, it still remains a theory because no one has been able to prove it in the absolute.

        September 12, 2011 at 5:33 pm |
      • Troy

        Joe, you are wrong. Evolution is both fact and theory. The "fact" of evolution can be boiled down as the observation of Common Descent – that all creatures seem to be descended from a common ancestor. The "theory" of evolution expains how that could have happened. For those who seem not to be aware, a theory in science is an explanation of observations that can be tested/checked and further makes predictions that can be tested and checked. If any of these explanations (hypothesis) or predictions proves to be wrong, the theory must be at least modified, if not discarded. Thus far, none of the hypothesis that form the Theory of Evolution have turned up wrong, and several predictions of the original theory (such as the requirement for an imperfect mechanism of heredity) have been proved out.

        September 12, 2011 at 6:47 pm |
    • Sean

      Its just a theory.. Until we invent a time machine to go back and verify it it will never be more than a theory.. That doesnt make it any less right though.. And of course the theory of evolution only explains the diverse living beings we see on the planet today.. It says nothing about how life actually started..

      September 12, 2011 at 3:46 pm |
      • The Jackdaw

        RNA was created from scratch in a lab in the 1950s using methods and materials consistent with those in the natural world.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:50 pm |
  6. TheBossSaid

    As a believer in God and a follower of Christ and having read the Bible entirely on my own without outside influence, I have personally come to the following conclusions:

    * The earth is indeed 4 billion years old and not 7000. The Bible says nowhere it was created in 7 24 hour days.
    * God created man entirely in His image in one shot and not through evolution.
    * Fossils of early man were just another species of apes and while some evolution existed among them, it is on par with that of that which we see with modern species of animals such as birds, cats, etc.
    * The first 3,999,994,000 years was God just playing around with His design. At the end of this period, He simply wiped it all out, including the dinosaurs.It wasn't a mistake. He simply decided to dump His original design. It acted more like a warmup job to what He really had planned. The dinosaurs were simply too big and He opted for much smaller animals. His ultimate achievement was the creation of Adam and Eve right out of the dirt. He created them entirely in His image.
    * Evolution is a bogus science trying to connect the dots. It ignores the fact that God does exist.

    September 12, 2011 at 3:12 pm |
    • Sybaris

      There's a huge flaw in your analysis........... an omniscient entity wouldn't "plan" anything.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:16 pm |
    • madcow

      It is time you actually read Darwin, Boss. Your current ideas of evolution are not what he talked about or what are accepted.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:16 pm |
    • palintwit

      Are you a stand up comic by any chance ?

      September 12, 2011 at 3:16 pm |
    • The Jackdaw

      Evolution is bogus science? God got rid of dinosaurs because they were too big????!!!! Dinosaurs were too big for an omnipotent being……..?

      I would argue with you, but reading your post made me dumber……I’m going to go vote for Sarah Palin now…….You just ruined the planet.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:17 pm |
      • zelda

        I am LMAO............ooooooooooooooo. I love your mind Jackdaw...........aren't you glad we have humor in our makeup?I wonder how and when THAT occured? I am thinking those dinosaurs might have something to do with it?

        September 12, 2011 at 4:25 pm |
    • YoureADoofus

      YoureADoofus

      September 12, 2011 at 3:18 pm |
    • brock

      Really ?? It is a FACT the god does exist.. Man get your facts straight.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:19 pm |
    • Bill

      This is absolutely ridiculous Boss!!!

      September 12, 2011 at 3:20 pm |
    • Chris

      You tried so hard, yet you still ended up sounding like an idiot. You believe in fairy tales.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:20 pm |
    • ReasonableXX

      Where does the absolutely baseless assumption that a god must exist come from? I could say anything exists but that doesn't mean it does. You can't just make an unfounded assumption that something exists.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:21 pm |
    • Chris G.

      So why exactly do you choose to believe a fairy tale, and ignore real evidence right in front of you? I suggest laziness. Spoon feeding of fairy tales is just easier, like feeding ice cream to babies, than reading science. I think laziness is at the root of the resurgence of American religious nuballism.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:24 pm |
    • Bilbo2001

      Evolution is supported by science – the observation of FACTS, and the follow up evaluations of observable facts providing overwhelming proof of evolution. Scientists have observed evolution in many species and use scientific evidence of 2,000,000 years worth of human & humanoid species show evolution of humans. To deny evolution is to deny the scientific method, and thus science itself...all science. That includes math...gravity...stars...planets...medicine...technology...all life and all things are explained by science. To deny science is to simply deny the world around you.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:25 pm |
    • what?

      But God is perfect and did not need a 'warm up'. He is all knowing and all seeing and knew exactly what he wanted to do from the beginning. So your explanation makes no sense. What I really want to know is what would make God decide to add creatures to this world that bear any resemblance to humans – like apes do. If we are in His image, it seems very strange that He also added something that looks a little too much like us.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:26 pm |
    • Skegeeace

      Why do people always talk about what God can and can't do- God can do anything the FRICK He wants. It's what makes Him, ya know, GOD. lol If He wanted the sky to be purple tomorrow, He could manipulate the environment, atmosphere, the composition of the sun, and the angle at which light bends in certain circumstances to make it so. HE'S GOD! GOD GOD GOD! LOL

      September 12, 2011 at 3:27 pm |
      • CharlesD

        So you're saying He would manipulate the physical world to achieve His ends. That's exactly what all but a shrill handful of churches and the faithful have been saying for the last couple centuries; they accept evolution, like physics, as a part of the natural world.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:39 pm |
    • TheBossSaid

      Dinosaurs were too big for us and NOT for God. Imagine trying to live in a modern world with T-Rexes running around. I'm sure God had a lot of fun building all of that and wiping it out. Oh, and by the way, the 4 billion years – yeah, that was just an an afternoon on His watch.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:28 pm |
    • mdocdoc

      You need to understand the difference between a belief system and the scientific method; one can believe anything one wants to; the easter bunny, tooth fairy and , yes – god. Science has proposed a rigorously tested theory of evolution, and it is the real deal. Not really subject for debate like the bunny, fairy and god.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:29 pm |
    • Bob

      If you truly had faith, you'd stop using the internet because it shouldn't exist according to the Church. The Church put Galileo under house arrest for life because he dared to say that science says the Earth orbits the Sun which directly contradicts the Bible. Basic physics and advanced mathematics contradict the bible so things like satellites, electricity, computers, space travel, and the Internet are all figments of our imagination or the work of the devil if religion had its way. Fortunately, other scientists didn't let the Church bully them into recanting their work (like Galileo was forced to do) and we have these wonderful technological advances. So stop blogging on your imaginary machine with people who live past the edge of our flat world. If not, you'll have to be burned for witchcraft.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:31 pm |
    • TheBossSaid

      Why can't God do a "warm up" before embarking on His real creation? If you were God, you could do whatever you bloody well wanted to. Just because you're perfect doesn't obligate you to do your "perfect" creation in the first pass. There is no such thing as perfection or lack of perfection with God.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:31 pm |
      • David

        God can and has set in motion the events of the world to make us who we are today. This does not discount science

        September 12, 2011 at 3:34 pm |
      • Evolution rules

        I've read the bible too, nice story; that's it. Nowhere in the bible does it say that god created man in one shot in his image – never happened. You can't believe in evolution of most but not all species – it doesn;t work that way.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:35 pm |
      • David

        God Never created a perfect human one shot, as he has never created a perfect human. You discount him and think in the ways of man. Why cant it unfold?

        September 12, 2011 at 3:42 pm |
      • what?

        Just talking in circles now.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:44 pm |
      • David

        Not circular reasoning but a point. God cannot not create a complete human spare jesus, whom technically wasn't human, but in human form.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:54 pm |
      • KrashUndBurn

        """Why can't God do a "warm up" before embarking on His real creation?"""

        Hey, great question!

        So God warmed up with the old testament, then got a little more experience with the new testament.

        The third and final product (Ver 3.0) would then be the Qur'an, right?

        I ask you, sir – is the Qur'an (GOD Version 3.0) your holy book? Is it?

        September 12, 2011 at 4:07 pm |
      • Nooplak

        Now you're pulling at strings here man...you're sounding a bit nutty

        September 12, 2011 at 4:18 pm |
    • Phan

      I never understood why more religious people or people who devote their entire life to GOD hate science, evolution, theories, creation, ideas... I believe there is an ultimate creator and science is just a look at what he has created, how he created it, and what is possibly out there.. God created life and it evolves and looks to survive. I appreciate what science has uncovered because its almost as if your looking at how God did it... I don't get why that is a problem? Is because the Bible doesn't mention it? Because the Church doesn't recognize it? It's amazing... for example how a bird might adapt to survive within a changing environment... It's mind blowing... I can't even begin to comprehend God but science and evolution are scratching the surface of what He is... He can't be understood; only appreciated and marveled at because he is something beyond your reasoning. And since he seems to have left us without proof of his being, science is study what he left us...

      September 12, 2011 at 3:56 pm |
      • NOT MY CHAIR

        "And since he seems to have left us without proof of his being, science is study what he left us"
        so why have a belief in god if you have no proof besides a books that were "inspired" by god? i do not believe any true believers of religion can believe in evolution. religion puts us at the pinnacle of gods work, saying we are the rulers of all. but evolution basically puts us as just another part of a whole.

        September 12, 2011 at 5:40 pm |
      • smh

        what church do you speak of because if you are talking about all Christian churches, do not include the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Many atheists like to lump all Christians in the same "ignorant boat"..but forget that some of the greatest scientists of all time were Catholic priests.

        September 13, 2011 at 12:52 am |
    • Jdog

      Have you tried reading other books? There are some different ideas as to the origin of life. I think there is even a turtle involved in one book and an elephant in another. It's great that you read one single book but people in different parts of the world have read a different book. All books were written by a human being. I think the Dalai Lama has it right, kindness should be our religion.

      September 12, 2011 at 6:04 pm |
    • evoman11

      A fact is something that is provable for instance 2+2 = 4, it's true here, it's true on the moon , it's true in the distant galaxies. You can even test this "theory" simply go to the moon and add up 2 and 2 the result ,as you will see is amazing.
      A belief is something that someone believes in for instance, God is real. It may be a truth to you but it's not a fact. It can be true to you but it simply is not a fact.
      Evolution meets this fact criteria , it has been observed and tested all over the world by many different sets of people all coming to the same conclusion based on evidence. These people are called scientists. They employ something called the scientific method by which they reach conclusions based on research , test and study. If they find that other sets of scientists independently reach the same or very like conclusions depending on the particular discipline it becomes more convincing and eventually a "fact" .
      There is nothing that can be deemed fact when it comes to any religion. Including yours. Religion was invented by mankind to explain things he couldn't understand , and to an extent ,try to cheat death. I'll say this again, ... at one time people thought that Zues was a god on Olympus that hurled bolts of lightning , and Apollo made the sun cross the sky. What a silly thing to believe in huh? The bible is the exact same thing. It's a fairy tale. Not even close to factual.

      September 12, 2011 at 11:55 pm |
  7. David Murray

    The problem with these arguments is that everybody has something to win and something to lose depending upon the outcome. But that is only because people are ignorant and not truly searching for the truth. Both sides are guilty. Many atheists start with the assumption that there is no creator and try to find ways to explain everything that fits with their belief. Religious folks have the same problem. They believe word-for-word what the bible says and anything that doesn't fit exactly with that must be considered incorrect. If both sides could pull their heads out of their rear-ends and be a little more open minded, I think we'd be able to meet a little more in the middle. I don't care if evolutionary scientists believe in God or not, and I don't care if Christians and Muslims believe in Evolution or not. But when they start trying to tell the rest of us what to believe and persecute those that disagree, that is where the problem comes in.

    September 12, 2011 at 3:12 pm |
    • Kevin Untener

      Yes, 100% correct.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:15 pm |
    • madcow

      No, Dave. Atheists don't believe what they want just to fit their belief. That is what religious people do. Atheists try to examine evidence and see if it supports a reasonable theory. That is a fundamental difference.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:26 pm |
      • David

        Science and religion go and and hand with eachother

        September 12, 2011 at 3:37 pm |
      • tonytonitoney

        not all atheists are so rigorous. some are just lazy and can't be bothered to get off the couch and do some research.

        i'm an atheist; and some of my "atheist" friends don't give a damn about the subject. Ignorance is bliss.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:38 pm |
      • Kevin Untener

        They both do believe then look for evidence to support their belief, I think that is what was meant. Religion and non-believers.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:45 pm |
    • Chris G.

      The fundamental flaw here is equating science and religion on equal terms. It's apples and oranges that cannot be compared at all. Science seeks evidence, performs tests on the evidence, and develops theories to explain the evidence. Religion is just a set of beliefs handed down from someone who who them as fairy tales. No evidence, no search, no nothing except a story You can't "argue" anything between these two worlds, there is a grand canyon between them.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:29 pm |
      • NOT MY CHAIR

        another major difference is that science is always willing to change its current belief structure based on new evidence and testing. religion does not change, well at least it shouldn't and if it does i believe their whole belief structure falls apart

        September 12, 2011 at 5:43 pm |
    • Evolution rules

      Scientists do not consider religion in science because it is irrelevant. It is not because we are atheists.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:38 pm |
    • Eholian

      ...I guess the most appropriate response to your post is...Amen!...lol...Also I think where you are headed is towards the idea of coexistence. Unfortunately for this planet, that is a concept that will never be learned by any race or belief.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:46 pm |
    • kathy

      best post i have seen yet

      September 12, 2011 at 3:47 pm |
    • Cass314

      I'd agree with you to an extent, but the problem is that there are people who are actively trying to force their beliefs on others in this country. I don't care what anyone else believes as long as they leave other people out of it. Everyone is entitled to their own thoughts and beliefs. But when you try to force them on me using the legal system, as many religious people do with respect to things like gay marriage (this country), blasphemy laws (Ireland), etc., we have a problem. When you attempt to force them on other people's children such as by trying to prevent the teaching of accurate science in public schools, we similarly have a problem.

      Another thing that I think is problematic is that many people I know assume that the right to have your opinion about anything also means that you have a right to never be challenged in that thinking. Many people I know and have heard on TV frequently claim that their religious beliefs are being "persecuted" because they talk about their beliefs and other people respond by saying what they think. While I think it's common courtesy to leave other people alone unless approached (and this is my policy off the internet), it is important to note that if you want to broadcast your opinion, it is only common sense that other people be able to challenge that opinion, and that as long as they are not trying to harm you or prevent you from using your right to free speech, they're within their rights too.

      September 12, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
  8. Miss Demeanor

    Has religion EVER been used to control people, keep them poor and ignorant (eg: most of South America), or to make vast sums of money? It is the ONLY legal form of fraud for a good reason: you can never prove the riches it promises are all fairy tales. The GOOD side of religion is, it keeps the low-lifes who preach it from becoming lawyers, used car salesmen or politicians. So, yes, religion is a good thing.

    September 12, 2011 at 3:12 pm |
    • Chris G.

      Exactly so, the mainstream organized religions are big business, and are tax exempt for some reason that escapes me. Business.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:31 pm |
  9. paul

    i have been to africa a few times, the african anthropologists and africans in general believe they separated from the primates, which is exactly what they did, a human father and a primate mother , the so called missing link is a cash cow for researchers, what they are discovering are the first off springs of crosses, through continued cross breeding they have emerged as the african spiecies of humans, to day they are no less human than any other human species , i don't think that african people should be embarrassed about thier arrival by evolution,

    September 12, 2011 at 3:11 pm |
    • stlouis jake

      pauk,

      how can you still be alive? your head is so far up your a** it must be cutting off the oxygen supply.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:14 pm |
    • evolution

      Humans are primates, so our parents are all primates. Humans evolved in Africa and then spread out from there.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:22 pm |
    • LB

      Paul – are you really and seriously saying that african's are the only humans that have arrived through evolution? And that no other human did?

      September 12, 2011 at 3:28 pm |
  10. scott

    There is not nor has there ever been proof of evolution as Darwin attempted to prove. There has never been actual discovery of one kind or type of animal changing into something completely different. This is what he and evolution claim. If evolution were true, would not less defects, longer life, less illness, violence, hatred, anger have occurred since we would become more 'perfect' over time? Sorry, false science does not add up for evolution. The world only makes sense from a Biblical viewpoint. For those who will call me names and insult my belief, I challenge you to study the Bible from a historical, factual, philosophical and scientific point of view and it will prove itself accurate in every way. Until you do that, no comments 'slamming' Christian beliefs are acceptable. I have done my homework, how about you?

    September 12, 2011 at 3:11 pm |
    • madcow

      I think it is time you actually read Darwin, scott. You clearly didn't get the idea of what it is about.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:13 pm |
    • Tom R

      Well, that's one way to win an argument: insist that no one can contribute to the conversation until they agree with you!

      (Of course, if you really want everyone to hold their tongue until they have shown that the Bible explains the world, you will have gone from a two-sided conversation to a zero-sided one!)

      September 12, 2011 at 3:16 pm |
    • ReasonableXX

      This is one of the silliest comments I have ever read on here, although I'm just starting to read them on this particular article so I am sure there are more gems out there. To your totally illogical point, imperfections are a totally expected consequence of evolution. Evolution does not mean things are moving towards perfection. It is those very imperfections that cause certain species to fail and new ones to rise up in their place. Now on to your religious nonsence...why are there so many imperfections in the world if your perfect god created everything? Wouldn't a perfect creator make everything perfect the first time? There would be no imperfection in nature if that was the case.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:18 pm |
    • CosmicC

      The only thing you, and many other posters on this blog, have proven is that you really don't understand either the complexity of the concept of evolution.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:21 pm |
    • Rich

      Uh, Scott, not to denigrate your beliefs–you have the right to believe anything you wish, of course–but as I am a student of literature, I would suggest that you might want to check out the translation of something called the DEAD SEA SCROLLS. These are the earliest writings of stories that became the Christian Bible, and they are much different from the flavor-of-the-week bible that was published whenever a new sect or new leader came into power over the past 2000 years and did not like the current version of the bible. You can look up Luthern, Baptist, Catholic, Episcopal, etc., for the different major versions, but there were hundreds of versions written. You can look them up!

      I would suggest a course in bible history or something that will explain the evolution (sorry!) of the text that you now read in English that was translated from two dead languages that no one speaks anymore. Could you agree that possibly some of the words may not be translated exactly as they were meant to be? Or, to make this go faster, read two different translations of the bible. One from today and one from, oh, 1000 years ago. I don't think the facts changed, but I promise you the words in these two versions of the SAME BOOK will be different and mean totally different things. My point is that your belief system is based on a book that has had hundreds of changes in its wording and these changes are important since in one version it will state that "god" stated "this" and in another translation it will state that "god" stated "that" and the meanings are opposite. Which one do you believe is the TRUE word of "god?"

      Your belief system is safe; noone is trying to take it away. However, you might be interested in knowing that the "jesus" story was also told many times over BEFORE the events in the bible took place. The Sumarians had a similar story, as did several other earlier groups of people. This is not to say it is not true; however, if you heard that the story of Jack and Jill came from an old superstition that had to do with rain and water and wooden buckets, would you not want to read the ORIGINAL version of the story before it was translated 500 times by people who may or may not know what they are doing?

      Just trying to get you to open your eyes, not change your beliefs. Good luck!

      September 12, 2011 at 3:37 pm |
    • Cass314

      Your first statement is absolutely false. So either *you* haven't done your homework, or you're not very good at it, or you're lying to further a point. I hope it's not the latter, as that would be very unbiblical of you, Ten Commandments and all.

      Speciation has been observed both in the lab and in the wild. There exist transitional fossils. While the finer points are often changing (such as exactly where in the scheme of things a certain fossil fits) the overarching forces that govern evolution and what they tell us are so well-understood and well-accepted by biologists that there is literally no controversy there to people who actually know the science. In fact, biologists often say that almost nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution. This is true. Most biologists exploit what evolution tells us every day so they can do animal or microorganism research instead of human research. I use the principles of evolution every day to do experiments, and I frequently see it in action.

      You see, Scott, I have done my homework. I was raised in a Christian household and I have read the Bible and many other religious texts. I have an undergraduate degree in engineering and biology, and I am working on a PhD in the latter. And if you had truly done *your* homework, you would have cited some actual evidence instead of talking about the Bible.

      September 12, 2011 at 4:56 pm |
    • JT

      You say you did your homework, but lack understanding of the basic principles of evolution. Curious, how did you research intelligent design? You opened your bible and read how someone who lived a couple thousand years ago stated that God did it. Where's your actual proof?

      September 12, 2011 at 6:44 pm |
  11. Greg

    Look at your feet tonight and tell me that is the best an all powerful god can do.

    September 12, 2011 at 3:11 pm |
    • Greg

      So true!

      September 12, 2011 at 3:12 pm |
    • Matt

      Or hair in your butt crack🙂

      Someone pointed that out to me once and I laugh eveytime!

      September 12, 2011 at 3:13 pm |
    • ChicagoTalks

      Matt- actually, butt hair (and any hair in any nook or crevice where skin rubs together) is used to prevent chafing and allows ventilation of areas not easily aired-out.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:55 pm |
    • beelzebubba

      Look at Televangelists with a god wants to pay off your mortgage if you'll just plant a $1000 'seed'. I'm sure he spills his seed every time he gets another check. Surely if there was a god, he wouldn't allow sleazy used-car salesmen to prey on the naive and the elderly. Or how about the 'Prosperity Preachers' who teach others to worship materialism and greed. Surely he'd disavow any association with those scum and call the IRS on them.

      September 13, 2011 at 12:12 am |
  12. Anomic Office Drone

    Frankly, the most farcical thing about religion is pretending to be able to understand the desires and motivations of a being that is supposed to be omniscient and all powerful. If that's not the sin of pride, what is?

    September 12, 2011 at 3:11 pm |
    • Anthony

      I agree to some degree. Wielding God's intentions recklessly is so dangerous. But I do believe that God can communicate to humans, and in an accurate, poignant way. As long as we temper our pride and remain aware that it is not our work, not our accomplishments, I do think we are meant to preach God's intentions with an honest heart. Man is sinful and we mess up a lot of the time, but that doesn't mean the source is untrue.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:35 pm |
  13. palintwit

    Sarah Palin believes that dinosaurs became extinct because Noah thought they were too heavy to put on the ark.

    September 12, 2011 at 3:10 pm |
    • Bobbito

      You're a nut for that one, but probably right!

      September 12, 2011 at 3:14 pm |
    • todd in DC

      Especially since not all dinosaurs were large. Many were the size of man or even smaller.

      But even the largest ones were eggs. Guess Noah couldn't incubate them.

      Of course, there is a creation "museum" right in Tennessee, so what do I know?

      September 12, 2011 at 3:15 pm |
      • Beaker

        I think the museum is in Kentucky, and I've seen pictures from it. Totally ridiculous. There are displays of humans and dinosaurs living together. It looks like something from the Flintstones, kids playing in the front yard with their T-Rex pet. How can anyone believe this? It really is sad.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:59 pm |
    • dooh!!!!

      I once had a very christian man tell me that dinosaurs never existed because they are not in the bible.....

      September 12, 2011 at 3:45 pm |
      • fin

        I had a christian one tell me that dinosaur bones were planted by the devil to discredit god. You can't make this stuff up!!

        September 12, 2011 at 4:25 pm |
  14. Olivares

    ...and what exactly you think that "Grow and Multiply" means in the Book of Genesis!? That IS Evolution. It is such an arrogant stance to pretend explaining God's ways and limit Him to "7 days" and a "specific order". I firmly beleive that God is the Creator but I don't buy for a minute the literal recounting of it in the Bible. It is a metaphor. Get over it; you do not have to know for sure how He did it. I know I don't.

    September 12, 2011 at 3:10 pm |
    • Cindysriley

      For those touting the "7 day" creation theory...the bible does not actually say "days"...in its original form, it says "period of time". Who's to say everyone isn't right?

      September 12, 2011 at 3:17 pm |
      • Jason

        what are you talking about?
        From Genesis: וַיִּקְרָא הִי לָאוֹר יוֹם, וְלַחֹשֶׁךְ קָרָא לָיְלָה; וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר, יוֹם אֶחָד
        That clearly says "day one" there, at the end, "yom echad".
        And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
        Interval of time? Hardly. Now, no one knows what a day may have been before, you know, light (a sun) - how could you possibly measure a day without the vary basis for that measurement? But again, this is a creation myth, so there you have it. I used to be in the reconciliation camp, but I'm firmly in the atheist camp now - there's no reason to reconcile a story that is so obviously off.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:34 pm |
  15. DERRICK

    IF WE EVOLVED FROM MONKEYS, WHY ARE THERE STILL MONKEYS??

    September 12, 2011 at 3:10 pm |
    • Darthlawsuit

      If you evolved from your mother then why is your mother still around???

      September 12, 2011 at 3:12 pm |
    • bachmanntwit

      That's what Michele Bachmann asked.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:12 pm |
      • André

        Yes you're right, that's literally what she asked. Sadly, some poeple are as un-educated as her and ask the same question.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:57 pm |
    • todd in DC

      Wow. Homeschool much? I'll keep this simple. There isn't one line of evolution, there are hundreds just in the simian species. We didn't literallty evolve from monkeys. We evolved from a simian-like creature that existed millions of years ago. We call it a monkey, but this several million year old creature was a monkey the same way that birds were once dimosaurs.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:13 pm |
    • Nookleerman

      Because the monkeys that we came from moved away from the other monkeys into an environment that monkeys can't survive in. So they had offspring that were different enough from them that they could survive in this new environment. And their kids were a little different too. And so on and so on. But the monkeys that didn't move didn't need to evolve, so they didn't.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:15 pm |
    • Peking Duckman

      For the same reason you have both reptiles and birds still living together. It is the same logic as well as to why we have both mice and elephants in existence. Think of it all as roads and highways. You would not ask "why is interstate 12 here when expressway 1B exists 1,000 miles away".

      September 12, 2011 at 3:16 pm |
    • Mrmailman

      Why do we have so many variations of animals....such as birds....eagles, seagulls, falcons.....yet they are all birds but they do not look alike, yet we they are part of the bird species who look differently because they evolved in different environments .......... the same could be said about monkeys .......and yes that does also include our self entitled title......humans.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:17 pm |
    • Bolt

      If we are Americans then why is there still an England? Do us all a favor and read something other than the Bible, seriously, anything.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:17 pm |
    • Jason

      1) Stop shouting, no need for caps lock to make an argument.
      2) Evolution does suggest we "evolved from monkeys" - this is a problem with a common misunderstanding concerning evolution. It's not a fair perspective to look at extant species and assert that one is derived from another. Instead, what is often being asserted is that humans and other primates share a common ancestor, and that there is a point of divergence. There are all sorts of reasons that are provided (depending on circumstance, for example) that indicate why speciation occurred. Regardless, you didn't evolve from a monkey, bur rather, humans and monkeys share a common ancestor from which they both evolved some time ago.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:17 pm |
      • Evolution rules

        Evolution does not suggest we evolved from monkeys. Again, we evolved from a common ancestor, which was NOT a monkey as you would think. It was a proto-human if anything. Monkey evolution went a different pathway from us millions of years ago.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:10 pm |
    • Berell

      You misunderstand evolution, if you believe that if something evolves from something else than originator instantly has to vanish. If this was true in evolutionary theory than there would only be a single type of creature on the planet. What evolutionary theory does explain is that mutation and differentiation that happens suits some spawns of creatures to environments better than the parent species. So if the spawns of monkeys slowly became more suited to plains than be arboreal than it would be possible for both species to exist. Some animals such as sharks and crocodiles have changed very little in millions of years because they are suited to their environment better than any other species. I personally always thought Darwin's theory was kind of self explanatory "Survival of the fittest."

      September 12, 2011 at 3:18 pm |
    • corey

      because we DIDN'T evolve FROM monkeys Jethro. Chimps, apes, lorises, lemurs, humans and all other members of the primate family are different branches of a divergent branch of mammalian evolution stemming from a common proto-primate ancestor.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:18 pm |
    • Chris

      It's a common misconception that "Man evolved from ape". We did not evolve from apes and monkeys. Humans, apes and monkeys have a common ancestor. Somewhere along the line, our primative ancestors had a group that found it adventageous to be able to swing in trees and evolve physically. Another group found it adventageous to develope more cognition and "brain power".

      Short answer, to say that Man evolved from monkeys is wrong. Sorry to say.

      "I am against religion becasue it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." Richard Dawkins

      September 12, 2011 at 3:19 pm |
    • Fred

      We didn't evolve from current monkeys. We branched off from common ancestors. It's similar to the way that very intelligent people and yourself both have common ancestors at some point in the distant past, but nobody would say that intelligent people "evolved" from you.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:19 pm |
    • CharlesD

      Because evolution proceeds in a bush-like fashion, not in a linear sequence.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:19 pm |
    • nimitta

      Not that you probably care, but nobody believes that humans evolved from 'monkeys', at least any that have survived. What the genomes of humans and other living primates clearly show is that we share a common ancestor with chimpanzees and bonobos, which are both species of ape. In any event, your question actually doesn't make any more sense than asking, "if cybertext evolved from printed text, why do we still have books?". Try reading one!

      September 12, 2011 at 3:23 pm |
    • Evolution rules

      Derrick – go back to school. NO ONE that teaches evolution will tell you we evolved from apes. We evolved from a common ancestor.

      September 12, 2011 at 4:06 pm |
    • Katie

      We didn't evolve from monkeys. Monkeys and man evolved from a common ancestor. Try reading some science for a change.

      September 12, 2011 at 7:04 pm |
  16. DocSirMicDre

    we are not the product of evolution...we were spawned by an alien race to be their obedient slaves.

    September 12, 2011 at 3:10 pm |
    • Solution

      No... That's the Tea Party...

      September 12, 2011 at 3:12 pm |
    • Peking Duckman

      Ahhh, of course. Just like in Star Trek: TOS episode 52!

      September 12, 2011 at 3:17 pm |
  17. walter

    The bible is allegory, not history. Why is it so difficult for some people to assign intelligence to God? A masterful evolutionary plan is such a greater tribute to God's intelligence than some lame separate creations notion that makes little sense. For the die-hards, in the bible life originated in the seas, and these sea animals emerged from the oceans and started walking on land and flying through the air. The last in the line of life forms was man. Exactly the same as the "theory" of evolution maintains. The point of the biblical allegory of creation is that man has the divine spark, hence our likeness to God. The wonderful progression of life from the simplest forms to highly complex beings like humans is absolute testament to the glory and power of God. Evolution is creationism at its finest. What an amszing plan is evolution! Only God could conceive of and institute such a wonderful plan.

    September 12, 2011 at 3:09 pm |
    • scott

      Sorry, animals did not walk out of the seas. Man was created from the dust and dirt of the ground. The historical accuracy of the Bible is proven as well.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:12 pm |
      • todd in DC

        Ok, I'll use your logic. Then why aren't any living things made from dust today?

        September 12, 2011 at 3:18 pm |
      • Peking Duckman

        Wait, what? Best check that statement, kind sir.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:18 pm |
      • Katie

        Proven? Prove it.

        September 12, 2011 at 7:05 pm |
    • AP

      Walter thank you so much for that comment. I completely agree. So many fundementalists do the exact thing they criticize others for; they limit the power of God by making an imperfect human assertion that God CANNOT do this. The bible says he created life, but it does not specify how so. He does say that life was a collection of minerals, which it is, and, according to the bible, he tells the people the exact path that life took in evolution. First the sea creatures, then land, then flying. It is pretty remarkable. Just remember, when we say God can or cannot do something we are, in fact, limiting him by language.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:20 pm |
    • john smith

      >The bible is allegory, not history.

      Actually, it's a collection of folk tales concocted by a bunch of bored desert nomads sitting around a campfire smoking hash, and then selected and compiled by another bunch of hereditary priests to justify their existence.

      That isn't intended to criticize them – they simply didn't know much about the world they lived in.

      It certainly is a criticism of anyone with a modern education who can see the evidence all around them, but insists on believing those campfire tales.

      There are hundreds of religions around the world; most of them directly contradict each other (in fact, your 'holy scriptures' even contradict themselves, because they were created by different people). There's no evidence to support any of them (in fact, even supposedly 'historical' events can't be verified).

      If anyone comes up with some credible evidence that any of these religions has a basis in fact, I'd be interested in seeing it.

      But the very definition of 'faith' is a belief without evidence (and often a belief directly contradicted by the evidence.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:28 pm |
    • ginjew

      Thank you Walter. I believe evolution and creation must coexist. I buy a loaf of bread from my store. Did the owner simply wiggle her nose and the bread appear? No. A baker had to start with flour, add yeast and water, other ingredients as desired, preheated an oven at 325 degrees, and baked the loaf. The flour, yeast, water and other ingredients evolved into bread, a new and different entity. If I consumed, two cups of flour, a cake of yeast, a cup of lukewarm water, and a shmeckle of seasoning am I eating bread? No, it has to evolve from its present form in the manner of baking to make the loaf. This is how I understand God. She exists and uses the evolutionary process as her recipe to create her culinary masterpiece much like a master baker. Besides, simply saying SHAZZAMM! and creating life would be boring. God is an artist, creating both Sarah Pailin and the Platypus...go figure

      September 12, 2011 at 4:49 pm |
  18. ed

    nonsense, b.s

    September 12, 2011 at 3:09 pm |
  19. Mona from Tulsa

    Science is man's way of unveiling the mysteries of the universe and the mastery of the Creator, neither of which we will ever have the capacity to fully understand. We can only marvel at the wonder of it all!

    September 12, 2011 at 3:09 pm |
    • CharlesD

      That's been the view of scientists and nearly all of the faithful for centuries. The antagonism between science and religion wasn't much of a problem until the Baptists forgot how to read.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:21 pm |
  20. make you think

    I believe in God and believe in evolution. Here is how I see it. God started everything, and then living things began to evolve. At some point, God "flipped the switch" and created Humans in his likeness(Adam and Eve). This "flipping of the switch" created consioutness, awareness, humanity, intelligence, compassion, etc..., that special something inherent to humans and no other living things. (Please don't rebutted this with monkeys are intelligent because they can crack open a coconut, or peel a banana...You should understand what I mean by this)
    But, I also clearly believe in evolution, the proof is in the pudding. But, I do not believe that evolution proves there is not a god...becuase I can think as simple as a child does and ask, "Well, what was before that?".

    On the same token, I do not believe that Adam and Eve just popped up out of no where and were laying around naked in the garden of eden.

    So, I believe in both God and evolution

    September 12, 2011 at 3:09 pm |
    • scott

      Evolution requires real science of which there is none. The Bible and evolution clash and contradict each other so not sure how one can believe in both. If a person believes the Bible to be accurate, Adam and Eve's origins are clearly stated in the Bible and not agreeing is not believing and thus this statement is a contradiction.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:15 pm |
      • CharlesD

        It is? I don't recall anywhere in the Bible where the process of creation is mentioned in any sort of detail at all. It seems entirely plausible that God chose to use evolution as the process for creation, and there is nothing in the Bible to refute such an action.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:25 pm |
      • make you think

        Scott, your statement, that mine is a contracdiction is invalid. I did not say anything about the Bible being completely the truth, as I do not have the original bible(or the original books of the bible). The books of the bible were created literally hundreds of years apart from each other and written by hundreds of authros. Then translated hundreds if not thousands of times by humans(who make mistakes). The bible that you and I have are without doubt different than what they were intended to be. But, that does not change my belief in Jesus as my savior. If I live my life as how he wanted me to. Than I lived and wonderful life and will be beside him in heaven. 🙂

        September 12, 2011 at 3:28 pm |
    • HGTTG

      Not true. Humans are actually the third most intelligent species on earth, after mice, and dolphins.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:28 pm |
      • ChicagoTalks

        You forgot Brolgas, so that makes humans the fourth most intelligent species on earth.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:02 pm |
  21. Allan

    Evolution can be proven. Science requires proof. Religion is not science. Religion is based on faith. It is based on faith because it cannot be proven.

    September 12, 2011 at 3:08 pm |
    • DocSirMicDre

      your middle name wouldn't happend to be obvious would it?

      September 12, 2011 at 3:11 pm |
    • David

      Both evolution and religion fall into schroeders theory

      September 12, 2011 at 3:58 pm |
  22. stan

    If everything evolved from other things, why dont we see it going on today??? Did it just stop, lol. Think about it. God created us and everything we see. We didnt just happen to appear. God, Jesus, and the bible are real. We will all see God one day.

    September 12, 2011 at 3:08 pm |
    • todd in DC

      Um, we do. Ever get a flu shot? Ever get another flu shot the following year? There is an example of evolution through mutation.

      If you want to see evolution of higher level organism, then jump ahead a few million years and see any differences. Sorry but macro-evolution isn't going to speed up just for your convenience.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:10 pm |
    • Terry

      Your perception of time is very, very limited my friend.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:11 pm |
    • ReasonableXX

      You have zero understanding of evolution and how it works. Evolution generally works on time scales that your feable brain can not possibly comprehend. Even so, we do observe it occuring today all the time.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:11 pm |
    • Chuck

      It doesn't just happen like that. Do some research before you dismiss it. You guys will see and believe what you want, but it doesn't change the facts of science.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:13 pm |
    • evolution

      We do see evolution going on today. Every year, we need new flu vaccines because the flu viruses have evolved. Bacteria have evolved to be resistant to antibiotics.
      What we do not see going on today is god. Why isn't anyone walking on water or turning water into wine anymore. Maybe its because it never happened.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:16 pm |
    • Walter Estrada

      Hello, it is happening today, this very second actually but noticeable changes happen over the course of thosands of years and since our exsistance is so brief (average age of 75-80yrs) we will never notice until we look back at our ancentors! If in 40000 years, Humans are still around, they will look back and we will be noticeably different than we do today. Part of natural selection. Lots of factor contribute to this. Diet, enviroment, social groups, but like I said, over throusands of years.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:19 pm |
    • Erica

      First of all, it takes time spans which BY NECESSITY cannot occur during our lifetime, which is obviously why it is not apparently going on today. If you see a forest catch on fire, you wouldn't deny it. If you came to a forest covered in ash and smoldering still, would you deny that there was a forest there?? Fossils are our evidence. Hard, observable evidence. What observable evidence is there that God created you?
      Second of all, we DO see it going on today, speciation is constantly being addressed by biologists in the field, and where do you think MRSA, MDR/XDR-TB, and new flu viruses come from!? Not to mention far more dramatic changes which can be seen in a laboratory setting at an extremely accelerated rate.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:19 pm |
    • Scott

      It is indeed going on today... Take off your shoes and your socks, take a long last look at your little toes, they are going away. There is clear evidence in the last 2000 years that our little toes are getting smaller and smaller, they will go away in another 3-4 thousand years; that, my friend, is evolution...

      September 12, 2011 at 3:20 pm |
    • John R.

      Evlolution is the process by which species adapt to changing environmental conditions. It does not deny the possibility of the existance of God any more than physics or chemistry does. It is an explanation of how the world works. And we DO see it going on, every time a new strain of bateria pops up that is resistant to antibiotics, or when pollution of an ecosystem wipes out one species but not another.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:21 pm |
    • mstras

      Stan IS taking place right now. Look at:
      http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/science/26evolve.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

      Another thing to realize is that evolution takes place in the WOMB.
      It takes place in the recombination of DNA once an egg is fertilized
      Sometimes the change is so detrimental the creature is unsustainable
      and the most times the fetus is aborted ... naturally.
      Yes, abortion takes place as a natural process.

      sometimes the recombination of DNA OR a happenstance mutation occurs that is beneficial to the individual....evolution.

      Belief in religion is belief in Magic.
      And just like in other fairy tales there is good and bad magic.
      Your magic, of course, is good.
      Those that believe in a different religion must then believe in Black Magic. Right?

      September 12, 2011 at 3:22 pm |
    • d3

      I can go on about my beliefs but im not here to argue religion, the facts are evolution takes millions of years- meaning you will not see any change in life forms in your life time nor your great great great great great great great grandkids lifetime. Study science and the findings, to deny something truly you have to become a student of that subject first. Scientists are fact finders and (some are even devout Christians but when arguing facts Religion hardly brings facts to the table unfortunately😦

      September 12, 2011 at 3:23 pm |
    • CharlesD

      We do see it going on today, with species developing new traits and new species arising. The latter was noted just a few years ago – and proven beyond all doubt thanks to extensive DNA testing – when a new species of plant appeared in England.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:27 pm |
    • Esteban

      It is occurring today. Height, weight, and other physical traits are transforming. Our skin tones are changing as our society becomes more integrated and mixing of races is more widely accepted. Our minds are evolving as we process more information on a daily basis due to television, internet, and widespread advertising.

      Just because you can't see evolution in a 5 year span, doesn't mean it isn't happening. Evolution is passed along in genes, unless you're the incredible hulk, then it happens when you're angry.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:30 pm |
    • Dook Dook Dook

      You're not going to see evolution overnight. You will never see evolution during your life time. It's a slow integration of change through thousands and millions of years. Think about how much taller the average human is, as opposed to how they were thousands of years ago.

      Think about all the different breeds and mixed breeds of dogs we created when we allow dogs to mix breed with each other. All of these are small, yet significant obvious processes of evolution. As we mate and create with each other, and continue to mix and mingle, we grow and evolve into different beings. It's nothing to be afraid of, it's a fact of life.

      Of course, if you'd rather pray to an invisible old man in the sky, be my guest. Doesn't hurt me any, I have no business telling you what to do.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:34 pm |
    • Cass314

      First of all, we do see it happening today. Host-pathogen interaction (viruses come up with analogs of primate proteins to better prevent cells from shutting themselves down to stop the virus, primates over the evolutionary tree can be seen to evolve differences in the target protein, the virus shoots off a new strain specialized for a different primate species, etc.), antibiotic resistance, influenza strains "jumping" from bird-bird to bird-human to human-human transmission, etc. We have even observed speciation happen.

      Second, generation times for humans and many mammals are long. Evolutionary timescales in these species are therefore very long, because most but not all instances of observable evolutionary change take place over many, many, many generations. It's like how you don't see the plates moving anymore, but we definitely don't live on Pangea.

      September 12, 2011 at 5:02 pm |
  23. YaSure

    Creation nut jobs everywhere. Oh .. we didn't evolve from apes we STILL are apes!

    September 12, 2011 at 3:08 pm |
    • Peking Duckman

      Yeah, what you said...

      September 12, 2011 at 3:20 pm |
  24. Dawgdays

    What those that don't believe don't understand is that if we believe God to be all powerful then why is it that he could not create all that we perceive in the blink of his eye. That would include all the fossil records we continue to find. We cannot fathom his full purpose and therefore why he would have created the heavens and earth including all that which appears old. If he created all then why could he not also create a bone and place it in the earth to be found by us at some future point? If he is all powerful then he could certainly have created all things pre-human history in an instant. And there is no science in this world and there will never be science that can disprove his existence. The decision to believe or not is left up to every individual.

    September 12, 2011 at 3:07 pm |
    • Sybaris

      The purple unicorn in my closet told me (through telepathy) that you are wrong. Funny thing is that every time I try to show him to my guests he disappears when I open the door.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:13 pm |
    • Bob

      This quote from the above article exposes why evolution is not science; "this being a science blog, we are going to report with the assumption that the prevailing, tested theory with the most rigorous evidence – evolution – is true." The essence of the scientific method involves attempting to falsify the theory. Evolution, on the other hand, is dogma. It does a great job explaining how previously existing genetic material can be rearranged in differing environments, but can't begin to explain where the information came from, or how a germ could change into a human being.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:14 pm |
      • Peking Duckman

        If you believe a germ would turn directly into a human that you are missing millions, if not towards the billions, of years of slow-moving change as organisms change within their environment and neighboring organisms on top of rare mutations which are then thrown into the gene pool. Think slowly about it.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:24 pm |
      • CharlesD

        Uh – you might want to actually learn about evolutionary theory. Your view of it is remarkably lacking, and outright wrong.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:30 pm |
    • CharlesD

      So you're saying that God has perpetrated an enormous lie. Isn't He the one who said lying was wrong? Are you sure this God of your doesn't have leathery wings?

      September 12, 2011 at 3:29 pm |
    • Esteban

      Are you suggesting that god created an elaborate puzzle for us to solve after billions of years? Since god created computers and the chisel I can see your point.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:34 pm |
    • what?

      If God planted fossils for us to find, then is he trying to make us not believe in creation? Wouldn't that make God some kind of misleading d-bag?

      September 12, 2011 at 3:39 pm |
    • m_j_christy

      That's quite possibly the stupidest reason for the existence of fossils that I have ever heard. Congats, sir!

      September 12, 2011 at 5:15 pm |
  25. Jordan

    To all of those religious fanatics out there that refuse to believe anything but that they created by God, and not through evolution its probably time you faced the music. If you refuse to believe in something that is very close to becoming scientific fact, then you should also be preaching to the masses that gravity does not exist, your basically saying much of the same thing. Second of all the Bible is not wholly clear on how we were created. I am a devout Christian and I have spent all 16 years of my life attending almost every Sunday of church, and to this day I'm unsure of things in Christian creation. Who knows if God was the agent of evolution, and everything that happened was of his doing and not by shear happenstance. Even if God wasn't behind any of our creations, its still pretty amazing that we got here in the first place. There isn't any reason why extremely religious people can't embrace their faith, and find understanding in science. So to all of you religious fanatics, stop giving Christians a bad name and start using your head for a second or two.

    September 12, 2011 at 3:07 pm |
    • Dawgdays

      Jordan, its sounds like you do not yet understand what a Christian truly is. It is not about going to church every Sunday and its not about being a good person throughout your life. Its about believing that there is only one true God and that he sent his son to walk amongst us and show us all the way. And in believing that he is God you would also have to believe that he has always been and will always be. Which would mean that he is the creator of all there is. It sounds like you are struggling with that concept. To believe anything less means that you are only a Christian because you choose to call yourself one. If God is all powerful then he could certainly have created all that we see in an instant. That would also include all which appears as fossil records. No science can ever disprove that.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:19 pm |
      • Peking Duckman

        Actually........ it can.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:26 pm |
    • JoeProfet

      Jordan, Jordan, Jordan...you can only serve one God, Jordan. Either the true living God of creation, or the man-maid god of science. Pick one. One offers eternal salvation, and the other offers no hope what so ever. Then, you can live your life knowing there is no hope whatsoever and just eat drink and be merry, or live knowing that while on this earth you were created in God's image and for His purpose. Then, seek to find your purpose with God. If you believe you have none, then eat, drink, and be merry! Still, your choice. BTW, the bones of each and everything that is dug up was created. Even dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible as well as giants, etc. Everything under the sun including the sun was created for God's purpose and to His satisfaction...not ours. As if we have the audacity to believe that we KNOW how the universe was created, or have the ignorance to decide was is good and what is not. Too funny that someone alive only a micro-second of time compared to how old this earth is could dream that they might be smart enough to know all of these mysteries. And for what...to chase their tail (no tail since we've evolved, lol). $billions of dollars spent trying to state in man's terms what God has already spoken into existence through creation...a waste of time, don't you think? What will man do with such information?? Create man? Evolve man? No, evolution is filled with deceit and inconclusive evidence. Creation is conclusive and with no doubt that God is the author of it. So, just choose who you wish to follow and in the end remember you are responsible for your own soul's salvation!

      September 12, 2011 at 3:28 pm |
    • Answer

      Religion is in essence better for the dead.

      Religion is not for the living.

      September 12, 2011 at 10:20 pm |
  26. tom

    How did life begin? How was the universe created? This cannot be explained apart from God.

    September 12, 2011 at 3:06 pm |
    • NJBob

      That's your opinion. It's not a fact.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:09 pm |
    • Tom R

      Who created god? Where did He get His power? The only possible explanation is the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:11 pm |
      • JP

        Where did matter come from? Something has always existed. Unless of course you believe in spontaneous generation. Both evolution (changing from species to species) and Creation are accepted on faith. I start with the view of there being a God evolutionist (for the most part) start with God not existing. When I look at how complex even the most simple cell is I do not see how it could have come about by chance.

        September 12, 2011 at 6:17 pm |
    • Solution

      Just because you're not smart enough to understand it, doesn't mean it didn't happen...

      September 12, 2011 at 3:15 pm |
    • Interested48

      Yes, it can. It's called science.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:16 pm |
    • Peking Duckman

      Um, yes, it can, Tom.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:26 pm |
    • Cass314

      We don't know for sure yet. But once upon a time, we didn't know a lot of things, and people said that they couldn't be known apart from God. We didn't know how volcanoes worked, or eclipses. We thought the earth was flat and later that the sun orbited it in a perfect circle. We didn't understand the tides, or why people get sick. We didn't understand a whole host of things, except to say "God did it". We understand all of these things now, and we're working on understanding more, and you can bet the people who found them out for us weren't the ones who switched their brains off and said they couldn't be known apart from God.

      September 12, 2011 at 5:10 pm |
  27. Ang

    Here's what bothers me about evolution. Just like religion, you aren't supposed to question it. You're supposed to accept it on faith. If you do question anything about it, you are labeled ignorant or a religious zealot, which I am so, so not. You just have to accept that somehow life spontaneously erupted out of a glob of water and then evolved into all of the world's species. You have to accept that for example, dogs evolved from wolves but that there are still wolves that didn't evolve and apparently missed that evolution boat. (I used the wolf/dog example because of the ape/person hysteria). I think the scientists should be able to say, we don't know all of the answers and be open to the questions.

    September 12, 2011 at 3:06 pm |
    • blah9999

      Do you question the sun rising in the east and setting in the west? Do you question that the earth is round and not flat?

      September 12, 2011 at 3:09 pm |
      • Tom

        You'd probably be surprised to learn that the Bible mentions the "circle of the earth". Flat earth theory was created by man, based on a limited data set.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:43 pm |
    • VinoBianco

      you're not supposed to accept evolution on faith – it's based on science.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:10 pm |
    • Rob

      You do not have to accept evolution on faith - there is a ton of research showing the evidence, and it is publicly available. But I guess it is much easier (and more comforting) to cling to your superstition, which has no evidence whatsoever.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:17 pm |
      • Dawgdays

        My faith tells me that if God is all powerful then he could have just as easily also created all the fossil records in an instant and given them age. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

        September 12, 2011 at 3:28 pm |
    • Well, Actually

      Actually, Ang, scientists are generally very open to questions, and science is always open to be questioned. That is part of what distinguishes science from religious dogma. Why don't you try asking some questions of scientists, politely of course? Then listen carefully to their responses. Better yet, do some justice to the scientists who have already answered many questions about evolution already, and search for your anwsers online first so that you aren't wasting their time.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:17 pm |
      • Ang

        Actually, I'm not supersititious. Pretty agnostic actually. Actually, there is absolutely no scientific proof that life sprang from goo. It is a theory, and any reputable scientist will tell you that. Actually, evolution can certainly be proved within species but not from one species to another. Actually, I do accept that the earth is round – but someone was smart enough to question that it was flat despite the best "science" of the day. Actually, those who think we know all of the answers are the most unevolved species of all.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:26 pm |
      • Well, Actually

        Ang, are you sure you were responding to my post? I don't see your polite questions.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:33 pm |
      • Ang

        Actually, I was responding to all of the posts. The responses proved my point. The "science" masses react exactly like the "religious" masses when their beliefs are questioned. I watched a group of scientists 10 years ago on CSPAN. They were explaining that they have great difficulty getting funding and approval to explore evolution meaningfully because Darwinism has been accepted as absolute dogma and that there are some weaknesses, such as the ones as I mentioned. It is politically unpopular for even scientists to explore anything that even slightly departs from the answers that have been accepted as truths. Anytime we place blind faith in an explanation, regardless of how nonsensical, we give up what makes us the most sucessful species. The quest for knowledge is not a team sport in which we should be choosing sides.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:08 pm |
    • Jay

      Uh, no. First, you don't believe in evolution based on faith. You believe in it based on scientific evidence. Simply because species of apes still exist and man exists doesn't mean apes shouldn't be here and should have all evolved into man(same with Dogs and Wolves). Men and apes came from a common ancestor. We did not evolve from an African Mountain Gorilla or Orangutan, we evolved from a common ancestor that no longer exists, common to both the line that modern apes evolved from, and which we evolved from. Wolves and dogs are even closer, the biggest difference being the domestication and breeding of dogs to what they are today, Wolves being closer to the original species that was not tamed and bread into hundreds of different breeds by humans. I would rather believe I evolved from a common species of ape, than having been created from dirt.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:18 pm |
      • JP

        but when you go back far enough didnt you evolve from dirt?

        September 12, 2011 at 6:26 pm |
    • Nicedice

      On the contrary, asking questions and looking for answers is what science is about. Scientists encourage others to question their work and science flourishes through peer review and taking the research further. Please question evolution- there are hundreds of studies and texts that support it and provide facts and questions to take the research further. Anybody that says you aren’t supposed to question scientific study is missing the whole point.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:18 pm |
    • JAS

      Ang–Science is all about questioning. Science depends on questioning current thought. That is how progress is made–new hypotheses and theories arise as others are proven to be wrong. Religion does not operate in the same way and is based on texts and dogmas that are thousands of years old. Controversies arise in how those texts are interpreted. Evolutionary science has offered an explanation for our existence on earth that is consistent with the available scientific evidence. If a viable scientific alternative to evolution were to arise, the scientific community would vet it and determine if it were consistent with the facts. You are, indeed, allowed, and encouraged to question evolution–it's just that there are no viable scientific alternatives that are consistent with the available data. The conflict between evolution and religion arises because the two hold no common basis for comparison. The statement that "human beings were made in God's image" can never be grounded in science, only faith.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:25 pm |
    • Earthling

      If you get a chance read "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Richard Dawkins. This book should provide you enough answers for your questions.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:30 pm |
      • Earthling - the real one

        Stop using my name. I had it first. As to your point, I wholeheartedly concur. Its a great book.

        September 12, 2011 at 6:17 pm |
      • douglasjames

        I have read it, and as any book, in most cases, if the reader prescribes a philosophy or school of thought and the book goes along with the rationale of the reader then usually the reader would find it to be a great book, disregarding objectivity.

        September 13, 2011 at 11:07 am |
    • lol

      on the contrary, we are CONSTANTLY

      September 12, 2011 at 3:37 pm |
    • Pat

      Actually the wolf>dog example is perfect. Dogs didn't evolve from wolves per se, they were domesticated. Humans controlled the change from wolf to dog. And this actually proves that evolution is possible. If we can change the physical features of animals through domestication then why can't it happen as a result of the various forces of nature, i.e., disease, change in weather patterns, etc.?

      September 12, 2011 at 3:44 pm |
    • One Who Thinks

      Ang: Dogs ARE wolves. They are the same species. They just look different because humans have used selective breeding to influence evolution of generations of wolves to magnify desired traits...yet they are still wolves (and could reproduce with wolves or any other type of dog).

      September 12, 2011 at 3:58 pm |
    • Cass314

      Actually, evolution was questioned, a lot. Subjected to extremely rigorous examination. Over time, scientists accumulated so much evidence for it, so much confirmation of the things it predicted, all the while without anyone ever proving it wrong despite trying for hundreds of years, that it came to be accepted as the best explanation we have. Biologists (I am a biologist) observe and even exploit to make our lives easier evolution every day. It's no more accepted on faith than gravity or germ theory or electromagnetism are. It's accepted based on repeated observation.

      Also, abiogenesis isn't evolution. No one has conclusively demonstrated where the first life came from, though scientists have shown that if you run an electric current through a soup of inorganics, you get the building blocks of life, and other scientists have managed to make RNAs that can partially self-replicate. Research is ongoing in this subject, but to say that we can't believe evolution because we don't know where the first life came from is like saying we can't believe gravity because we don't know where the first mass came from.

      Also, there are still wolves because dogs are domesticated wolves. We (humans) used artificial selection to get the various breeds of dog you see today. Since we didn't domesticate every wolf, there are still wolves. Also, dogs are a subspecies of wolf–canis lupus familiaris. They are still the same species.

      September 12, 2011 at 5:17 pm |
  28. Sjamps

    People believing some god created earth and the universe in 6 days , and all this only some 4000 years ago. And mankind once using dinosaurs as riding animals. They believe all this nonsense mostly because Sarah Palin told them so, a person who idealizes ignorance and the absence of knowledge.
    And then we wonder why our country is such a mess, with nations like China and India eating our lunch. Go buy a brontosaurus burger, you dumb teabaggers..Hopefully you choke on it before you have destroyed our nation completely.

    September 12, 2011 at 3:05 pm |
  29. offgridmaine

    Anyone who does not believe in evolution, has not.... evolved...

    September 12, 2011 at 3:05 pm |
  30. sumday

    There is nothing in the bible that discredits evolution- in fact the geneses account seems to follow the evolution line pretty well- life started in the sea, then plants and animals and then humans. On the 7th day G-d rested bc he was finished with his work which means humans were his ultimate intention not some random thought on the 6th day. If I build a foundation the 1st day, the walls and roof the 2nd day, window n doors the 3rd day, electrical the 4th day, plumbing the 5th day, and on the 6th day I paint and put flooring down- completing the house does that mean what I did on days 1-5 were somehow different from my overall intention? Does it mean I built the house on the 6th day? The part about evolution I disagree with is the random unplanned part. I can’t see how something without intelligence, thought, planning, or future knowledge could randomly change it’s self in balance IE there is no reason the predator shouldn’t out evolve the prey and collapse it’s food chain or even why there was split into preditor/prey. Or why if it takes millions of yr to happen how life could have evolved in just the right way to survive super volcanoes, asteroid impacts, ice ages, ect. It’s like a computer becoming aware of it’s self and thinking that it’s code’s just randomly evolved from calculator to a super computer by itself. The creatures alive today appear more designed instead of some hap-hazard random accident. If every single place you went all your life you ran into the exact same person every time would you call that some crazy chance or think someone was following you? Well the same is true for unplanned evolution, I could possible believe that 1 or 2 life’s evolved randomly, but expecting me to believe billions of life forms evolved in balance with one another is crazy. In science every action has an equal and opposite reaction which means life didn’t change on it’s own. Something caused it to change.

    September 12, 2011 at 3:05 pm |
    • NJBob

      If god is so powerful, why on earth would he need to rest on the seventh day? Was he all tuckered out?

      September 12, 2011 at 3:11 pm |
      • Peking Duckman

        He had to do laundry and catch up on some DVr'd shows.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:29 pm |
    • Abolish All Religion

      "I disagree with is the random unplanned part." You disagree with it because it doesn't fit into your religion. A religion that was invented by people from the bronze age who believed the world was flat. Yeah, that's a higher authority than any product of the scientific method which has proven to work flawlessly for only the last 500 years. You also disagree with it because you don't actually understand evolution and the intricate processes involved in it. Your understanding of evolution comes either from cartoons or your pastor or Sarah Palin, or all the above. I can guarantee you have never taken a course in genetics.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:19 pm |
    • Donna

      Finally a voice of reason. I was not going to add my voice to the melee until I read yours. Thank you for posting. What troubles me is the name calling. I see no reason for the evolutionists to revert to their primordial state when posting here, yet so many seem to think its the only way to prove their claim!

      September 12, 2011 at 3:19 pm |
    • itslogical

      Great post. I appreciate your logic and reasoning. Evolutionists don't see or want to see the whole picture. One point being that everything living is "interdependent" without one the other would not survive. Another is energy, without the sun, again, nothing would survive. The balance of water and air, distance from the sun the moon, the earth axis and on and on....the cause and affect elements are evidence/fact that intelligent will was behind each purposeful act.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:28 pm |
      • Answer

        You're not so logical.

        The Earth and the planets themselves are not what you are called in perfect orbits that you want to think. Everything is not in perfect accordance with your God dogma creation. The Earth is sitting in in orbit that allows for life. The Earth could swing 10,000 miles in and out of its held distance from the Sun without much affect. The Moon itself can swing away a fair distance away, without causing too much havoc. All your flaunted wishes that everything was set 'precisely' is your held notion that it is a design when it is not.

        Have you not realized that the last 8 point something major earthquake that rocked Japan threw the Earth off it's position somewhat. The Earth was never set precisely in it's orbit, it fell into this orbit by the forces of gravity and thankfully it stayed in it's position threw opposing forces that gave life a chance to spawn.

        September 12, 2011 at 10:34 pm |
  31. palintwit

    Sarah Palin believes that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that early man rode dinosaurs to church every Sunday.

    September 12, 2011 at 3:04 pm |
    • Tryna13

      bwahahahahahha...too funny

      September 12, 2011 at 3:10 pm |
    • rapierpoint

      Can you provide a direct quote from Palin regarding your assertion? A quick check on Google didn't bring to light any quotes or actual video that shows Palin actually saying "the earth is 6000 years old"

      September 12, 2011 at 3:17 pm |
      • Well, Actually

        You didn't look very hard. Try here http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/09/20/604403/-Palin-is-a-Young-Earth-Creationist, which turns up in the first page hits from googling "palin age of earth" and the referenced LA times article.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:26 pm |
  32. Jeff

    Whose to say God didn't just create the Primordial ooze from which this image of man became?

    September 12, 2011 at 3:04 pm |
    • Breanne

      Since there's no scientific evidence of that happening I think it's fair to assume that that's not how it went down. If there is a God, and He did create the universe, shouldn't we believe what He says about how he made it? After all, He was the only one there when it happened.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:06 pm |
      • NJBob

        No, god was not there when it happened. His creation had to await the appearance of humans.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:13 pm |
  33. sam

    if you think evolution is a fantasy, then ask yourself where you draw the line between science that is a supposed fantasy and science that you embrace on a daily basis. consider the irony of decrying science on the internet.

    willful ignorance is america's weak link.

    September 12, 2011 at 3:03 pm |
    • David

      I am a believer in divine creation, and evolution. I utilize the scientific method in my daily work, and believe firmly that in seeking truth it is important to evaluate the world (and religion) from that standpoint. The scientific method neither proves, nor disproves evolution or religion unfortunately (yet). It doesn't explain how something as complex as an eyeball, which has multiple functioning systems in it which would be pointless if they hadn't all came in to being at exactly the same time exists. It also doesn't explain why evolution would create a creature that operates completely outside of and non-harmoniously with it's ecosystem (humans). Furthermore, the bible tells us that we need to "prove" our belief and the teachings in the bible to ourselves. To simply believe in something for no reason is foolish. There are still a lot of questions to be answered about evolution and about God. Regardless, I don't think either should just be accepted on faith. That's my two cents.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:14 pm |
      • David

        Science was never meant to disprove religion. Those who choose knowledge over faith and try to disprove it have fallen victim to the apple of the snake.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:45 pm |
      • CalgarySandy

        The apple and the snake. Hmmmm I find this story amusing in the extreme. God set up two trees to entrap his brand new creation. As a child being tormented in a Baptist Church, I harbored thoughts that God was a jerk who deliberately sets up and then punishes the humans he supposedly loves. This happens again and again in the Bible. I wanted answers and got threats of HeII for blasphemy. As an Adult I find it telling that Eve, the second woman created for Adam, could have selected the Tree of Life and lived forever. In stead she chose the Three of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. I suspect the snake came to her because Adam, sniveling creep that he was whining about Lilith not obeying him. would have taken the eternal life and spent it as a dumbazz. Even Eve, deliberately created for Adam but not herself, was a more interesting and independent human. The high school kids in my Social Studies classes loved my revisionist take on the original sin. God creates and then sets up to sin. Forever after everyone is doomed. If such a god existed I would be gunning for him.

        We are not monkeys. We are primates. We share a common ancestor with Chimps (vile and blood thirsty. Patriarchal ) and Bonobos (settle problems with sex not a big stick. Avoid physical violence. Matriarchal.) It is in the DNA. I decided just this minute that anyone who does not believe in science should no longer have the benefits of it. Kick their sorry and bigoted behinds out to sea or something. It is a criminal waste of money to have to keep explaining things to the willfully ignorant people. Can you believe we let them breed?

        September 12, 2011 at 5:36 pm |
    • Skeptic

      "Consider the irony of decrying science on the Internet." This is the best comment I have ever read in my life.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:24 pm |
  34. Alexander F.

    Also for you god-followers, think about this. If your god is so powerful and loves you and by extension America so much, why did he let September 11 happen? Was he asleep at the controls? Why didn't he speak through a talking snake or a burning bush to Bush to let him know what was going to happen? He can't tell the names of 19 people? Why did he let Hurricane Katrina happen or the Japan earthquake or the 2009 tsunami? There certainly are chrisitians in that part of the world so what gives? Why is he letting HIV, poverty and famine forage the earth to people that are completely innocent and just trying to make it through the day? Even more audacious, why does god let his own employees (preachers) get killed in "his house" (church) at point blank range? Is he on a coffee break?

    September 12, 2011 at 3:01 pm |
    • XIX

      There is no conflict between science ad religion. They approach truth by different means. Stop trying to disprove the other; to do so is not only wrong but impossible given their exclusive ranges.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:05 pm |
      • CalgarySandy

        This is correct. God-heads apply opinions and scientists look for facts. Science looks for a cure to disease, goddies look for the sin that caused it and pray over it. Science encourages objectivity and proofs. Jebus Freaks try to make sure their children are ill educated to work in the modern world. They prefer brainwashing at the hands of their elders. Science says: Education. Religion says: Faith and Obedience. Science says: Mental Health Problem. Religion says: Demon possessed. I could do this forever but the point is made to anyone who is up to understanding anything other than to beat your child so they do not go to HeII.

        September 12, 2011 at 5:43 pm |
    • Terry

      They've got a standard answer for that ... "God works in mysterious ways." Religion's greatest escape route.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:07 pm |
      • XIX

        Which isn't found in the Bible. God is evident in Creation. Science is the means of discovering how He made it, not why. Revelation provides the meaning science cannot.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:09 pm |
    • gypsymoth21

      Because this isn't Heaven.....it's Earth.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:10 pm |
      • zoysia

        it's neither - it's hell

        September 12, 2011 at 4:17 pm |
    • Anthony

      The basis of Christianity assumes this is a broken world and that God values the human choice to love and serve him. This free will opens up the potential of evil and sin. As for natural disasters, these should never be viewed as "evil." They are indeed monumental and sublime (and deadly) but not inherently evil. If the world was perfect in every way, how would we choose God instead, who is indeed perfect?

      September 12, 2011 at 3:19 pm |
    • Mike in NYC

      You clearly don't understand the basic existence of the G-d of Abraham and His relationship with this planet and our species. G-d created this planet and everything on it. And while He has the ability to, He does not control everything that occurs, nor does he insert Himself into every event in ways that we necessarily understand. Does He create natural disasters? Perhaps – but as the Bible tells us He has used these events in many different ways – from testing us, to showing us His power, or even to provide us with an opportunity to show that we are indeed a race worthy of continue to exist based on our responses to these events. We never know which it is.

      I am a Christian but that does not mean that I automatically discount the theory of evolution. There is nothing to say that G-d didn't create man USING evolution. And the whole 6,000 yr old planet thing. C'mon be serious. Clearly our planet has been here for billions of years, however, we need to keep in mind that G-d does not work in the same time frame that we do. Who is to say that 'a week' of G-d time isn't a billion years of man time? My point is that, as I've stated, that having faith in something larger than yourself does not necessitate automatically discounting science.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:22 pm |
    • Fred1

      Personally I’m wondering if there is a god, why don’t Christians come off any better in a disaster than everyone else? Don’t Christians refer to jesus as the good shepherd lovingly watching over his flock?

      September 12, 2011 at 4:55 pm |
      • beelzebubba

        As a self-appointed religious authority I'd like to answer your question. God never creates a disaster without creating an opportunity for a religious leader to use it for his own benefit. This has been going on since the first shyster realized he could rule his tribe that was leveled by an earthquake by claiming the gods were angered... naturally he knew the way to appease the god he fabricated. What did Jerry Foulsmell say when AIDS terrorized the public??? See what I mean? Every salesman knows that Fear sells. Please support my prosperity ministry at The First National Church of Materialism with a 'love gift' (1000 dollar donations are greatly appreciated)

        September 13, 2011 at 6:29 am |
  35. Carl

    Joseph Campbell in an interview with Dr. Jeff Mishlove. "There’s no real conflict between science and religion. Religion is the recognition of the deeper dimensions that the science reveals to us. What is in conflict is the science of 2000 B.C., which is what you have in the Bible, and the science of the twentieth century A.D. You have to disengage the messages of the Bible from its science."

    September 12, 2011 at 3:01 pm |
  36. Gezus

    From Charles Darwins Origin of a species.

    "This Abstract, which I now publish, must necessarily be imperfect. I cannot here give references and authorities for my several statements; and I must trust to the reader reposing some confidence in my accuracy. No doubt errors will have crept in, though I hope I have always been cautious in trusting to good authorities alone'.

    To accept his discussion as fact has misled generations of the true nature of a species evolution. Mankind has distorted it as a defacto declaration of obscene misrepresentation.

    September 12, 2011 at 3:01 pm |
    • Solution

      "Mankind has distorted it as a defacto declaration of obscene misrepresentation."

      You just described the Bible...

      September 12, 2011 at 3:03 pm |
      • Gezus

        lol,

        I wasn't going there.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:09 pm |
  37. geoffbeneze

    Evolution is God's 7 days broken down to the component steps.

    God isn't limited to 24 hour days. God has no limits.

    I don't understand the pantie wetting distress this causes both sides of the proposition.

    September 12, 2011 at 3:00 pm |
    • Drew

      If man evolved apes.why are there still monkeys?

      September 12, 2011 at 3:05 pm |
      • XIX

        Because, not all monkeys evolved, just like not all apes evolved into humans. Different clades evolved according to different pressures. This is so basic....

        September 12, 2011 at 3:07 pm |
      • Bill

        I really hate when this question comes up. All it takes is a genetic mutation in ONE monkey to start humans on their way....not ALL monkeys!!!!!!

        September 12, 2011 at 3:18 pm |
      • For Drew

        Man didn't evolve from today's monkeys. Man and today's monkeys evolved from a common ancestor.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:25 pm |
    • Sean

      Yeah and the earth was created before the sun according to your book – way to go with the order =)

      September 12, 2011 at 3:06 pm |
    • Drew

      If man evolved apes.why are there still monkeys?Its true

      September 12, 2011 at 3:06 pm |
  38. Champcantwin

    Night elves evolved from trolls!!!!!!

    September 12, 2011 at 3:00 pm |
    • Arturo

      lol That was funny. I'm a man of faith but I got a sense of humor. Too many people take other opinions too seriously.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:05 pm |
    • Lefach

      Yay...Epic Win!

      September 12, 2011 at 3:29 pm |
  39. biblestudent

    For Belle1231. How long is one of God's days? The Bible does reply at Psalm 90:4 which reads "O Jehovah...For a thousand years are in your eyes but as yesterday when it is past." And at 2Peter 3:8 it reads "However, let this one fact not be escaping your notice, beloved one, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day."

    September 12, 2011 at 2:58 pm |
    • Sean

      So saith a bunch of bronze age shepherd... that's a great idea for basing a life philosophy and scientific research on...!

      September 12, 2011 at 3:05 pm |
      • AP

        She wasn't arguing life philosophy. She is giving a textual defense for the idea of a "day" inside of the bible with another individual who reads the same text. Your binary thinking gives evidence to the real problem inside of America and the rest of the globe.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:16 pm |
      • Fact Check

        BTW .... Solomon was a King (a historical fact) and Peter was a fisherman (ditto!) .... blind leading the blind you are...

        September 12, 2011 at 4:15 pm |
    • Troy

      I'm just wondering what will happen when life on other planets is found. There are billions of these planets and to think we are the only one with life, to me, is close minded. The Bible does not mention this life, so will they also not exist?

      September 12, 2011 at 3:08 pm |
      • Answer

        Those sort of questions are what makes science fiction.
        If alien species were to be found on distant planets, it is sure that they will have the same kind of problems we have. Or have overcomed. Depending on how much they've advanced.

        They must have gone through the dogma of religion also. If they've advance to the same conclusions to reject and cleanse religion then they would be friendly but wary of finding humans or other alien life's. They would realize that with religion in control of their own government that they would be warlike, they would turn to conversion of other lifeforms because simply of believing theirs is right. So galactic wars would happen.

        However if they were not a religious society, they would meet in a neutral area of space to have diplomacy.
        The subject is always about how advanced an alien society is..

        If their technology were beyond ours. They won't be that interested. They will be diplomatic.
        The chances of us finding them is rare. The chances of an alien life from other regions of space finding us are better.
        We can assume that we have crap technology. That they are the superior forces.

        In the given scenario it is not wise to assume that with other life forms that have superior forces coming at us, will be peaceful. The peaceful ones we know will not be religious nor will they send in massive troops. They would most likely send a robotic drone to discover us.

        September 12, 2011 at 10:53 pm |
    • Gary

      Are you saying this is how long gods day is? Because this is just a comparison statement. Saying that if your a god and you live forever a day is like a thousand years. What difference would a second an hour or a year make in eternity. Its not saying a thousand years is to a day as a fact. or am I miss understanding you.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:12 pm |
    • krakfiend

      that was meant to be as an understanding, not fact. what is time when you are eternal? if you were eternal, one day would be the same as 1000. yet he created the world in 7 days. does that mean 7 actual days or 7000 yrs. does that mean chick filet won't be open for another 6990 yrs. if you are going to take one comment and make it as fact, you need to apply it to the rest of the storybook. religious people, no matter what religion, always take one comment, passage, take it out on context and use it to try to support their own beliefs. they just forget about the hundreds, thousands of other passages, commandments and laws.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:20 pm |
  40. CosmicC

    Religion and science or both man-made interpretations of the universe. One is based on faith the other on observable fact. Neither negates the other. They are two different points of view.
    So what is the real issue? I think it's that some people are offended by the suggestion that they are not different from other animals. They need to believe they are special so badly that they latch onto a belief system that excludes the possibility of anything that offends them.
    Me? I'm more offended by the suggestion that I might share some common genetic heritage with a pedophile or mass murder than I am by the idea that I share a common ancester with a chimpanzee. Either way, I don't see the logic in denying observable fact.

    September 12, 2011 at 2:58 pm |
    • mswhte

      i concur!

      September 12, 2011 at 3:05 pm |
    • TSB8C

      Certainly the age of the earth or universe is something that can be reconciled in both religion and science. But humans evolving from monkeys is not. Religion (Judeo-Christian) teaches that humans are created by God, in his image, and that other life forms were created the way they exist. Just because science can identify similarities doesn't change that or prove one evolved from the other. That's why evolution is still called a theory and not proven fact. Jellyfish and clouds share 98% of the same genetic makeup, but that doesn't prove one evolved from the other either.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:18 pm |
      • One Who Thinks

        A scientific theory is not a guess. It is based on overwhelming evidence and is supported by observation and hard facts, and is used reliably to help explain the real world. The use of the word "theory" outside of science is completely different that the use of the word when used in a scientific context.

        Clouds are just collections of tiny droplets of water. Jellyfish are animals. The only genetic material in a cloud would come from any bacteria or viruses trapped in the water, as water itself has no genetic material. A jellyfish has many genes, which are used to both control every part of it and pass on traits to later generations.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:11 pm |
      • PMan

        Look up the definition of "theory" in a scientific context. There is no such term as "fact" in science. Theory is as close as it gets.

        September 12, 2011 at 5:12 pm |
      • Answer

        @TSB8C

        We know you want to be special. Your mommy and daddy have taught you that. You can not give it up. Just face it.
        You aren't special.

        September 12, 2011 at 11:03 pm |
      • fin

        "Look up the definition of "theory" in a scientific context. There is no such term as "fact" in science. Theory is as close as it gets."

        They're not getting it........... like the college course I took "Music Theory".......

        September 13, 2011 at 10:46 am |
  41. Dexter22

    If Heaven does exist, and only God's chosen people go to heaven, then why does to have a gate around it? Who is it keeping out? Also, for every bad thing that have every happened, a loving God allowed it to happen.

    September 12, 2011 at 2:57 pm |
    • CosmicC

      If all, or even some, religions are valid and at least two religions hold that non-believers will go to hell, then everyone is going to hell.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:12 pm |
  42. BadMonkey

    Huh?? – "...this being a science blog, we are going to report with the assumption that the prevailing, tested theory with the most rigorous evidence – evolution – is true." -
    Wow, CNN moves theory from the realm of theory to the realm of fact without so much as a wince of doubt. This even while admitting that ' truth is that there is no simple chain of ancestry with a "missing link" '. Unbelievable.

    September 12, 2011 at 2:54 pm |
    • Darthlawsuit

      God created evolution and gently guided everything in the way he wanted. /thread

      September 12, 2011 at 2:56 pm |
    • Solution

      They said that because evolution is no longer a theory. It was proven as fact decades ago... Most Americans are just too clueless to understand and accept this...

      September 12, 2011 at 3:01 pm |
      • Breck

        No, no, no, no, no, no, no! Theories do not go on to become Laws or are "proven". A Theory is a well thought out explination with multiple lines of evidence. You cannot prove anything with science, you can only disprove things. Evolution is the most reasonable explination for the diversity of life we see here on this planet, but it is very incorrect to say that anything has been "proven" when it comes to science.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:16 pm |
    • Osro

      BadMonkey, you seem to be confused about 2 things:
      1- a "theory" is the highest level an idea can achieve in science. In scientific terminology the words "theory" and "fact" are essentially synonymous. You seem to be confusing this with the colloquial use of the word "theory" which is synonymous with "hypothesis"
      2. If you placed a skeleton of every generation starting with the first biped and ending with homo sapien, you would be able to see that the differences between each generation are not discernible and only when looked at over large gaps of time are differences apparent. Thus, there is no "missing link" to be found, only fossils from different periods of evolution.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:04 pm |
      • BadMonkey

        1. Science has to remain objective in order to be of any value to anyone.
        2. Regardles of how you decide to define Theory, evolution is still unproven. You can't guarantee that every fosil deemed 'Hominid' is your ancestor...
        3. ... and you can't guarantee there is no bias in the scientific community either.
        4. Don't let your opinions cloud your judgement.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:18 pm |
      • André

        Badmonkey is just a troll or an idiot. He should visit a museum or go back to school.

        September 12, 2011 at 5:04 pm |
    • todd in DC

      Wow, you really don't understand the meaning of the word theory in this context. Theory means open to further study. Evolution is a very long drawn out process over millions of years. Many fossils have been destroyed either by nature or by man. To find a different fossil means to open a new field of study, not to disprove the entire theory of evolution.

      Or are you now going to tell me that the theory of gravity disproves the existence of gravity?

      September 12, 2011 at 3:04 pm |
      • André

        Gravity is a Law. The Law of Gravity.
        A theory is stronger than a law. It's something that has been proven again and again by an incredible amount of evidence. It is something that is accepted and no longer needs proof.

        September 12, 2011 at 5:03 pm |
    • Kate

      Please understand that when a scientist uses the word "theory", he/she is referring to an explanation which is validated by either experiment or observation. That is why we have the "theory" of gravity and the "theory" of relativity.

      Your understanding of the word "theory" is the common "I have a theory...." which is actually a scientist's hypothesis.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:07 pm |
      • André

        Gravity is a Law, but your point still stands.

        September 12, 2011 at 5:01 pm |
    • dave

      This is a popular misunderstanding of what "theory" means in a scientific context. It is very different from the everyday use of the word. A scientific theory is not a guess. It is a robust explanation of the facts. You can't get better than a "theory" in science. For a further explanation:

      http://notjustatheory.com/

      September 12, 2011 at 3:07 pm |
      • BadMonkey

        Everyone is saying the same thing ... trying to define the word 'theory' ... the point still stands: 'Theory' is not Truth or Fact. CNN by it's own admission states that they have decided to "assume that the theory with the most rigorous evidence – evolution – is true". ... and it appears that there are many out there who's opinions are clouding objective judgement.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:31 pm |
    • abcd

      Bad monkey. Bad, bad monkey. Go back to grade 6 and start over.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:10 pm |
    • stlouis jake

      "theory" in science is fact. if you had progressed beyond 7th grade, you would know what theory means in the context fo the body of scientific knowledge. just sayin'.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:11 pm |
      • BadMonkey

        I have a question for you: on a scale of 1 to 10 how big of a moron are you?

        September 12, 2011 at 3:33 pm |
    • Matt

      The word theory is used differently in science than the common definition used in everyday conversation. For instance, there is the theory of gravity; which no one seems to dispute as fact Evolution was a hypothesis that has been supported by a variety of fields, not just paleontology, so it has been elevated to the status of a theory. The evidence for which is so strong that we have established that evolutions is true, but our understanding of the mechanisms and details are being refined all the time; with genetics and each new fossil.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:12 pm |
    • Brian

      Proof of the existance of evolution does not require fossil evidence. Therefore gaps in these records are irrelivant. Evolution is proven through many independant lines of evidence that all validate the same thing "evolution". Fossil records only show our path through evolution and our relation to other species through the evolutionary tree. Again, not required to prove the theory.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:15 pm |
      • William Norton

        You talk about evolution as a fact yet your last words on it say theory. So even you don't know what you’re talking about.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:23 pm |
    • Sweet T

      I guess ill be ther hero here, and clarify all of this.

      'Evolution – the transition from one life form to another' is fact. 99.98% of the scientific community agree on this.
      the mechanism in which this happens, unoriginally named 'the theory of evolution' is the mechanism in which evolution happens is a theory, but as many have stated before me, all signs indicate it's fact. And just FYI, Evolution has nothing to do with the origination of life on the planet, only how life evolved once it was here.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:32 pm |
    • Cass314

      Theory means something different in biology than it does in layman's terms. For example, germ theory is "just" a theory. But the fact that many human diseases are caused by pathogens, say, HIV or influenza or what have you in particular, is indeed a fact. Furthermore, even if we never found the "missing link" (which is somewhat fallacious; evolution predicts lots of these over a very long period of time, slowly becoming more recognizable as human with others shooting off into evolutionary "dead ends") it would not disprove evolution or even human evolution, which has overwhelming evidence in its favor. Also, keep in mind that fossilization is a rare event that can only occur in very specific circumstances; otherwise we'd be up to our ears in T. Rexes.

      September 12, 2011 at 5:26 pm |
  43. Breanne

    Christians do not deny natural selection. Natural selection is a well-documented, provable theory. What Christians dispute is that evolution explains the origins of life or that man evolved from lower beings. Evolution does nothing to explain the origin of life, that isn't even in the realm of evolution. Furthermore, there is no evidence that natural selection creates more complex creatures from more simple ones. The people who state "evolution is a fact" must either be talking about natural selection, or must not understand what they are talking about. Even if you infinitely extrapolated natural selection theory to try and explain speciation from an original single organism, science has no way of explaining the origins of life. For anyone to believe that there is no God and life originated from a random mix of chemicals they'd have to believe in spontaneous generation, which is very unscientific. Not only spontaneous generation of life, but they'd have to believe that energy, matter, etc. are eternal, which is also pretty implausible. Blind faith in science is still blind faith, atheists need to think more critically.

    September 12, 2011 at 2:54 pm |
    • Zaphod

      Your claim that there is no evidence of the evolution of higher life forms is false. DNA evidence can follow chains of virus implanted DNA strains along entire branches of the evolutionary tree.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:01 pm |
    • john

      thanks for this post. im FLOORED by the amount of people who blindly accept evolution without even coming close to considering the foundation of creation from absolute zero. Most think evolution has been proven already and anyone who doesnt accept it is crazy. When the fact is, if you subscribe to evolution, then you are accepting facts that may be more far fetched than any 'religious; story you can imagine..

      September 12, 2011 at 3:06 pm |
      • Dave

        Not true John. The farther fetched story is believing in a being that is way more complex than any beginning of life would have to be. The creator by definition has to be more complex than the creation, so logically creation from nothing makes more sense and is less of a stretch. It just doesn't seem like it because given our propensity to order things and make sense of the random, it seems counter intuitive. It's much easier to just create a creator and say it always was.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:14 pm |
      • Mike

        My dad put his penis in my mom.... and his sperm went in to her vagina and that is how I was created. It had nothing to do with God.... oh yeah... btw... I might be gay. hmmm but my parents aren't. So maybe GOD did create me this way on purpose. Then stop hatin' on those created by god if you truly believe we were all created by god oh yeah... bigots get to have it both ways at the same time.... They get to say god created us all... but Gay people are not natural? How can that be? By your own standard god created us all? Right? Then who are you to tell me that god doesn't have a plan already in mind for me. 🙂

        September 12, 2011 at 3:16 pm |
    • Mike

      Remeber when people used to think the world was flat? They actually put people to death over contridicting them, but it didn't change that fact that the world was a round sphere and we eventually got to the truth without much help from the status quo. Did god tell them it was flat? No. Did the bible tell them it was flat. Of course not. I thought DNA testing pretty much proved that our coding is virtually identical to all other animals on the planet except for the slight variations of the DNA sequence which causes a creature to develop in to a bird rather than a person. If you truly believe in God. God empowered us to have a brain and intellegence to figure out that we are all connected whether you want to admit it or not. People use gods to help them try to explain things that they don't understand.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:06 pm |
      • Breanne

        Yes, all life forms' DNA are pretty similar. All that proves is that all life forms' DNA are pretty similar. Correlation does not equal causality. Red and blue are both colors, does that mean that one produced the other? Apparently, the simple fact that life forms reproduce leads people to believe that they all produced each other.

        As far as the earth being a few thousand years old (6,000 or so), there's no reason to call people who believe that stupid. Age is in the eye of the beholder. The only reason to think that the earth is billions of years old or however old it's supposed to be now (they keep bumping it back) is because it would take billions upon billions of years worth of random iterations to have the planet we have today. It's circular reasoning to say that the earth has to be billions of years old for evolution to take place and then say that it has to be billions of years old because, well, evolution duh! The earth is a living, breathing organism full of fire and life. There's good reason to believe that it isn't billions of years old. Why is it so obvious to you how old the earth is? Have actually thought about it, or do you just assume it's extremely old because you heard someone else say that?

        September 12, 2011 at 3:23 pm |
      • Mike

        Radio carbon-dating is a well-proven method of tracking material age. On this basis, dinosaur bones, for example, are not just a few thousand years old.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:32 pm |
    • manny

      why is it so impossible to think that God created the big bang and his plan was evolution...the fact that He just dropped us on this planet a few thousand years ago is absolutely ridiculous, and speaks to the intelligence of those who believe it. You want to believe what a few people wrote 2000 years ago to actual science that proves otherwise...stop following like lost sheep and step back and use your evolved brain to think logically.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:07 pm |
      • Breanne

        Why is it any more plausible that God created the big bang than He created the universe in a more mature form? You didn't see the big bang happen, you take it on faith.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:27 pm |
    • Dave

      The problem is going from something that's implausible, spontaneous regeneration to something that's even more complex, a being that created the spark of life which is even more implausible. God would have to be so much more complex than any beginning of life which begs the question where did God come from? The answer too often given is he/she/it always existed. If that's true then so could life have always existed thus no need for God to create it.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:10 pm |
      • Breanne

        Everything that has a beginning requires a cause. If you want to believe that matter is eternal and has no beginning, fine. But what is more plausible, that a immortal being has no beginning, or that matter has no beginning? You'll have to decide that for yourself.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:26 pm |
    • Breanne

      "Mike
      My dad put his penis in my mom.... and his sperm went in to her vagina and that is how I was created. It had nothing to do with God.... oh yeah... btw... I might be gay. hmmm but my parents aren't. So maybe GOD did create me this way on purpose. Then stop hatin' on those created by god if you truly believe we were all created by god oh yeah... bigots get to have it both ways at the same time.... They get to say god created us all... but Gay people are not natural? How can that be? By your own standard god created us all? Right? Then who are you to tell me that god doesn't have a plan already in mind for me."

      God did create you, and does have a plan for you. I don't think saying that being gay is not "natural" sums it up well. Obviously the activities that happen between members of the same sex happen in nature. But do you believe that every human impulse is natural or good? By the same token you could say that God created pedophiles. Well obviously God created pedophiles, but that does not mean that their impulses are good. I think you would agree that pedophiles' sexual impulses are not good. Are they natural? Yes. God gave us free will, we can choose to follow Him and live within the rules that He created for the universe, or we can choose to go against Him and His created order. You were given the free will to choose to engage in homosexual activities, but you're likely to have 20 fewer years of life than a heterosexual man, and you'll have to answer to God for going against His created order. Sorry dude.😥

      September 12, 2011 at 3:41 pm |
    • balansact

      You are confusing the origin of life with evolution. Evolution does not state how life began but rather it is a theory which is supported by known evidence of how life progressed through changes to provide specific characteristics. (I was getting tired of using the word "evolve")

      September 12, 2011 at 4:10 pm |
      • Breanne

        That's exactly what I"m not confusing.

        September 12, 2011 at 5:06 pm |
  44. Gimble

    All this discussion and nobody has even come close to the obvious.
    1. Modern man suddenly entered thie picture a few thousand years ago. At this time no new detail show what happened to the so called missing link.
    2. The soul of man leaves the body at death, then enters another dimension. Those who have experienced near death clearly describe a tunnel of light that they started to enter.
    3. If you have seen ghosts as I have then it is clear there are those that never wanted to move on, so they stayed behind.
    4. The point is that the human body is simply a vehicle used by the soul/spirit inside.
    5. The old model bodies, i.e. Knuckledraggers and others showed very limited potential for the needs of future incarnations.
    6. So the discussion should be in 2 parts. The developement of the vehicle ( Human Body ) and the use of the vehicle by the spirit. Not Religious use, as that aspect is entirely an earthbound issue.
    7. Just start thinking and it all makes sense.

    September 12, 2011 at 2:54 pm |
    • Carl

      1) Citation Needed
      2) Citation Needed
      3) Citation Needed
      4) Citation Needed
      5) Citation Needed
      6) Citation Needed
      7) Citation Needed

      September 12, 2011 at 2:59 pm |
    • NJBob

      It makes no sense to me! Ghosts?? People seeing a white light after a "near death experience"? (It's due to oxygen deprivation!) What evidence do you have for a soul? You cite a lot of "facts" but give no evidence!!

      September 12, 2011 at 3:03 pm |
    • saopaco

      You are stating your opinions as fact.
      I do not agree with your opinions, so provide some data to win me over?

      September 12, 2011 at 3:04 pm |
    • lol

      try employing #7 in your daily life, you will be amazed.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:08 pm |
    • john

      for all the options to these, there is no proof either. the things you people equate to proof, arent. evolution? we have absolutley no proof whatsoever. we have never EVER witnessed ANYTHING born into existence from nothing, yet evolution is though of as fact. so very very strange. And by the way, proof does not equal truth. 2+2=4. i can prove that. but its not the truth. in a black hole 2+2 does NOT equal 4. we have PROOF of that.. hows that for ya?

      September 12, 2011 at 3:08 pm |
      • lol

        and with one biting comment, john has toppled the theory of evolution and the dozens of independent fields of study that overwhelmingly support it! evolution doesn't claim to know how life began on earth, only how it gradually changed. have you actually read and studied the theory? doesn't seem like it, but hey, i'm not here to ruffle anyone's panties.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:45 pm |
    • EnergyBeing3

      I agree with Gimble. There is evidence through the aligning of stories from humans all over the world. I personally have had several OBE's (Out of Body Experiences) that are beyond a shadow of a doubt the personal evidence I needed to realize that there is a soul energy, a consciousness outside of a human vehicle. Do a little research into OBE's along with some of Dr. Michael Newton's works with his studies of "Life Between Lives" where he hypnotizes hundreds of people and documents the session of what life and purpose is like in the spirit realm. Also, look into the teachings of the Chakra system. All of these findings are coming together and helping us to have deeper understandings.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:23 pm |
      • Answer

        Energy..

        Just because you said it is absolute prove – to you – doesn't hold water.
        I've had out of body experiences and was in oblivion. Just plain darkness, nothingness. I was aware like you.
        Was just traveling to work (was a passenger in the car) when it all went and I came back and was aware when the scenery scrolled by. Just goes to prove these things aren't clues to anything special.

        September 12, 2011 at 11:22 pm |
  45. I. Knowthings

    The theory of Evolution is based on scientific observation and experimentation. Yes, there are assumptions that have to be made, but those assumptions are agreed on by the vast majority of scientists, and quite frankly all science has similar assumptions. If some new information comes along that questions currently held ideas about evolution or anything about science, it gets tested and the idea behind that science grows/changes. That's how science works! It's not about belief, it's about testing an idea, observing the results, and refining the test to get more information, ad infinitum. We will never know all the answers and that's not such a bad thing.

    Ideas based on God or Intelligent Design are by definition not science. They are based on beliefs that cannot be experimentally tested. Evolution and God by no means have to be mutually exclusive, and evolution does NOT explain how life came about. But one is science and one is not, and when you mistake God for science you get us that much closer to reliving the Dark Ages.

    September 12, 2011 at 2:53 pm |
    • Tom

      Okay, here's a test for you. Did you read about the discovery of viable DNA found in the 65 million year-old bones of a T. rex specimen, it was discovered a year or two ago? It shocked the scientists that discovered it. It is, frankly, unbelievable and ridiculous. So, do you re-evaluate the age of the fossil based on this hard evidence? Or do you stick this square peg in the round hole of currently accepted scientific dogma and simply move on, believing that DNA can survive for 65 million years?

      September 12, 2011 at 3:10 pm |
      • I. Knowthings

        You try to study and find out how it happened. What were the circumstances? Will it change the world's view of fossils and DNA? Maybe. But it's a hell of a lot better than just saying "God did it."

        September 12, 2011 at 3:16 pm |
    • john

      there is no scientific experimentation that PROVES evolution. we have theories and assumptions but that how we came up with the greek gods. Hmm, giraffes couldnt reach leaves so their necks magically grew long to reach the leaves. how is that any diffferent from animals going 2*2 onto an ark?"

      September 12, 2011 at 3:10 pm |
      • I. Knowthings

        Not sure exactly what you're saying but if i understand correctly it means you have no idea what the theory of natural selection is.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:24 pm |
    • James Strong

      Interesting opinions held with passion. How ever I suggest we all think carefully, as in our past "scientists" have agreed that the popular held "facts" are true: Examples of old FACTS; the world was flat and if you disagreed you would burn at the stake. Again the agreement was: The earth is the center of the universe, disagree and you burn! Today it is "global warming/climate change with the proponents wanting to burn the disbelievers. It amounts to this: We are all entitled to our opinions and should "play nice". Now does God exist? Well, those of us who believe try to live a God centered life. When we die, if our beliefs were false, we will never know it. If believers are right then they look forward to an eternity of joy and peace. If the deniers are wrong and God does exist when the deniers die they are in for an eternity of regrets. And these ARE two true FACTS!

      September 12, 2011 at 3:22 pm |
      • I. Knowthings

        The idea of God is based on belief. That is a FACT.
        Science is based on observation. Also FACT.
        God is not science. Such a FACT it hurts!

        And people are stupid and imperfect and always have been and always will be. All we can do is learn from the past and move on.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:28 pm |
    • Oakspar

      When has evolution ever been tested or proved?

      Scientific proof requires observation, and until we can travel faster than light, we will never be able to observe the past.

      A test could, at best, prove that a species could be created through selection, not that any one species did in the past, much less that all species did so. Domestication proves that selection can be non-natural (natural as in accidental, I am aware that everything that man does is "natural" insomuch as we are a part of nature). GM crops proves that is can be through intentional, intellegent design. Again, proving CAN does not prove DID.

      The problem with Evolution is that it is bad science. It starts with assumtion and leads to justification. Good science starts in questioning and leads to humility in areas it cannot yet prove.

      The mathmatics allegory is just, for the mathmatician must so signifigant proofs before propositions are accepted and propositions without proofs are grounds for working, not for guessing. If the scientist behind evolution showed that they were interested in working with the problems that speciation and diversity present, mankind would be far more forgiving. They have, however, been marked by an arrogance that holds that their position must be indoctrinated and its errors only revealed and worked on by those who are already so indoctrinated – and thus "capable" of dealing with evolutions errors without the risk of the entire theory being trashed.

      The average American might not be educated enough to argue the minutia of evolutionary theory, but he is clever enough so intuit when something is not as it should be.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:29 pm |
      • I. Knowthings

        Evolution is grounded in the idea of natural selection. It's the idea of constant genetic change. That is very observable. You don't need time travel to view it. Look at D. melanogaster or yeast or any of the other organisms that are used in high school biology labs.

        If there's another scientific idea to compete with evolution, that's fine. But there isn't one. Why argue for something that doesn't exist, even if the current idea is imperfect?

        September 12, 2011 at 3:38 pm |
    • Partially Fully Mutated

      One of the problems with evolution is that is makes assumptions that observations and experiments conducted today would have the same results had they taken place millions of years ago.

      September 12, 2011 at 6:48 pm |
  46. heston 2012

    Ibelieve in evolution and in God the balance of things and the coordination speaks volumes more then any religious posturing ever could . The fact of things fossils species evolving. Geology and other proofs gives credence to science but in no way disproves God.

    September 12, 2011 at 2:52 pm |
  47. Christian

    All science is false. We need to replace all science books with Bibles and ban teaching evolution.

    September 12, 2011 at 2:50 pm |
    • NJBob

      Why would you want to replace science books with pornography?

      September 12, 2011 at 2:56 pm |
    • Solution

      Thank you for being part of the problem...

      September 12, 2011 at 2:57 pm |
    • trsoh1969

      Uh? Apparently the Christian Taliban sees nothing wrong with banning education and living like a culture/society did 2,000 years ago. NUT JOB!

      September 12, 2011 at 3:01 pm |
    • BJ

      Huh? Does that mean that you don't get vaccinated against diseases? You don't eat anything that was created in a lab (lots of modern foods)? You don't drive a car, fly in a plane, use plastics? Go to a doctor, hospital, or dentist? That's all science. The Bible is a book written by men over hundreds of years and I wouldn't say it was terribly reliable! Have you actually read it?!

      September 12, 2011 at 3:02 pm |
    • Terry

      Only if fig leaves come into fashion again!

      September 12, 2011 at 3:03 pm |
    • AngryVet2

      Christian, there is no proof of your belief in the fairytale you call the Bible. So on what real solid thing do you base your gibberish? Faith, that is imaginary. Religion was man's way of controlling the poor and poorly educated. You are proof of that.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:04 pm |
    • Miss Demeanor

      Exactly. Science is mans attempt to explain what we don't understand by making up fairy tales. Religion is strictly based on facts. When the old 'prophets' heard voices, it wasn't mental illness that caused this... it was gawwwwwd speaking to them. When people of old saw dust devils swirling leaves, it wasn't caused by convective currents, it was a 'divine apparition'. Soil contains fossils of plants and animals that existed millions of years before humans because god put them there because he had a sense of humor. They didn't really exist. Sheeesh!

      September 12, 2011 at 3:04 pm |
      • todd in DC

        Love you

        September 12, 2011 at 3:08 pm |
    • Rick

      You're right, while we're at it lets make sure we get rid of all that crazy talk about the Earth being round.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:05 pm |
    • ReasonableXX

      Without science you would be living in a dark cave hunting and foraging for food. Without science you wouldn't be able to post you idiotic comments on a message board and advertise you complete and total ignorance to the world. Every single aspect of your modern life that you take for granted is because of science and reason. I would say that in and of itself is proof that science works.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:08 pm |
    • Carl

      I smell a troll. If science is wrong, you need to disregard all medicine, shut off your computer, ditch the cell phone and sell your car.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:10 pm |
    • manny

      haha..you obviously are joking..otherwise, quoting will farrel in Celebrity Jeopardy:"
      "...there is something wrong with your brain.."

      September 12, 2011 at 3:11 pm |
    • john

      um. how come i was never taught about alien visitation and propogation? its just as valid, and has as much validity and evidence as evolution. school ONLY teaches evolution, and its only a theory

      September 12, 2011 at 3:12 pm |
    • nimnim

      The bible was written by a bunch of sexist, homophobic, misogynistic MEN. Who can believe anything they say?

      September 12, 2011 at 3:54 pm |
    • Caught Ya...

      Troll. And you guys fell for it.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:57 pm |
    • ggargole

      Methinks thy protests too much!

      September 12, 2011 at 8:41 pm |
  48. Norm - not that one

    Bottom line:
    Science has facts and evidence,
    religion has nothing except unsupported claims.
    Ignorance will always fight reality.

    September 12, 2011 at 2:49 pm |
    • Darthlawsuit

      God created evolution and gently guided it in the way he wanted. /thread

      September 12, 2011 at 2:55 pm |
      • NJBob

        If you knew anything about anatomy, you'd have to say god did a pretty bad job of "gently" guiding things along.

        September 12, 2011 at 2:58 pm |
      • lol

        "gentle"= natural selection? hmm

        September 12, 2011 at 3:11 pm |
      • A guy with some intelligence.

        Wow, moron. God = not real.
        So, if god isn't real, how did he create anything? Huh.....nice logic, buddy.

        September 13, 2011 at 6:52 pm |
      • A guy with more intelligence than you.

        Well, well, well. Look what we have here. An idiot! Whatya know...
        God = not real.
        So, if god isn't real, how did he create anything? Huh.....nice logic, buddy.

        September 13, 2011 at 6:54 pm |
    • brandon

      the problem this line of thinking is that it doesn't take into account the fact that science, by it's very nature, defines and rejects what it will accept as "fact".

      My religion has proven itself to me over and over again in many spectacular and miraculous ways. And I am a pretty staunch skeptic and very into popular science. But looking for religion to prove itself to you in only the ways that science will accept is never going to happen. Science prevents it from being so.

      I think one of the biggest problems in our modern society is how much faith people put in science. It's a great tool, but there are far more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:10 pm |
    • Sylvain Zambito

      How ignorant you are to say that science is fact and evidence. Do you know how often these supposedly facts of science have been found late to be complete lies. Scientist who manipulate the facts just to make a name for themselves is more common than you think. Where are the evidences? People keep on saying there are evidence of evolution. Where are they? Where are the fossils that show a fish with a quarter of a leg then one with half of a leg and then one with three quarters of a leg? After hundreds of years of fossil searching where are these fossils. All we find are fossils of some kind of ape like creature of which we know very little of. Was some kind of ape that got instinct or had a malformation or was it a human with malformation? This is very little evidence if you ask me. But for those who would rather believe that god does not exist because therefore they can live their lives as they wish than I guess for them it is evidence, but not for me.

      People should stop mixing religion and Bible, for Religion in general has only teached lies throughout the centuries and have not tought what the Bible really teaches. The Bible does NOT say that everything was created in 7 days of 24 hours. If people would do their research they would no that the hebrew word for days in Genesis can englobe 1000's of years or more. The Bible does not pretend to be a book of science but when it does talk about scientific things it never contradicts the true and proven scientific facts. Example, the Bible talks about the earth being suspended in nothing and of the earth being spheric. only to mention a few.

      The reality of things is that it really takes a lot more faith to believe that all the marvelous things we see around us and that science continuous to discover happened by chance.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:21 pm |
      • Kyle

        Who was the scientist that said, 'sun revolves around the earth?'

        September 12, 2011 at 4:19 pm |
    • Sawyer

      I am not disproving creation or anything. But, we have no had evidence that the big bang ACTUALLY happened. If we abide by the laws of physics then no matter can be created nor destroy, it can only be transferred. They say that there have been many big bangs and big crunches.However, if there are objects that are red shifting and blue shifting then there would be no center of the universe. But what is so powerful that we can escape it's gravity and then all of a sudden be sucked back into it?

      Another point is why is creation not happening now? Why did we evolve from primates , but they are not continuing to evolve?

      Creation is all based on Theories. There are some facts, BUT not many.

      September 12, 2011 at 7:17 pm |
  49. Benjamin

    We're going to have this discussion every now and then as we have had for centuries. From Galileo to Darwin... soon, evolution will be accepted fact by all, even among the faithful, but they'll have some other bogeyman to blame by then. It's amazing how cyclical it all is, and how oblivious the religious are to it.

    September 12, 2011 at 2:49 pm |
    • john

      wrong. the core of evolution is based on spontaneous life. and science has proven thats not possible. your 'bogeyman' is scientists who think they know the mind of god. and in the meantime are sailing off a flat planet

      September 12, 2011 at 3:13 pm |
  50. helenecha

    Unlike Australopithecus, we're lucky. At least, we need not to be worried that we won't be conceded by humans millions years later.

    September 12, 2011 at 2:49 pm |
    • Autumn

      How do we know that? Evolution promises nothing.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:03 pm |
  51. Gary

    Religion is based on faith, evolution is based on science. With that end neither will agree. So why do we argue the fact? Something to do while we are bored? Let one live one way and the other live theirs. If per chance one day they intersect in a positive way then so be it.

    September 12, 2011 at 2:47 pm |
    • Jeff in Arrowhead

      Evolution is not proved...statistically speaking, you cannot PROVE anything. You can only have a percentage confidence of disproving a hypothesis and accepting the null hypothesis...example: Do you love your Mom? Yes...o.k...prove it?

      Historical fact: there was a man in ancient Palestine whom we call Jesus. Extra-biblical texts agree. Check out the writings of Josephus. Deal with it.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:53 pm |
      • DumbIsDumbBro

        If you can't prove anything try throwing a lit match into a jug of gasoline and see how many times it explodes. Do you think one time it magically won't?

        September 12, 2011 at 2:59 pm |
      • Veritas

        It is known that Josephus reference to Jesus was added far later.
        Josephus was a militant Jew....he would have never admitted this man was the messiah.
        Only two other references on Jesus.....no very good for someone who was supposed to be the son on god.....?

        September 12, 2011 at 3:00 pm |
      • Hexdragon

        Yes there was a MAN named Jesus. Now prove he was GOD... I like the Man's way to live, but not his followers deifying him. I think he wouldn't like us arguing and killing each other in his name. He would be ashamed of us...

        September 12, 2011 at 3:04 pm |
      • UFC iTard

        Well, since the jug is open and thus not pressurized, and the gasoline is probably mostly in a liquid and not vaporous state, I'd say that the jug would never explode, though as long as the match stays lit or very hot until it comes into contact with the gasoline, it would very likely catch fire.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:05 pm |
    • Kyle

      Gary

      The problem is, one group is always trying to tell the other how they should live and die. The other, looks on thinking 'are you out your mind!!!?'

      September 12, 2011 at 3:00 pm |
  52. Kyle

    This issue goes beyond evolution and where we came from; it is the notion of what we are and how much we know. We humans are a relatively smart compared to other species and have managed to come out of our caves and go to the moon in a span of about 10,000 years.

    As smart of as we are (or so we think) there is so much to be learned about ourselves and our place in the universe. In my humble opinion, humans have a long way to go to learn and should not believe for one second they have any clue about how anything works.

    My dog Winnie has the same prospective about his universe. He thinks he has everything figured out; he goes after dogs 10 times his size, thinking he can scare them; sticks his head in a hole, thinking we can’t see him, and so on. I think we are just as bad. We humans do pretty stupid things and sometimes after a very long time we learn we were wrong and change our course. (Dogs on the other hand don’t!) That is the spirit or human mental evolution.

    I draw a major distinction between the people who admit they don’t know something and spend a life time trying to learn something and try to prove their relatively insignificant theory is right, or humbly learn they were wrong. Either way they leave their mark in history. Then, there those who believe they know everything and the rest of the world that doesn’t think like them, needs to be ‘saved.’ They have these gig ideas that explains everything and ultimately they are always right.

    I am the first to admit that there is a chance that theory of evolution can be proven wrong one day. That day, the scientific community with accept the fact, learn from their mistakes and move on.

    And then, there are those who’d think sun still revolves around the earth, and science is just this thing, that always gets in the way. We have to ‘save’ some people ….

    September 12, 2011 at 2:44 pm |
    • Beth

      "sometimes after a very long time we learn we were wrong and change our course. (Dogs on the other hand don’t!)"

      Actually dogs do too, as do all life forms. Over a long period of time, they adapt to new stressors in their lives and evolve. "Dogs" in fact is a relatively recent example of how an animal adapted to a changing environment by learning to work with humans and having their forms changed through selective breeding (which is really simply guided evolution... people selecting traits for breeding the next generation instead of allowing nature to do it through natural selection). We can SEE evolution happening all the time, look at future generations of moths with darker wings being more prevelant in areas of high polluation. Why can't people believe their own eyes and the fossil evidence? Ignorance is a scary thing.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:01 pm |
      • Kyle

        Beth

        You are right, and I stand corrected, Dogs do change and learn. I meant to be funny saying my dog doesn't learn...you get the point.

        Kyle

        September 12, 2011 at 7:38 pm |
  53. NJBob

    I can't believe that we continue to have this conversation in this country. It's an embarrassment. It is proof of just how scientifically illiterate the general population is. The evidence for evidence is overwhelming and irrefutable. It is present in the fossil record and at the molecular level. The evidence for a creator, on the other hand, is approximately zero. To see our politicians stand up and proudly declare that they don't 'believe' in evolution is genuine cause for alarm. This country is tanking and religion has played a major role in bringing this about because religion glorifies and perpetuates ignorance. Let's put the blame where it belongs!!

    September 12, 2011 at 2:43 pm |
    • Jeff in Arrowhead

      What should we do with the human animals that have not evolved as much as others? They are not as worthwhile since they are just animals, right? I mean animal rights folks hate killing or mistreating horses and cats and dogs and such. What about ants and worms and cockroaches? We kill them right because they are not all furry and cute. What about these less evolved human animals? Weird problem we have if we are all animals.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:47 pm |
      • NJBob

        What??!

        September 12, 2011 at 2:49 pm |
      • wrong - wrong - wrong - wrong

        from your posts, it's clear you haven't a clue about evolution. Ants are no "less-evolved" than humans. They are perfectly adapted (evolved) for their environment, as are we.

        September 12, 2011 at 2:59 pm |
      • Baron

        Bob – I guess you never heard of Buddhism.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:00 pm |
      • UFC iTard

        I detect a troll... But at any rate, evolution is not some straight-line path that starts at bacteria and ends at humanity, there are branches on branches, on branches. That's why it's sometimes referred to as an evolutionary "tree".

        September 12, 2011 at 3:09 pm |
      • KrashUndBurn

        """What should we do with the human animals that have not evolved as much as others?"""

        So much ignorance, so little time. People, you must understand that "evolving" doesn't necessarily mean being more perfect.

        Evolution is a way of explaining how species adapt to their environments. For example, humans are "advanced" apes, so you might assume that their eyes are highly evolved as well. But are their eyes better than a hawk's? Are they better eyes than the owl's? The answer is not yes or no. Human eyes have adapted for our species and environment.

        Owl's eyes have adapted to suit owls. Scientists suspect that owls are colorblind. This is the way of adaptation. This is what is meant as "evolution" of a species. Adapt and survive in your environment. And pass the genes.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:48 pm |
    • NJBob

      Sorry for the typo. It should read, "The evidence for evolution is overwhelming....."

      September 12, 2011 at 2:48 pm |
    • abqtim

      What proof is there that the laws of physics, chemistry, etc... aren't the product of someone smarter than we are at this point in our evolution? Just because we have evidence today does not mean we can totally dismiss the possibility.
      All we have is proof that we have laws that govern the world around us, but we have zero proof of why these laws exist in the manner that they do.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:03 pm |
      • Todd

        You are absolutely right, and any true believer in evolution must hold open the possibility that it is "false". However, if some greater being did plan all of the scientific laws for us to discover, that doesn't mean the religions of the world today are correct - in fact, most of them would be in direct conflict with such a position. And, it is the height of arrogance to think that such a supreme being, able to create the universe and all of the scientific laws in it, would give one whit about what happens on this speck of a planet, let alone to a single person.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:59 pm |
  54. Bernhardt

    Evolution is crap. Random processes NEVER result in the formation of genetic 'upgrades'. Does your computer upgrade itself from a random number generator ? I think not. ALL genetic upgrades in any species are the result of the active spiritual mentation of the GODHEAD. Your computer is only upgraded when you link to a site that does it or install it via a flashdrive, cd-rom etc. Why is this so hard to understand ? Why try to degrade God by calling him ' an intelligent adaptive force called evolution '. What a crock. Science is only a description of lab results documented by arrogant humanoids. It is incomplete and never will embrace the whole of life as it is and its spiritual reality. A society led by Godless 'scientists' is the blind leading the blind. A useless pile of crap. Useless eaters consuming their environment. I chose God and Life. So can you.

    September 12, 2011 at 2:40 pm |
    • NJBob

      If you understood how evolution works, you'd realize that random mutations do not result in genetic "upgrades", but selection does. Selection is not random!

      September 12, 2011 at 2:45 pm |
    • Terry

      Oh my, a true believer. People, you can't possibly reason with someone like this. It's impossible. It boggles the mind to know there are people in the world like this, possibly making decisions for us.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:45 pm |
      • Joe from CT, not Lieberman

        Shhhh. Don't tell him that Mahatma Gandhi is probably in Heaven. In his universe there is probably no room there for anyone who does not belong to his Church.
        That trolling comment out of the way, one of the best teachers of Evolution I ever had was my high school biology teacher. A Brother of the Holy Cross whose own studies led him to the belief of Evolution that in no way shook his Roman Catholic beliefs. Other friends of mine who are ordained in one denomination or another have had multiple lively conversations about the age of the Universe, the development of life on Earth, even evolutionary changes noted in our own historical record. Other comments on this segment have talked about genetic mutations and natural selection leading to evolutionary changes. Ask my wife and my tailor and they will note that my arms are about 10% longer than most folks my height. It definitely makes shopping for shirts and jackets a pain in the pocket. Just about everything has to be tailored so it fits. Either that or it drapes on me like a tent! I also have somewhat prehensile toes. They can grab some stuff off the floor or a table, but are not long enough for me to type with or hold on to a tree-limb. I also have a somewhat larger chest cavity and lung capacity than most folks my height. Genetic predisposition has resulted in these features.
        One area definitely noted in my College Physical Anthropology class. Over the physical evidence we have since regular human burials have started they have noted that the fourth finger on our hands have gotten smaller. Why? Because about 2 or so million years ago we stopped being exclusively arboreal, therefore we no longer need that finger to help support us. Another example is our teeth and jaws. How many out there have had their wisdom teeth removed because they were impacted? That is because our jaws are smaller. Why? Look at the foods we are eating. With more finely ground grains in our diet, we do not need those teeth (or the muscles associated with them) to grind grain in our mouths.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:35 pm |
    • Mike in PA

      I have often thought that those who have the most problems with evolution ( and science in general ) are those with the WEAKEST faith in God. I believe that God created the universe in a way that allows humans to slowly discover how it operates. New discoveries do not shake my belief, but increase my wonderment.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:49 pm |
    • Alexander F.

      "Evolution is crap" but believing in a sky daddy who communicates to you through a talking snake isn't? Have any of you religious fanatics actually read the bible? Your benevolent god kills many people for silly reasons. Your Ten Commandments are mostly vain and only two of them are actual laws: don't steal and don't kill. The bible is full of retarded silliness and outright malevolence. It tells women not to speak in church (and you think Muslims that veil their women are bad), it condones slavery and infanticide and it contradicts itself repeatedly. A talking snake telling a woman to eat an apple isn't only childish, its sexist. After Adam and Eve there's Cain and Abel. After Cain kills Abel, somehow another generation of humans shows up? How? Cain had sex with his mother. That's absolutely disgusting. Noah's Ark is another impossibility. How would Noah be able to save the penguins and polar bears if he's in the Middle East. Jonah and the whale - excuse me, "big fish" - really people? Show me a fish big enough to accommodate a human for 3 days. It's absolute silliness and taken to the fanatical American extreme, it's dangerous. There are plenty of people in power that believe this foolishness to the point that they are actively trying to start "apocalypse".

      I'd rather deal with science which proves itself over and over again, and when it cannot, tries until it can.

      And don't forget that when MEN wrote the bible, they also thought the earth was flat and that sea monsters were real. Is there anything else that we in the Information Age cling to from the Bronze Age?

      September 12, 2011 at 2:53 pm |
      • KrashUndBurn

        """Have any of you religious fanatics actually read the bible?"""

        It's pretty clear most of them haven't read anything about biology or evolution, either.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:52 pm |
    • KAS

      Thank you for pointing out your ignorance and lack of knowledge about Evolution. If you don't believe random genetic mutation can 'upgrade' (to use your own words) a system, you obviously don't believe in antibiotic-resistant strains of MRSA and other viruses. To use a computer as your example of how upgrades can't occur is even more proof your complete lack of basic knowledge of science, let alone Evolution.

      Apparently you don't believe in the effects of the flu vaccine which must be generated each year because, wait for it, the previous flu virus has genetically mutated from the previous year.

      If you believe a supposed omnipotent, omniscient being is doing all this, that is one sick puppy to believe in. To think that it changes viruses to maim and kill us, all of which change from year to year, that is one sadist I wouldn't want to be associated with.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:58 pm |
    • Dave

      Actually my computer has automatic updates so I guess you could say Microsoft is it's god. But, your argument is still nonsense. You cannot compare a living evolving entity with a static machine. You are comparing apples and oranges. The argument should no longer be whether or not evolution is fact but what started it. That is open to interpretation. Evolutionists are just saying there is more evidence for nothing than there is for something. If you cannot imagine nothing starting it, ie what believers would call random chance, then how could you possibly imagine a much greater something creating it. The creator would have to be much more complex than the creation therefore it is much more logical that life sprang from nothing.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:59 pm |
    • Chez Louis Maitre 'd

      I weep for the future...

      September 12, 2011 at 3:00 pm |
    • rich

      Your analogy fails. Computers don't breed to form other computers. You lack a basic understanding of how evolution works. I suggest you read a high school biology textbook.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:00 pm |
    • Jaker

      If you built computers that could build other computers and implement random changes, and those computers could build other computers which also exhibit the random change plus new changes. And you sent all of these computers out into the world with the resources they needed to survive. Your computer would eventually evolve into a computer more adapted to it's environment. Because those computers which had less effective random changes would never start, break down earlier, would be destroyed by stronger computers, and/or produce fewer computers based on themselves.

      I don't think the argument is between creationism and evolution anymore, it's between evolution and devolution. Are we really getting better?

      September 12, 2011 at 3:06 pm |
    • manny

      haha...what a nutjob...I think you just want to just get a rise out of people...no one is that stupid to post what you did...then again..look at society

      September 12, 2011 at 3:14 pm |
  55. Lindsay

    I am a fan of science but a child of God. Not a matter of shunning the truth, but opening up to ALL ideas (including intelligent design). It is not reasonable to exclude something unless you have evidence you can see against it. So glad to have brilliant minds in both science and faith, which with each new discover compliment. Any new research on origin of life or are scientists still at a loss?

    September 12, 2011 at 2:32 pm |
    • Terry

      The term "Intelligent Design" cracks me up every time I hear it.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:42 pm |
    • jim atmad

      "Intelligent design" is just another away of trying to shoehorn your religious beliefs into scientific reality.

      Faith is faith, science is science. If you choose to believe a certain way because of your religious preference, that's fine.

      Pretending that such beliefs are remotely science-based is 100% dishonest.

      That's the part I've never understood about people touting their religious teachings as science. How do you start out by lying to students about the underpinnings of your premise?

      That's lying. How does that benefit your religious position?

      September 12, 2011 at 2:47 pm |
    • Norm - not that one

      You do not "allow" all opinions and arguments in just because you have no evidence against them!
      You let them "in" when THEY PROVIDE compelling evidence FOR their conclusions.
      I.D. (AKA creationism) has absolutely nothing, factual, for support.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:55 pm |
    • GE

      It is not reasonable to exclude something unless you have evidence you can see against it.

      I think you have it backwards. It is not reasonable to assert something unless you have evidence to support it. If every assertion were taken seriously simply because there is no evidence against it there would be an infinite number of theories to contend with. While there may well be an infinite number of possibilities, there has to be a system to prioritize those possibilities that are advanced, giving more weight to those that are supported by evidence and scientific reasoning. That doesn't mean that the scientific community has a perfect batting average, but until somebody comes up with a better method, the scientific method will be the best approach to enquiring about the physical realm.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:57 pm |
  56. jude

    so what exactly is so controversial about finding and observing evidence and coming up with a conclusion based on such evidence and facts. evolution has to be one of the most solid fields in science with a plethora of evidence, a little research in your local library and even your computer will overwhelm you with the amount of evidence that is out there. honestly people who deny evolution are beyond ignorant, it's said when religious beliefs take precedence over scientific fact when coming up with the basis of our modern world.

    September 12, 2011 at 2:32 pm |
    • Kevin Untener

      EVOLUTION! The great divider and the great connector. It divides those who believe in it against those who do not, and connects the same people through debate, but calling one side or the other ignorant only creates more division. If one wants to gain a person to ones point of view, then evidence and discussion would be more likely to help ones case. I believe in adapting to surroundings can be mistaken as evolution. I also believe certain creatures evolve by design. Let me pose this, there is this grand search for the "missing link", how have humans evolved since that missing ling era? If non, then why did humans stop evolving?

      September 12, 2011 at 2:47 pm |
      • Norm - not that one

        First, and honestly, you have to learn something about evolution (i.e. – NO scientist ever said we have stopped evolving) – then you have to learn the difference between believing in something, and accepting the facts that it is true.
        Religions "believe", scientists (and other like minds) accept facts.

        September 12, 2011 at 2:59 pm |
      • rich

        I'm not sure if you are a parent... but you are obviously a child of your parents. You are the evolutionary byproduct of their copulation. Therefore, you are evolved!!!

        September 12, 2011 at 3:06 pm |
      • Kevin Untener

        WOW, evolved from our parents, that's a stretch. What did I make better. Evolution is moving forward and making the life form better.

        Accept and believe, that's good. I believe in designed evolution and adapting to one's environment, never said I didn't accept facts, or the assumptions that scientists create into fact. fact. this is a fossil, assumption, this is a fossil 1 million years old.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:26 pm |
    • steve, in Phoenix

      Evolution is the easy part , Jude.....Nobody serious should/could argue with that.....But evolution is just the "play".....
      Where did the " stage " come from ???? The SERIOUS lack of knowledge, data about the origins of the Universe, casts an ENORMOUS shadow on all those shaky theories.....

      September 12, 2011 at 2:48 pm |
    • jude

      @Kevin a species adapting to live in its environment is in fact evolution, the species is evolving to live in a new environment. a classic example of that comes from the peppered moth experiments. as for the missing link theres one problem it has been found, we have found various species of mankind such as homo erectus and H. habilus for example.

      @Steve as i said go to your local library or even the internet. we have found many, many fossils linking our ancestors with the other great apes, our DNA, observations in laboratories and in the field, etc. remember a scientific theory is not a guess or hunch instead it is a collection of knowledge within a field, remember gravity is also a theory

      September 12, 2011 at 3:00 pm |
  57. Johnakim Lucien

    The bottom line CNN is I believe in God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I love him and he loves me and one day i will go to heaven with him.

    September 12, 2011 at 2:31 pm |
  58. Confused

    Here is a weasel in the chicken coop. What if God is a scientist and we are a scientific experiment?

    September 12, 2011 at 2:30 pm |
    • Ben

      Then I do hope he's getting some results he can publish. I'd hate to fail at my purpose.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:17 pm |
      • Eyedoc

        " I am a good maze runner, I will not go the bad way, I will go the good way and get my cheese (reward,etc)"
        Just hope we are in the same group and not the test to destruction group...EEEP

        September 15, 2011 at 7:53 pm |
  59. Lex

    Let's get real. Atheism is where gay rights were in the mid-90's. Within the next 15 or 20 years, atheism will be right up there as the equal to organized religions and may very well be the predominant religion in the U.S.

    September 12, 2011 at 2:28 pm |
    • Fox Terrier

      Atheism is NOT a religion.

      FYI !!!

      September 12, 2011 at 2:42 pm |
      • james

        Sure it is, there is no way to PROVE one way or another whether god exists. Atheism is a belief that there is no god, faith in that there is no heaven or hell. I am not religious but I am not atheist. I don't believe in god per se, but I cannot say with any certainty that he/she does not exist. I don't need the threat of divine punishment to refrain from killing, raping and stealing. The golden rule, treat others as I wish for them to treat me is all I need.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:07 pm |
    • One Who Thinks

      Oldish saying: "Atheism is a religion, just like bald is a hair color."

      Atheism is not a religion. It is really just being "without religion".

      September 12, 2011 at 4:38 pm |
  60. Paul NYC

    People's "thoughts" are not required. Evolution is an incontrovertible fact of science.

    September 12, 2011 at 2:27 pm |
  61. Sid Prejean

    I believe in intelligent design; that God created the universe from nothingess and continues to watch over and guide His creation. (He is, no doubt, frequently disappointed in what many have done and said in His name.)
    I believe in evolution; that creatures, including humans, have developed and evolved over the course of many millions of years, and that we continue to evolve. (Have you measured your grandkids against yourself?)
    I do not feel that these beliefs are at all incompatible. To believe in one is not to discredit the other. We live in a world created by a living God, in which all forms of life have evolved under His care.
    Creation and evolution are just two chapters in the story of life on earth. Wouldn't it be something of there were 8 or 10 chapters to come?

    September 12, 2011 at 2:26 pm |
    • Teddy

      agreed. Yes, that will be interesting.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:33 pm |
    • KAS

      "We live in a world created by a living God, in which all forms of life have evolved under His care."

      Provide evidence to support this claim. No, the Bible is not evidence of such a being as it was written over centuries by people who used stories previously written by others. If the Bible is your evidence of a supreme being, then so are the stories of the Greeks, Persians, Carthaginians, Egyptians and others who existed long before the Bible was even conceived of being in existence.

      Simply saying there is a supreme being does not make it so. You need to provide evidence of such a being, that is how science works. If you can't provide evidence, your point is invalid until such time as you can provide evidence to support your contention.

      Evolution has the fossils to back up its claims. What do you have?

      September 12, 2011 at 3:06 pm |
  62. Alan S.

    All those skeptical about the biblical creation story I issue an open minded research challenge. Study the uniqueness of humans compared to the entire animal kingdom. God said, "Let the earth bring forth..." animals and plants. But He breathed the breath of life into humans. This easily explains the giant gulf between humans and all other organisms.
    One other little thought-provoker...We did not figure out the basic structure of atoms until the 20th century. All things, including living things, are made of atoms. An atom is made of three parts, but one atom. Is it not interesting that the Bible has taught God is one God in three persons for 2000 years. Could it be that this is just one of "the fingerprints of God" that points to the God of the Bible being the true God?

    September 12, 2011 at 2:24 pm |
    • dieseltdi

      But your arguement has a huge falicy. Humans are not UNIQUE except in our apparant obsession with being the center of everything. Our DNA is just like the DNA in other organisms except for the tiny amount that actually makes us human instead of chimps (less than 1%). We eat, grow, reproduce and die just like all other organisms. While I may believe that God minds about us, it is not based on our biology. Humans are and always will be, in a biological sense, just another one of the animals on the planet earth. Albeit a dangerous and destructive animal.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:28 pm |
      • sumday

        Actually new research and better sequencing shows chimps share only about 93% of our DNA.

        September 12, 2011 at 2:34 pm |
      • steve, in Phoenix

        ....as much as I hate to agree with everything you said...... I DO......

        September 12, 2011 at 2:37 pm |
      • Alan S.

        Anyone who says humans are not unique compared to all other organisms on Earth cannot see the forest for the trees. Anyone who researches/observes with an open mind the intellectual accomplishments of humans, the sociological and emotional capacity of humans, the artistic capacity of humans, the spiritual capacity of humans...etc. can only walk away with one conclusion. There is a giant gulf between humans and all other organisms.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:54 pm |
    • footnotegirl

      Actually, atoms are made up of a LOT more than just three parts... we just didn't find things like quarks and gluons until recently, and apparently after you got out of school.
      Secondly, there is a lot more similarity between humans and our closest 'relatives' than there are differences. About 99% of our DNA is the same as most of the other Great Apes. If there wasn't much similarity between humans and animals, medical research on animals would not allow us to have so much insight into human biology and diseases.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:42 pm |
    • james

      The thing I find even more mind boggling than humans evolving from muck is the thought of a superior being appearing from nowhere or existing forever. Yeah life is pretty amazing, yeah there is a lot we don't understand, but to explain anything we don't understand with "god did it" is a cop out. If it's impossible that the wonders of this earth created and evolved themselves then how is it more feasible that a more advanced being was created out of nothing?

      September 12, 2011 at 3:11 pm |
  63. hasc

    Those who claim that evolution is wrong because we are created in the image of God have to stop and think that each and every human being, without exception, started out as a fertilized egg and developed through mitosis and cell specialization (either of which is described in the Bible) into the beings that they are. God's creative process does not have to be aesthetically pleasing to our culturally biased sensitivities? At the same time, those hold up evolution as a the great debunker of God's work are equally close-minded and petty.

    September 12, 2011 at 2:21 pm |
    • cyberCMDR

      Mitosis and cell specialization are in the Bible? Yea, right. It's in the same section that discusses nuclear fission.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:18 pm |
  64. steve, in Phoenix

    I'm not religious in the classical fashion, at all.......and DID study astronomy in college......bit I have to tell you.....The assumptions science " DEMANDS" you to have , in order to make sense of the Big Bang Theory, for instance, requires you to have MORE FAITH than actual , STRICT religious teaching does ! It is getting ridiculous....Been watching Discovery Channel's new " Curiosity " Show....one episode about the Universe, Steve Hawking was in it , too.....
    It was PATHETIC !!!! All the unexplained aspects of it....the areas of COMPLETE darkness, and holes in the theory........Missing elements of their thinking, without which , by the way, ( if you're critically thinking ) the WHOLE darn mess does not make ANY SENSE !!! I'm sorry, guys.....you ARE worse, than ANY organized religion in wanting us to believe something YOU believe in, ONLY because you don't have a better explanation,..... all the while unwilling to see the COMPLETE FAILURE of your logic !!! Dark matter, black holes, gravity, what and how had made the first clouds of crap to condense, etc......NO TRUE, FAIL-PROOF explanation....NONE !! If you think you know the answers to these, the ONLY reason is that you don't know enough ! You're not aware of counter-arguments......So, just lay me down the tall grass, and let me do my stuff.... : )

    September 12, 2011 at 2:20 pm |
    • Jeff in Arrowhead

      Isn't it possible to believe in intra-species evolution and not inter-species evolution? Man did NOT come from monkeys, but mankind is evolving? Just a thought.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:23 pm |
      • Teddy

        yes, Jeff, Yes.

        September 12, 2011 at 2:31 pm |
      • Ben

        No. It's not possible. Because they are the same thing. Whether one species changes all together or it splits into two different groups just depends on the environment.

        September 12, 2011 at 2:34 pm |
    • Terry

      Wow, careful, this one will throw stones.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:39 pm |
  65. Teddy

    The problem here is that two parties, those of Science and those of Theos, are so completely hard headed to see the logic of the world. Theologians (separate from religious people) practice a dogma that doesn't allow them to be open and see that science is the study of the very same God that they attempt to study. Scientist, the staunch disbelievers in God, can't see that the logic in their being a Creator to a universe and life that couldn't be without. Both are so admittedly obtuse that they can't congeal the information that fits together so easily.

    People, the study of the world (Science) is the study of God's creation. It is the different from the study of Theology or Religion for that matter, because it studies what things ARE, instead of what things were or could be. The Theologies that we all follow are a meager means of understanding absolute truth, and thus, men has changed the word of God in order to make God what he wants Him to be.

    A man who seeks to understand the Past, Present, and Future is a man that is well rounded and wise. The science of now, the holding of old traditions, and the prediction of things to come are independently weak attempts to understand the not-to-easy-to understand.

    I would like to say however that if there are people who Believe, who study, who don't accept the words of mere mortals (who wear their pants the same), who are looking for Truth and Righteousness that they most surely do not have a problem accepting science and God. Those are the people who do not accept doctrine or follow baseless experiments.

    God is neither Science, nor doctrine.

    GOD IS that which Creates all things, to include your intellect, and that which knows all and allows us to learn some, that a few of us may be guided straight and come to understand our roles in life and in the universe.

    September 12, 2011 at 2:19 pm |
    • LDU2011

      Good, another one that thinks the same. Given that the most important bulding block in the Universe is not matter of energy (it is information), it is not that difficult to imagine the Universe as a computer simulation, and in fact there are computational theories of the Universe. Once you have the Universe as a simulation, it is not that hard to think there is a programmer. A programmer, that like in a computer simulation, can interact with you individually without leaving a single trace of evidence.

      At the same time, it is not difficlt to see evolution = survival of the fittest = selfishness in the DNA = overcoming the flesh (in Christian doctrine).

      It is also interesting to make the connection between the law of increase of disorder in a system (of informational entropy) = decay = death, corruption = curse of permanently having to work (in Genesis, in Physics: there is no free energy, no perpetuum mobile. In Economics: no free lunch). However, the multiplication of the bread = breaking this physical law = no limited resources if you fully trust God = getting free of the law of Satan (limited resources, survival of the fittest and competition for them).

      You may or may not believe in these parallels, you might not be interested in pursuing dscovering them, but they are there. Science and God are not opposed (religion, well, that one has to do with tradition and ritual and that is where we start going astray IMHO)

      September 12, 2011 at 2:42 pm |
      • LDU2011

        Just for the record, I'm a research scientist, former atheist. Discovered God (or rather he led me to him) and now devoted my life to him.

        September 12, 2011 at 2:50 pm |
      • Teddy

        Agreed on all points.

        September 12, 2011 at 5:01 pm |
  66. Brent

    It really is silly the there is so much discussion about Evolution. The scientific evidence for the evolution of living things is incomprehensibly large. Evolution is the glue that holds modern biology toghether. I see no value in this discussion whatsoever.

    September 12, 2011 at 2:18 pm |
    • Terry

      I couldn't agree more.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:24 pm |
    • sumday

      In science there is testing and testing and re-testing. If you do not have a repeatable and predictiable test you have nothing. There is a large body of observations but To date we do not have a mathematical equation to predict/govern evolution, nor do we have a repeatable test to prove it. All other forms of science and theory have those things. Stop criticizing people for their doubt in random unplanned evolution when you (the scientific community) has failed to produce a repeatable test of it or a mathematical model of it. You can’t tell us how it works, why it works, or even predict when it will work but you still want us to accept it as scientific fact? Go back and learn the SCIENTIFIC METHOD bc this theory lacks repeatable and predicable testing.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:31 pm |
      • Terry

        The apply that same reasoning to religion and you'll see how utterly goofy it becomes.

        September 12, 2011 at 2:36 pm |
      • Ben

        Whoa there. Yes, yes there is repeated, obvious proof of evolution.

        However, before we start, let's define evolution. I'm calling the occurrence and proliferation of novel genetic material in a population of organisms "evolution". This is driven by natural selection, also called survival of the fittest.

        I will give you three examples off the top of my head. Firstly, bacteria have become immune to our antibiotics. It's called resistance when you hear about it in the news. It occurs when a bacterium contains a gene which makes it more resistant to the biochemical action of a drug. Since this bacterium will survive drug doses that will kill other bacteria around it, it will be the only reproducing bacterium in the area. Now a much larger portion of the population has the same gene that makes it more immune to the drug. This is evolution. The fact that it is occurring worldwide and with many species of bacteria is the repeated, reproducible part.

        Next, let's consider the size of fish in waterways in the US. Catch limits have been in place for quite a few years now. With a catch limit in place, any smart fisherman would do well to hold onto the largest fish he catches and throw the rest back. This tendency favors the fish within a species that grow more slowly or reach sexual maturity at a smaller size. This has led to a country-wide decrease in the size of game fish in many different places. Again, the "many" is the repeated part, and the fact that the average size of the entire fish population has changed is enough to make it evolution.

        Finally, let's consider the case of domestic dogs. Anyone with a laptop can google the different dog breeds and find rough estimates of the times that each dog breed was first seen. Now, how were these dog breeds created? People chose the dogs and bred them for different characteristics. Example: these two dogs both have spots! Let's breed them and see if the offspring have spots too. Now let's breed the offspring to see if their offspring have spots! And thus, a Dalmatian. The result was widespread genetic change across the entire species.

        Now, evolution is a very long-term process, but these situations all prove that the basic mechanisms that govern evolution are totally correct. Unfortunately, you won't live long enough to see real speciation. And yes, I've radically simplified it, but the basics are all there.

        Really, the religious argument here is just in the wrong arena. Religion is about "why". Religion seeks a cause, a meaning for things. Science is only about explaining how things work. Evolution is deduced using exactly the same principles as physics, astronomy, chemistry, and geology. Religion doesn't have a place trying to explain any of those things.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:03 pm |
    • GE

      Amen!

      September 12, 2011 at 2:39 pm |
  67. k

    Fact and Truth...this article is Troll baiting...

    September 12, 2011 at 2:18 pm |
  68. MToffgrid

    Galileo and Copernicus were persecuted by the Catholic Church because they knew the facts and put them out there while the Catholic Church was still wanting to believe the world was flat and the center of the universe. People are a very small and insignificant life form inhabiting and small planet in an out of the way part of the galaxy-what makes you think a god would chose this location? People "want" to believe so they do-it is part of our nature. This does not make it so and what real good has any religion done for any society anyway-in the past religion was just another reason to persecute those who believed something different and these new evangelicals are no different-just religious fascist's. Whether there is a god or not does not change evolution or any other fact how disappointed all these religious folks will be when they die and find out it is all a lie. Just because some monks wrote a bible in the 1300's does not make the book infallible or factually correct. People made up god and people wrote the bible and people can be wrong. If you want to believe-do, but do not try and force everyone else to share your delusions.

    September 12, 2011 at 2:14 pm |
  69. Chris

    A scientific theory is more reliable than any assertion. A scientific theory tells us that when we drop something it is going down. No god has ever stopped that. But it's only a theory. Just one you could bet your life on without fear. I have seen evolution in my time, it is well documented. Some people don't have the imagination to grasp the huge time over which things evolve, so because they can't get their head round it they say it can't have happened. Um, no, sorry. Your opinion is worthless next to what can be proved. It requires amazing arrogance to think that religious dogma can reshape the physical world.

    September 12, 2011 at 2:13 pm |
    • nonovyerbeezwax

      Your comment reveals a lack of knowledge about what constitutes a scientific theory. Look up the definition.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:24 pm |
    • nonovyerbeezwax

      This was not intended as a reply to your comment, Chris. Stupid CNN put it in the wrong place.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:25 pm |
  70. wilson

    I find it interesting that religion is evolving too. As science gets better at understanding evolution, religious people are changing their beliefs to fit the newer paradigms put forth by science. Creationism was born out that. It's a desperate attempt to rationalize their beliefs with science so that they can have it both ways. I hope there comes a time when people will evolve to understand that religion is nothing more than myth. There is no invisible omniscient magical being living in the sky watching over everything. But I get how people get stuck on beliefs. If they begin to wise up, their faith is called into question and that makes them feel inadequate. And some people just can't bear the thought that we are all alone, other than the potential for life on other worlds millions of unreachable light years away.

    September 12, 2011 at 2:13 pm |
    • Terry

      The skill that needs to be nurtured more than any other is critical thinking. A critical thinker allows their views to be questioned and even *gasp* may change their views.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:20 pm |
  71. dieseltdi

    As a geology professor and the son of a Baptist preacher, I believe both in God and in the truth of Science. Science tries to explain the questions of "HOW". How did we get here, how did we survive, how did we learn to make tools, etc. Science can give us explainations only of the mechanics of the operations of the world. Religion give us a reason for being here. In its best forms, religion teaches us to love each other and care for each other and the earth. Science and religion are two sides to the same coin. Evolution simply explains how we got here, Religion trys to give a reason for being here.

    September 12, 2011 at 2:11 pm |
    • Miss Demeanor

      True enough, yet for centuries, a VAST number of religious leaders have found they can get away with denying facts of science (especially those that prove the bible cannot all be interpreted literally such as the fact that all earths creatures could not have fit inside noah's ark... ) . The only way religion can remain legitimate is not by denying science, but by posing the question that science might never explain: explaining the beginning moment of the universe still leaves the question: what came before that? Religion is when we make up explanations for things we can't explain.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:43 pm |
    • Tom

      A geologist! Good. Here's a question: Polonium halos in rocks indicate they're much younger than the millions and millions of years accepted by nearly all scientists. I have read several scientific articles in recent years that tried to explain these artifacts away (unconvincingly). What say you?

      September 12, 2011 at 3:01 pm |
  72. Dean100343

    I thought it was ridiculous to believe that all life on this planet evolved from the same slime pool and everything on earth had the same beginnings. After seeing the logic of Obama and some liberals, I do see the resemblance between their brains and broccoli.

    September 12, 2011 at 2:10 pm |
    • Paul

      What does Obama have to do with religion?

      September 12, 2011 at 2:17 pm |
    • LovelyDinner

      Regardless of political orientation, that was possibly the most ignorant comment I have ever read. Thanks for the laugh buddy, I see that D in high school biology didn't hold you back too much

      September 12, 2011 at 2:26 pm |
    • Rick

      Yea Dean, it's all Obama's fault. I can also understand why you don't believe in evolution. You didn't evolve from a monkey...you sill are one.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:28 pm |
  73. Terry

    You simply can't sway a true believer into thinking any other way than what they were told to think. Once they've taken the bait hook, line and stinker, they can't help but believe there is a creator, regardless of the vast amount of evidence that evolution is the more probable cause of our existence. It amazes me how believers will attack you furiously at the mere mention that you believe evolution, not creationism, is the correct theory to follow. I'm always careful to include the word "theory" when speaking with a believer, because I'm afraid if I use the word fact I'll be stoned to death.

    September 12, 2011 at 2:08 pm |
    • Dean100343

      It is more logical for a tornado to go thru a junkyard and leave a fully operational 747 on the ground than it is to believe that life can evolve from completely dead chemicals.
      Not considering Dr. Frankenstein.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:13 pm |
      • Terry

        Ah, a true believer.

        September 12, 2011 at 2:15 pm |
      • Paul

        With the universe as large as it is, even the most remote possibility is an absolute certainty. You have 100 billion galaxies each with 100 billion stars, most of them with several planets... not to mention, the possibility of multiple universes. So yes, as stupid as your junk yard/air plane analogy is, it probably happened somewhere in the multiple universes.

        September 12, 2011 at 2:20 pm |
      • Paul

        By the way Dean, look up the Miller Urey experiment... the creation of life was nearly replicated in a lab.

        September 12, 2011 at 2:21 pm |
      • Steve

        I've seen plenty of cases where tornadoes have jumped, and left fully operational homes... why not a 747?

        September 12, 2011 at 2:22 pm |
      • Adam

        Dean and other scared little people – With a project scope of INFINITE TIME, then yes, it would actually be possible to assemble that 747. Unless you believe that humans are incapable of making a 747 and require some kind of divine inspiration and providence.

        To paraphrase the late Bill Hicks ... "You say God made you in just one day? I can tell he rushed it."

        September 12, 2011 at 2:27 pm |
      • Terry

        Steve, he is saying that a tornado will reorganize the junk in the yard into a working 747.

        September 12, 2011 at 2:27 pm |
      • Nookleerman

        It amuses me when those who choose to place their faith in the shakiest religion of all, science, lambast those who go with a longer and much more established religion. Science thinks it understands how a galxy works, but it can't esplain why it acts heavier than it should be. So they call it "dark matter". They don't know what dark matter is, or how to find it, but it's probably there (FAITH!). Science attempts to explain the inner workings of our solar system, but not one scientist can explain gravity, nor can they reproduce it (FAITH!) If we are getting down to brass tacks, ther isn't a scientist alive who knows what a beam of light is (is it a particle, is it wave? Who knows!) or how the atomic structure actually looks (well we think there are electrons circling the nucleus, but they don't actually exist in any one state or locationat any given time)(FAITH!)

        All these ridiculous guesses that they use then give us absolutes like "This star is XX lightyears away, based on the gravity wells that the light coming from it passed through, not accounting for any dark matter that it encountered." Or "It is not possible to go faster than the speed of light. That is a fact." They don't understand 90% of the stuff they are using to come to that conclusion, but they know it's true (FAITH!)

        I think I'll stick with Christianity. It may be just as untrue, but in it I learn that somebody loves me. That's really the only difference between my religion and yours.

        September 12, 2011 at 2:59 pm |
      • Sarah

        Nookleerman, actually the difference between christianity and science is, science can be predicted. We can use our understanding of the solar system, and use gravity to slingshot a rocket around Mars to send it to Pluto. But you can't pray a rocket to Pluto. I'm sorry that science hasn't explained all the secrets of the universe within the last 200 years that the church stopped prosecuting scientists. But don't forget, religion taught you the earth was flat, Earth is 5,000 years old, that the earth was the center of the universe. Religion is constantly being proven wrong. God has yet to intervene and say science is wrong.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:37 pm |
      • beelzebubba

        I didn't know parrots could type. Amazing.

        September 13, 2011 at 6:40 am |
  74. IdahoPlant

    I am Christian, but I believe in evolution and creation. I don't see them as mutually exclusive, and I don't understand why there is such a debate. Evolution is not fact, but a theory brought about by circumstantial evidence, very strong circumstantial evidence. At the same time, it takes just as much faith not to believe in God as it does to believe in God. The Theory of Evolution never answered the most important question. How did life begin? To me, God and science are inseparable.

    September 12, 2011 at 2:01 pm |
    • threesevenkilo

      "At the same time, it takes just as much faith not to believe in God as it does to believe in God."

      Using this logic, it takes just as much faith not to believe in Santa as it does to believe in Santa.

      The burden of proof lies with creationists, not with evolutionists. We have evidence on our side, you have a book tantamount to a collection of fables and fairy tales.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:11 pm |
      • Dean100343

        If you would make that evidence known you would become a rich famous person.

        September 12, 2011 at 2:15 pm |
      • Humanoid

        @ThreeSevenKilo – You and these other pseudo scientists seem to be stuck in the same rut. Science is ongoig and new discoveries are made regularly.
        There have been 2 important developments of late
        [1] Scientists have discovered that by looking at the Cosmos in relation to the earth, it is more than likely that It was created by a Supeme Intelligence – God [www.godandscience/apologetics] It's really impressive. Look it up.
        [2] Scientists are "very, very close" to proving that there is life after death. Look it up.

        My personal preference is to believe in God rather than Scientists who once thought the world was flat. ThankGod for Columbus. He was a man of faith.

        September 12, 2011 at 6:54 pm |
      • PABLO

        Ah, humanoid. Talk about scientist believing in a flat earth. That was a theory early on until they developed tools and thought processes to improve upon it. If you ever read a history book, it was the Catholic church that prosecuted Copernicus and Galileo for proposing the heliocentric theory that the earth revolves around the sun, not vice versa. The bible says that the earth is on a foundation and cannot be moved and the sun rises and sets in it's own place. So lets not blame science for the slow progress of knowledge.

        September 13, 2011 at 7:55 am |
    • fimeilleur

      nor was it meant to.

      Tell me, do you appose the Theory of Gravity as well? After all, it is JUST a theory...

      September 12, 2011 at 2:12 pm |
    • Chris

      How can one be a follower of Christ's teachings but not believe them? Adam and Eve were not fish. They named the fish. They were never apes. They named the apes.

      You cant have it both ways

      September 12, 2011 at 2:13 pm |
      • mb2010a

        And their children went to other countries or places and found husbands and wives...yet they were the only ones God created? Where did the other people come from?

        September 12, 2011 at 2:39 pm |
  75. AmesIA

    There is certainly mix of views here. I think people don't appreciate the difference between FACT and TRUTH. To say Bill Gates is a zillionaire is TRUTH. It conveys the idea that he is really rich. To in turn say he is poor because a zillion is a made up number would be an abuse of a FACT to obscure a TRUTH. It is a mistake to take our post industrial brains and try to interpret the numbers, scales and language of Moses through our world view. The truth is there but the facts need to be considered appropriately.

    September 12, 2011 at 2:01 pm |
    • Vegaskid

      Very well put AmesIA, I knew there were more great thinkers out there, just been hard finding you LOL you comment on this matter was highly agreed upon by my co -orkers and myself. Well done. Hope you day is a great one. VK and co0workers

      September 12, 2011 at 2:14 pm |
  76. k

    If there is a God...then where is he. A 6-year old gets abducted, raped and burried alive. I chose to believe in man. This world can be our heaven or hell and it is up to us to make it one or the other. God is not going to do it for us. We have only ourselves to turn to.

    September 12, 2011 at 2:00 pm |
    • shrub

      then how do you explain the "beginning'? where did the earth and all that is in it come from? what caused a "big bang" if there was one? something caused it.. what/ who is it?

      September 12, 2011 at 2:21 pm |
      • physics

        The laws of the universe, which we are only just now beginning to grapple with.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:16 pm |
    • Humanoid

      Men and women alone answer for their own evil deeds. God gave unconditional free will to man. He also gave a set of rules to live by [10 Commandments – no frills – rules.] So how can you blame God? That's your way of absolving people from any responsibility for their own actions. And that is irrational.

      You say where is God? You want evidence? How better could God prove his love for man than by sending His Son to die for us? But you disregard that as a myth; fairy story; whatever – because if you DO believe it you will have to abide by the rules and not be able to do what you like, when you like, with whom you like, as often as you like.

      Before you say it: "For those who believe, no explanation is necessary – for those who don't, no explanation is possible"

      Frankly, I have no problem with you not you believing, that's your choice and I respect it. But by the same token, you need to respect mine.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:22 pm |
  77. Nick

    I'm tired of people who have no background in science condemning and dismissing a long held and sound scientific "theory" as make believe. There are literally thousands of scientific articles confirming the "theory" of evolution. Gravity is another "theory" and I doubt anyone believes that is fiction. Evolution is happening this vary second, from anti-biotic resistant bacteria to the Galapagos finches, species are evolving all the time (including humans). Religious beliefs/doctrine should never be the factor on which scientific evidence is based. Otherwise we would still believe that the earth was flat and at the center of the universe, humours/spirits caused sickness, and that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

    September 12, 2011 at 2:00 pm |
    • shrub

      however you can test gravity.. you can't test evolution.. we cant go back and try to duplicate what happened. where are the fossil records that link us to apes? where is the proof? there is none.. its a theory..

      September 12, 2011 at 2:25 pm |
      • Greg693

        Then explain DNA. Explain how it is that chimps share up to 99% of our DNA. Explain how it is that even houseflies share about 35% of our DNA.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:15 pm |
      • Nick

        You most certainly can test evolution. There are many studies that document evolution in action. A good book to read is Beak of the Finch. It is easy to understand even for the layman. It documents evolutionary changes in the Galapagos Finches as well as illustrates other studies that pertain to evolution. As for fossils, imagine the millions of trillions of organisms that have existed since the beginning of time, now what percentage of those turned into fossils. Maybe .0001%, if that. Also how many fossils have humans discovered, maybe just a small percentage that are close to the surface. And you expect scientist to find every single step along the evolutionary path as proof! The link to apes is clear we share 98% of our genes, the only way this is possible is by sharing a common ancestor millions of year ago. You wouldn't deny that lions and tigers are related since they can produce offspring (infertile) and this is because somewhere in the past they also shared a common ancestor.

        September 12, 2011 at 7:14 pm |
  78. Billy Spudd

    The Judeo-Christian bible is built on top of Jewish texts. These Jewish texts are pure fantasy and even lies. They were only first dreamed up around 500 BC as a means to justify the returning Judean elite taking up their rule, under the aegis of the King of Persia, over the Judean and Samaritan peasants left behind after the earlier conquest by the Babylonians. These people used Zoroastrianism as the basis of their 'Judaism' for beliefs like monotheism (this concept didn't exist in Palestine prior to 500 BC) and adding characters like Satan and angels.

    Now, pay attention! The 'ancient history' of the Jews (Israel/Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon, etc.) was all dreamed up at that time. That is why there is no evidence of these people – at all in the entirety of Palestine, or any sort of corroboration of the names or 'deeds' in contemporary Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Greek or Persian records. You find no actual archaeological evidence of Judaism until after 500 BC.

    There were Judeans and Samaritans in the area (modern West Bank) through out ancient history, but they were a nowhere small tribe of people who were basically farmers and shepherds. There are a few mentions of 'kings' of Judea, like Omri in the 800 BC Moab stela, the Israelites were allied with the Philistines in a war against Egypt, which the Egyptians won (the Merenptah Stela) and the hall of records in Egypt does mention the Pharaoh Shoshenq 1 defeating 2 unnamed kings of Israel and Judea. But these are all extremely minor historical incidences. Regarding Shoshenq, the kings he should have been defeating should have been Rehoboam and Jeroboam, the first successors of the rich and powerful Solomon...but the Egyptians thought these kings of such low account, they didn't even name them! If Solomon had been so famous and powerful in his day, that would have been a 'mighty deed' by Shoshenq and he would have named the kings to ensure his own fame and glory.

    The other books of the bible (books of Prophecy, etc) were only written AFTER 500 BC. These were written in the years of Persian and later Greek rule as propaganda to the masses to listen to the Temple elite and not the foreigners.

    Now, if the Old Testament is a gross lie, then what is a religion which is built on top of lies; the religion of Truth????!! There is evidence that Christianity actually began, not in Palestine and with Jesus, but in Persia and was brought west by the Greeks. This religion was called 'Truth Seeking' and Christians were those anointed in the religion. It is highly likely that Jesus and his cousin John were, not the originators of Christianity, but the first to teach it in Palestine. When they were dead, then the Temple elite (Pharisees and Sadducees) constructed, 'for export only' a religion which combined this truth seeking religion with the still nascent Judaism being practiced at the time.

    The idea was to export it and turn others in the Roman Empire into 2nd class Jews, so that even though Palestine was conquered physically, the Jews could control the minds of the Romans. What they didn't figure on, at the time, was the Greeks would quickly figure out what the Jews were up to and hijack the hijacker's religion and turn it to their advantage. This action by the Greeks was the beginning of a formalized Antisemitism in Christianity.

    What Christians SHOULD be doing, is looking to find the TRUE roots of their religion, particularly since archaeology is showing in a glaring light, that Judaism is a totally fictitious religion with no where near the 'ancient age' it claims. Rome was already a city when it was first articulated as a politically expedient lie to organize a rule over a bunch of 5th century BC peasants.

    September 12, 2011 at 1:59 pm |
    • IdahoPlant

      So, are you going to cite some references, or should we take your word as truth?

      September 12, 2011 at 2:05 pm |
      • Billy Spudd

        You can look up the Moab Stele, Merenptah stela, the Shoshenq 1 inscriptions. Here is a place you can see all sorts of citings of biblical nonsense. copy and paste it in your browser.

        http://backfencepub.com/glance_time_line_old_testament.htm

        September 12, 2011 at 2:17 pm |
      • Fred Squash

        There's this site, google... give it a whirl...

        September 12, 2011 at 2:26 pm |
    • PABLO

      I believe the exodus from Egypt took place about 1300 bc. The bible began to take shape as scripture and collected into books around the time of Solomon, or 1000 bc. The actual assembly of these books into the early bible takes place when jews return from the exile in Babylon in about 500 bc. Of course, the structure and much of the content of the bible has changes many time since then.

      September 13, 2011 at 8:07 am |
  79. Pert ner Supertime

    Evolution is a Big crock of Sh*t!!! If it was true there would be NO Monkiey's and they would have evolved into People.

    September 12, 2011 at 1:56 pm |
    • Tom R

      All you have done with this comment is demonstrate that you don't understand evolution. Evolution is not some sort of goal-oriented process which turns all of the members of one species into another. As a population changes over millions of years, descendants which experience different environmental pressures may evolve into different species, while those who live in regions where the habitat is stable my not change at all. If we could come back in several million years to visit the descendants of modern-day monkeys, we might find some that were more human-like, but some would probably be very different from anything alive today, and some would probably still look very much like our current-day monkeys.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:08 pm |
    • Heid Theba

      Notwithstanding your inability to spell "monkeys", your ridiculous statement is as idiotic as saying that there can't be any wolves because we now have chihuahuas....... (a 3rd grade education really won't get you very far these days)

      September 12, 2011 at 2:19 pm |
    • sdl

      You obviously don't understand evolution. There is no pre-ordained order of how things evolved. Monkeys have continued to evolve as monkeys over millions of years. And we're descended from apes not monkeys. We share an ancient ancestor with the other great apes. Our ancient ancestor and the orangutans split first, then the species evolved into gorillas and our ancestors, and then millions of years later our ancestor ape and chimps parted ways as they each evolved in response to various pressures and mutations they were subject too. And our woodland ape ancestor eventually spawned off early hominids, many that were evolutionary dead ends.

      If we don't kill them off, chimps and other great apes will continue to evolve over millions of years, possible changing until they no longer resemble their current form, and possibly becoming multiple new specie, but it doesn't mean they will ever produce a 'human' type descendant.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:44 pm |
    • PABLO

      I can tell by your comment that you are intelligent, education, and have given much thought to this subject.

      September 13, 2011 at 8:08 am |
    • pirate

      How your intelligence level definitely shines here. So a common ancestor splits, one group moves to a different location with different needs, that require them to "upgrade" themselves. The other has what it needs to survive and doesn't evolve, or evolves in a different direction. Both splits live on. Duh!

      September 13, 2011 at 8:13 am |
  80. Ignorance

    Anyone who denies evolution are diluting themselves. You are caught up in your one faith and are being completely close minded. It baffles me that people can follow such a book that has been translated into so many different languages that it has lost its true meaning completely, and then when the actual fossil evidence of our ancestors comes out you refuse to believe it. People need to take a deeper look at what they are buying into because it is weighing the rest of us down.

    September 12, 2011 at 1:55 pm |
    • Johnakim Lucien

      I won't argue with you much. However, how could YOU believe some scientist that got some BONES. God knows what kind of animal that it could be. You know that Adam was like 16 foot tall did you know that? Do you know that is like twice a normal man's height in our age. These scientist could have wrongly interpreted things. Think about it, we all make mistakes and this is the BIGGEST mistake man ever made. Plus the possibilty of having life on another planet is another mistake. It will never happen and mark my words NEVER!!

      September 12, 2011 at 2:04 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        Your words have been marked... for the record... what do you like served with crow, when you are proven wrong? Just want to get your plate ready.

        September 12, 2011 at 2:17 pm |
      • dieseltdi

        There is NOTHING in the Bible that says that Adam was 16 feet tall. this is a fairy tale taught by some delusional person.

        September 12, 2011 at 2:17 pm |
      • Ignorance

        Well I'm assuming you also think Adam was the first man created so its pretty ignorant to think he was 14 feet tall. Regardless, even if he was 14 feet tall, then you couldn't deny that we have EVOLVED into shorter beings. Evolution is all around us everyday. As for life outside earth, if your brain could really put into perspective how big and complicated this universe is, you would realize how silly that is to believe.

        September 12, 2011 at 2:23 pm |
    • AANP

      Some of you could go back to English class. Your writing makes you sound ignorant in addition to your opinions. "Diluting" means to water down something, not to be duped or deceived as 'deluded' does. Evolution is only a theory, not a proven fact. It doesnt even pass the tests of the science it clalims to prove. So, did your computer 'just happen' over millions of years of evolution ? Or did it have a designer and an engineer to make it happen? Your body and all of nature are far more complicated than any computer. Inorganic material does not beget life. Dead is dead. Just because you cannot or will not see God at work, does not mean He does not exist. I cannot see your brain, therefore it does not exist... If you choose evolution as your religion, that is your free choice. I do not choose evolution, never will. So, where did all the materials that "caused' the Big Bang to 'create' the universe come from ???? Scientists do not know half of what they claim to know. It is like claiming to know what an elephant is by examining its tail only.

      God does NOT allow eternal torture as some claim. He does pay the penalty for sin for those who accept it; those who reject him will suffer the penalty, but they will be ashes, not burn alive forever.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:28 pm |
      • Ignorance

        Just because a computer has a designer does not mean that life has a designer. You are obviously caught up in your christian faith. Good for you. They actually have the resources to prove the big bang and once we get to that we will find out a lot more information. The problem is Nasa has shut down most all of its funding and this project got cancelled because we don't have the money in this shitty economy. There is more science out there than you know of (quantum physics, theoretical physics, etc) so until you actually have looked at things from an unbiased point of view, I don't know why you would want to try to put your ideas on other people and DELUDE them.

        "Scientists do not know half of what they claim to know. It is like claiming to know what an elephant is by examining its tail only."

        By scientists do you mean christians? You are extremely ignorant if you actually think scientists don't know half of what they claim to know. You honestly must know nothing about science and just read the bible all day, which is great but why would you say something like that when you have not a clue what you're talking about. You know nothing about God and yet you choose to follow a book that has been around for thousands of years and the meanings have been changed over and over. Then there is science that has concrete evidence of our past and is real and you choose not to accept it. God is cool and he makes you feel good, but in the end he is just made up in your mind.

        September 12, 2011 at 2:51 pm |
      • dangle66

        Evolution is only a theory, huh? You do understand that in science, there's nothing "higher" or more proven than a theory, right?

        September 12, 2011 at 8:14 pm |
    • Chrisj

      Talk about refusing to believe fossil evidence. There have been many scientist and many discoveries of skeletal remains of extreme human antiquity. Evidence has also been found of advanced technology from ancient times especially in areas of present day India and China.. I'm talking about millions and millions of years. But we never hear anything about and it is never even considered worthy of discussion. why? because the scientific establishment is just as dogmatic as religion. Imagine discovering something that contradicts your expertise and everything that was ever taught to you. of course it would be suppressed, it is the problem of the human ego. I dont believe in Darwin's materialistic and reductionist theory of evolution nor do I believe in the Christianity nonsense. Both are wrong in MY opinion. I just dont see how all complex life forms of today originated from bacterial cells. with the advanced genetic technology we have today, I have yet to see intelligence create a multicellular organism from single cell organisms. And if we are a product of random genetic formation followed by natural selection how is it that humans are so advanced so far beyond any other species on the planet that we can completely dominant and are in fact destroying the earth. I dont see evolution bettering anyone right now, not even humans. We are more than just biology. One love

      September 12, 2011 at 3:31 pm |
      • sdl

        Uh oh, you've marked yourself as a conspiracy nut right off the bat by assuming science is some vast collective working toward some common goal. If there was some credible information about advanced technology millions of years old, the scientists who discovered it would be knocking each other down to present the information. That's the think about science, it's constantly revising theories as new information and facts come to light, unlike religion, which fights tooth and nail to discredit information that might upset the apple cart. Yes, some scientists will scoff at new information that gain says commonly accepted theories, especially if it's their theory, but you can't ignore data forever, especially when it is corroborated by independent sources using sound scientific principles.

        As are as you not being able to fathom how complex can arise from simple, that's because you're human and think in the hear and now. A hundred years is a long time for most people. They can't comprehend the vast amount of time a billion years is. But through the various sciences, such as geology and paleontology, for example, we have evidence of how the world and life itself have changed over eons. We can look at genes and see how they have changed over time.

        Why are we so advanced while other species are not? It's not an equal opportunity existence. At some point along the way, a unique set of circumstances and possible mutations resulted in our ancestors starting to develop bigger brains that allowed more complex thoughts that allowed us to think and to plan and to modify our environment that gave us an insurmountable leg up on other species. And there have been other species that exhibit intelligence. A competing form of human, the Neanderthal once existed, and we simply out competed them or killed them off, though they have found traces of Neanderthal DNA in certain modern peoples.

        And as far as evolution not bettering anyone, well, that's because evolution isn't some kind of force or intelligence; it's a way of describing how life has changed and applying scientific principles to test these ideas.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:14 pm |
      • sdl

        Dang, wish they had an edit button. That's what happens when you try to post on the sly without the boss poking his head out of his office and catching you.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:16 pm |
  81. Johnakim Lucien

    Evolution is the biggest thing to ever hit the long reigning theme of Christianity. It is one that can be mind boggling. However, for me it is one of the biggest insult to me as an individual. How can my fore parents be apes and evolve to a monkey. It is total disrespect. On the other hand I like the fact that I am created in the likeness of God. I think it is a theory that is not logical. I need to know why this process is not continual. You may argue it is of a lesser extent, so why aren;t people like 16 foot tall anymore. Maybe we are shrinking, with more diseases coming up. I guess that's the best way to describe it. Therefore I conclude creation is way more logical than evolution and we may argue about God, however, evidence of him is seen.

    September 12, 2011 at 1:52 pm |
    • Humanoid

      Well said.

      I'm wondering why apes and monkeys are still apes and monkeys? Can scientists answer that one?
      Evolution – look up the 'Piltdown Man' – A group of British University students had scientists jumping about with their super- dooper theories; then they were told that the 'skeleton' the students had buried for them to dig up was a complete and utter fake. Embarrasing, or what!

      Scientists can be wrong. Sorry to burst all the pseudo- scientist bloggers

      September 12, 2011 at 2:07 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        if you came from your father and mother, and your father and his brother came from your grand-father, then why is your uncle still around?

        Funny how the scientific method exposed the piltdown man as a fraud... science learns from it's mistakes, you apparently do not.

        September 12, 2011 at 2:10 pm |
      • KrashUndBurn

        """I'm wondering why apes and monkeys are still apes and monkeys? Can scientists answer that one?"""

        Whoever said there's no such thing as a stupid question is clearly wrong.

        Can you read? If yes, then please, by all means, READ about the evolution of man. Your question has been answered ad nauseum. It's all there if you choose to educate yourself.

        September 12, 2011 at 2:14 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      I'm sure you could point me in the direction of the museum that houses this 16 foot tall skeleton? You "like" the idea of being created in God's image? So it makes you feel good? is that all? Sorry if reality is inconvenient for you. People tell you you're handsome or you sing well, some might be genuine, but others... are just trying to make you "feel good". Feeling good has little to do with reality.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:07 pm |
    • Billy Spudd

      That is because you are judging the world 'according to the length of your years' and not the years of the Earth. If you do not see change in your life, you assume it can't possibly happen at all over a long, long period of time. Also, the imprecise notion of a soul that Christianity teaches clouds the issue....when would a 'soul' be put in a creature so that while it is a man, its parents are apes? Christianity didn't initially teach that everyone had a soul. It taught that a person could RECEIVE a soul (Spirit) and that that soul was not the property of the person's awareness (mind) but a Visitor. These concepts are in no way contradictory to Evolution. They were destroyed by the Judeo-Christian church when it won out over the older Gnostic Christian churches after Constantine made Christianity the religion of the empire. The problem isn't Evolution, the problem is a religion which is built on lies.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:10 pm |
      • SouthernCelt

        As I recall, Gnosticism denies the Divinity of Jesus while He walked the Earth and holds on to other ideas that make it incompatible with the accepted definition of Christianity. For those that believe, no explanation is necessary. For those that don't believe no explanation will suffice. I believe, you apparently do not. Neither of us is likely to change the mind or beliefs of the other so why argue?

        September 12, 2011 at 2:50 pm |
    • Tom R

      When people I don't agree with voice their opinion on web sites, I find it extremely offensive to my sensibilities. It is clear that you are attacking me personally, and it has hurt my feelings. Therefore, you must be incorrect. If I don't understand your point, and I can offer counter-examples which are in no way connected to your argument, it is proof that I am correct.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:15 pm |
  82. Neutral

    believe what you would believe, the existence of a higher being does not matter, no one can "Prove" anything, there are so many stories about how the world began (yes there are more than 2...surprising what a simple search for creation myths/ stories will show you), how can just one of those be right? or any of them for that matter?

    September 12, 2011 at 1:48 pm |
    • SouthernCelt

      Faith is believing without seeing. If it could be proven, faith would be unnecessary.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:58 pm |
      • Tom R

        Now you're getting it!

        September 12, 2011 at 3:33 pm |
  83. FLoxed

    Do I believe in evolution? It is a fact whether you believe in it or not. You may not like it because it leaves no place for your god to work thier balck magic on – but then reading a 2000 year book with who knows how many authors and their biases and who knows based on what, with the hope that a dead guy is going to come down from the sky at some point – now that's belief!

    September 12, 2011 at 1:47 pm |
  84. Charles Stacy

    You have to be a idiot to believe in evolution, Man can't even cure a common cold, so how can anyone in their right mind
    believe a group of cells evolved into all the different creatures this world holds. Stupid, Stupid.

    September 12, 2011 at 1:46 pm |
    • Neutral

      read before you blabber, there are plenty of possible reasons cells/life evolves and adapts. A simple search/ an hour of research will show this. Know the possibilities

      September 12, 2011 at 1:53 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      Man can't cure the common cold because the bacteria mutates too quickly, by the time you figure out how to kill it, 5, 10, 15 generations of mutations have occurred. Not because we aren't trying... it's easier to treat the symptoms of the cold than to try to eradicate it.

      September 12, 2011 at 1:57 pm |
    • rene

      The reason why man can't cure the common cold is because of evolution. The cold/flu virus mutates (evolves) each time it is passed to a new donor, becoming a new virus. Your point illustrates just how deluded the religious right are about their belief system. Everything you can't explain points to the existence of your god, instead of learning the scientific method. Maybe there is a god, maybe not, but there certainly is evolution, which has been proven and re-proven again and again for hundreds of years.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:00 pm |
    • leggs

      How can a person believe in an invisible man in the sky?

      September 12, 2011 at 2:01 pm |
      • douglasjames

        Actually, the "man" is a spirit, and it is much easier to believe the anthropomorphic term of "man" rather than your statement.

        September 13, 2011 at 12:51 pm |
    • Peggy

      Of course we can cure the common cold. It is just condensation fo the body adjusting from hot to cold and vice-versa. What they have a hard time with is flue viruses because, like humans, they adapt and evolve to stay alive. Come on, contempt prior to investigation only leaves you in ignorance. Judas Priest is right! You can have it both ways.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:04 pm |
    • KrashUndBurn

      The logic of a believer in its finest representation. There is no hope of reason here. Move along, you evolutionists and biologists.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:17 pm |
    • Fred Squash

      Hahahahahahahaha... Oh wait... You were serious, weren't you? If you haven't already produced more ignorant ilk, please have a vasectomy.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:31 pm |
    • judy klein

      Charles, the reason we cannot cure the common cold is because the virus that causes it evolves and mutates constantly in order to ensure it's survival.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:34 pm |
  85. Tim

    Let's set this to rest once and for all (I know wishful thinking). Nothing, I repeat: NOTHING in the biological sciences makes sense except in the light of the fact of evolution. Evolution is a "theory" in the same way that Gravity is a theory. So, unless you are currently floating above the Earth or have the ability to do so without mechanical assistance, you are descended from ape-like humanoids. You can believe in any mythology you like, but that does not invalidate the absolute truth of evolution...your thinking that it does only makes you look silly and uneducated.

    September 12, 2011 at 1:44 pm |
    • scientific method

      Evolution and gravity are similar in that they (like all other theories put forth through the scientific method) remain, not because they have been proven to be true, but because they have never been proven to be false.

      September 12, 2011 at 1:55 pm |
    • Betty Young

      I would think it is more like dinosaurs and the fact we are looking at bones to find theory. It can be misleading and complex. Many times over the dinosaurs theories have changed over the years. It is like looking at a Hippo's bones. You would never know it lived most of its life in water. Bones and dna can only tell science so much. Even though science may say today this is the link between modern man and a monkey, years later they may realize this was a fake, a different species all together with no link to man and who knows what else. Or they may find it is the link without a doubt. Science is every changing its ideas and theory is only theory.

      September 12, 2011 at 1:57 pm |
    • SouthernCelt

      Fine. Show me a human with a new capability or appendage, or show me the Missing Link. Human Evolution is still a theory until it is proven. That is not religion, that is Science.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:01 pm |
      • jason

        Which "missing link" would you like Australopithecus, Ouranopithecus, or Homo Erectus?

        September 12, 2011 at 4:26 pm |
      • dangle66

        You obviously don't understand what a SCIENTIFIC theory is.... In science, a theory is supported by facts and disproved by none. It is way more tested than simply an idea.... in science, an idea would be called an hypothesis.

        ...and that is not religion, that's science

        September 12, 2011 at 7:57 pm |
      • fin

        Do you mean "theory" as in Electronics Theory or Music Theory as taught in college?

        September 13, 2011 at 3:35 pm |
  86. Believing2sides

    I was raised Catholic. My sister is an anthropologist. I studied to be a biologist. When I questioned my faith as a young adult, my father sat down with me. He reminded me that the bible is a collection of stories, some passed down verbally through the generations, many recopied over and over. Genesis explains how we got here in the words of a civilization that had limited understanding of their surroundings. And our time is based on the sun-earth relationship. If you look at the story of creation in Genesis, God gave us light on the sixth day…can you be sure the previous five were only 24 hours long? When I stated I believed in life on other planets and that didn’t fit, my dad asked me if I were an omniscient being, would I create just one world? How do we know that evolution wasn’t his plan, guided by His hand? Does time mean the same thing to Him as it does to us? Look at the discoveries made worldwide on similar time lines prior to globalization of communication. Can you be sure that He didn’t have a hand in that? Look at the similarities between stories in different religions. If these things didn’t happen, why do vastly different religions have so many similarities? It’s the interpretations of the stories that make us so diverse. This doesn’t have to be an either or discussion. I believe that creation and evolution are one in the same.

    September 12, 2011 at 1:43 pm |
    • Dano973

      Wow!! Finally a response that is meaningful and makes you think!!! Thank you for an educated and well thought out response. I agree with your Dad 1 million percent.

      September 12, 2011 at 1:57 pm |
    • TheMovieFan

      Agreed. Wonderful posting.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:11 pm |
    • SouthernCelt

      As I was told when educated in the Catholic faith, The Church does not have an opinion on the Theory of Evolution. It does not care if God used evolution or design to create life, all it knows is that it was all God's idea and action. He was the spark that ignited the Big Bang and if everything after that happened by design, or if He used evolution as a tool, it all started with Him. No one knows the mind of God or was present when creation began, so both creation/design and evolution are just ideas created by man to explain human existence (.e.g. where did we come from?).

      September 12, 2011 at 2:30 pm |
    • JT

      A lot of that is the byproduct of the human brain, which we have yet to understand. The brain wants things to work. We as humans are natural problem solvers. When we are presented with a conflict we attempt to resolve it. This is hardwired into our brains. This simple aspect of our nature is responsible for curiosity. That curiosity can lead in more than one direction – for both practical and abstract answers to life's questions. Early 'scientists' looked for practical solutions and that's why simple tools and machines are found in all cultures around the world independent of trade or communication. Early 'priests' looked for abstract methods whether it be magic, religion, or something else, which leads to simliar stories creation, folk magic, and even rudimentary medicines.

      I think there are a lot of things beyond our creation that we will struggle to grasp. I think unlocking the secrets of our minds will be the first step. When we fully understand not only HOW we think, but WHY we think, we may finally understand where we came from and where we're headed.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:32 pm |
    • dangle66

      Many religions share common beliefs simply because those religions share common beginnings. The big 3 (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) all share the 'old testament' as the root of their respected beliefs... and there's evidence that much of the Old Testament came from the Egyptians before them. However there are and have been many religions that are very different from each other. Religious belief has evolved over time. Animism is loosely a belief of living things having life energy, or a sole, yet no concepts of god or heaven. Early Egyptian’s took from this idea and expounded on it to form polytheistic beliefs. Then later religions took polytheistic beliefs and came up with monotheistic beliefs focused on a creator god and heaven. As human philosophy got more complex, so did the religious beliefs.

      These religious beliefs are a product of humans attempting to answer “life” questions. Humans do seem to have an inherent desire to answer these questions, but there's no evidence from the various religions that the answer is inherent in us.

      September 12, 2011 at 7:38 pm |
  87. MD1JD

    alma1313 – Well stated! ("I like to believe evolution or any discovery is evidence of a creation. Gods' creation."). I also believe in both. Nothing in the Bible suggests that the Book of Genesis (The Creation) limited the passage of time to man's concept of it. How long is seven "days" in God's eyes? How egotistical and typical of us to presume that God must have meant a human earth-day when the Bible states that the universe was created in seven days, etc. The underlying point is why couldn't God have created the primary substances with which He then created our existance? Much like a scientist mixing chemicals in a laboratory – God easily could have done the same. Doing so would create an evolutionary path showing the underlying roots of creation. Moreover, this would be consistent with the notion that God is all-knowing. He knew man would wonder and try to research His creation. He left a path of ingredients from His wonderous experiment for us to study – which we call "evolution." Why is this considered so impossible or inconsistent?

    September 12, 2011 at 1:42 pm |
    • JT

      Well for something to be impossible you have to acknowledge that something could be considered as such. The religious crowd doesn't buy that argument so you're basically asking a question that can't be answered (go figure, on an article about evolution and the missing link ;))

      September 12, 2011 at 2:23 pm |
    • Fred Squash

      If god created us in his image, it stands to reason that our concept of a day would be the same as his. This is one of the many problems with the god idea.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:35 pm |
  88. mendrys

    For many years people have been told to believe that mankind is the pinnacle of God's creation that we are the very reason for the creation of the Earth and entire universe. To find out that this isn't so can certainly be disconcerting to say the least. I do believe in God and in evolution and see why no reason why the 2 have to be mutually exclusive though some people on both sides would disagree. Though not Catholic I am still very pleased to see that they have come around, to some extent. I saw an interview with the Vaticans astronomer who said it succintly, and I am paraphrasing, "The Bible was written in the bronze age thousands of years ago, modern science is very young by comparison. There is no way that the Bible could possibly speak on matters of modern science."

    September 12, 2011 at 1:42 pm |
    • Betty Young

      that may not be true that an old source can not talk about science. Buddha writtings and teachings are very old and yet there are things even it by passes science on. There were old theories that in turn were proven correct so thinking any old text is not relative to science is incorrect. You may not agree with the Bible or may have reasons to hate it but it is not without value beyond the normal rulers using it to have order.

      September 12, 2011 at 1:51 pm |
  89. bobcat2u

    Whatever. Why does it have to matter ? The realists in this world don't give a rats hairy butt about it. Face the facts !! You are born, you live your life, you die. It's as simple as that. Life's to short to be arguing about stupid stuff like this. All this crap does is give one group or another a reason to stick their fingers in each others faces.

    September 12, 2011 at 1:40 pm |
  90. Kevin

    Its not surprising at all that there would be some process of evolution in the human species. There appears to be a process of evolution in every species on this planet, and I do not see why the human species would be any different. Those who wish to believe that a person in the sky placed us here should stop being so closed minded and think practically. Its very clear that over time, humans have become larger, and this has occured in our lifetime. Look back at the size of humans in the 1950s vs now. You might be surprised.

    September 12, 2011 at 1:38 pm |
    • scientific method

      Not to argue against you, but your last point about the increased size in humans over the last century would more than likely be due to better nutrition and exercise. A species would likely not be able to evolve within a generation in such a drastic way. For a stark example, look at how much height and weight has increased in China in the last 25 years, largely due to better nutrition.

      September 12, 2011 at 1:48 pm |
      • Dano973

        The fact that people are growing taller has nothing to do with better nutrition. People in Africa have lower nutrition yet many are significantly taller than Europeans who may have better nutrition. I agree though that evolution doesn't occur in the same generation but it is possible for a parent's DNA to be altered in such a way to pass down new DNA to their children. This is already the case with vulnerability or lack there of to diseases...why not height and mass?

        September 12, 2011 at 1:53 pm |
  91. Belle1231

    I have believed since childhood that God created evolution. Nowhere in the Bible does it state how many years comprise one of God's days. I was thrown out of a church youth group debate on the subject when I voiced my thoughts. I wasn't playing by their rules that I either believe in evolution or God, but couldn't believe in both simultaneously. 45 years later, I still believe evolution was God's plan.

    September 12, 2011 at 1:37 pm |
    • Dano973

      Belle... I agree with you. A higher power created our Universe but it wasn't done in 7 days and actually even saw a program on the history channel once that made it all very clear. I've tried to relay this information that joins science and religion and like you got kicked out of the argument entirely. Just remember how wrong religious fanatics were 400 years ago when 'the world was flat' and 'the sun revolved around the Earth'. I rest my case... Science is always right not Religion.

      September 12, 2011 at 1:49 pm |
      • frespech

        Give your head a shake the scientist at that time also agreed that the earth was flat. Get over believing that science is always right.

        September 13, 2011 at 2:12 pm |
  92. xpst

    The universe could have been created 5 min ago with just the right attributes to make it look as it does now. You cannot know otherwise. Your brain could now be connected to a supercomputer that is feeding you synthesized perceptions. You cannot know otherwise. The battle between theophiles and theophobes is not constructive.

    September 12, 2011 at 1:37 pm |
  93. NotGladly

    It's a chicken or the egg thing. "God" was evidently also a creation of man. Keeps all the little Kool-Aid drinkers from fearing their own mortality.

    September 12, 2011 at 1:36 pm |
  94. Wanderer81

    As a Christian I could care less about evolution, up or down. I means absolutely nothing to me. What does mean something to me is when I see our Nation's politicians dropping so low as to politicize science texts and hold up our educational process to gain votes.

    September 12, 2011 at 1:36 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      Separation of church and state... it should bother you more that the church is interfering with the education on America's youth.

      September 12, 2011 at 1:41 pm |
    • mendrys

      I agree. I too find it distasteful when politicians try to interject their religious beliefs in science books. I also agree that creationism and the psuedo science of intelligent design have no business in biology books. It is good to see a fellow Christian with the same beliefs in the absolute seperation of church and state.

      September 12, 2011 at 1:51 pm |
    • seriously226

      I agree – teach science in Science class and teach religion in philosophy class.

      September 12, 2011 at 4:14 pm |
  95. Cleareye

    Science will always be looking for our beginnings. This never ending quest now reasonably tracks us back about 5-10 million years ago and we are just getting started with the research (a few hundred years?). Eventually, we may understand the creation of the universe on entirely different terms than now. Before that can happen we must abandon the excess weight of myths in order to free all human minds to explore our beginnings and our future.

    September 12, 2011 at 1:35 pm |
    • Neutral

      nice Post, very agreeable..but as long as people fear what they do not know there will be theistic belief systems.

      September 12, 2011 at 1:59 pm |
  96. Mark

    I do not understand how people in an industrialized society can believe in such an antiquated idea as "creationism". It just goes to show us the harm any deeply rooted ideology can do to society.

    September 12, 2011 at 1:34 pm |
    • dew

      I do not understand how people in an industrialized society can believe that biological, specified information can arise simply out of chance or necessity when there are no other examples of this happening anywhere in our observation of the natural world.

      September 12, 2011 at 1:45 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        but you've observed a woman fashioned from a rib? or a man created from dust? Please do tell.

        September 12, 2011 at 1:51 pm |
      • Ouka

        You want to talk impossible chances dew? You are an impossible outcome. Forget evolution, forget micro and macro evolution. Let's just talk conception. You are the result of a single biological reaction where the odds were 1 in 5 million that the specific sperm that created you in your daddy's love batter met with your mother's egg. So by even being born you are a statistical impossibility, yet there you sit.

        Now let's step back further – your daddy was making several hundred million sperm a day, every day of his life. You average that out over a lifetime (100m sperm/day * 365.25 day/year * ~50 fertile years) and the specific DNA sequence that led to YOU is 1 in 1.8 Trillion. Trillion! Talk about winning the lottery dew. You shouldn't exist. Not by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. And that's just one generation. Your grandaddy's sperm that made your daddy fall under the same astronomical odds. From that frame of reference, when your daddy was a twinkle in your gradaddy's eye, the chances of you, 25 or so years latter popping out is 1 in 3×10^24. Go back a few more generations and you can see how rapidly the chances of a pre-determined you, dear dew, are completely and utterly impossible.

        But there's the rub – statistically impossibilities aside, basic biology dictates that doin' the deed under certain conditions makes a baby. Them's the rules. With those rules in play, a result had to happen. Predicting you as the result? Impossibility. But a very related you? One of the other 4.99 million phantom brothers and sisters that headed for the egg on your fateful eve of conception? Mostly a forgone conclusion.

        Now apply statistical chance to evolution – it's impossible to predict the final form that evolutionary factors will shape a species into over time. Things that seem impossibly specific from a pre-deterministic standpoint are right – they are impossible. But so are the other millions upon millions of other designs that *didn't* work out that you "don't* see presented before you. Given the basic rules of evolution, something had to happen once the molecules were in play. The result is the impossible world around you, made possible by the simple fact that *something* had to be the result.

        September 12, 2011 at 4:46 pm |
  97. Betty Young

    I believe there were orignally three kinds of humans as there are now. What they call Human is the black race hence why the dna is found in Africa. Neanderthals are probably the orignal white race and their dna is mostly stuck in europe though I would laugh they find white people today do have a dna link to them. And they should have been one more for asians though I'm not sure what it is called. As far as the monkey link, I will wait to deicde on it. We have been told long ago that the people of the past were hairy thugs and today that is not really true. Science may come up with other theories on this creature or find parts didn't even belong to this one which happened with some of the dinos.

    September 12, 2011 at 1:33 pm |
    • mendrys

      You should probably brush up on current research on this. DNA analysis supports the idea that ALL people originated out of Africa. As well, there do seem to be traces of Neanderthal DNA in modern humans. Given our origins we probably were ALL black people who evolved different traits based on the environment. Northen peoples becaue light skinned and vice versa.

      September 12, 2011 at 1:48 pm |
    • R3@LLY?

      Your inner-city school obviously didn't do a very good job of teaching science. DNA evidence clearly shows that all humans owe their origins to Africa, skin pigments are due to evolution from regional in-breeding amongst those who survived best in their respected environment. If these three races evolved from different species they would not be able to interbreed and produce viable offspring. I'd call you racist, but unfortunately politically correct "new-speech" has defined that term as being a white man. Please read a high-school biology book before you comment again.

      September 12, 2011 at 1:58 pm |
      • Betty Young

        FIrst of all this may not be true. They know that we all have dna out of africa but what they haven't thought of is was it due to africains leaving or neandethrals breed out. This could actually lose all dna of the original speicies. Breeding out would make more sense as well since no dna of neandethrals are found in africa. And yes I do know the current threory on this subject but I just don't think its correct. I think there are other ways to look at the evidence and see it happened a different way. Thinking that Africans left and went around the world and this killed off Neandethrals is very unliking. They probably traded with each other and Africans may have out numbered Neandethrals or were less apt to breed with another race. They do know that Neandethrals and Modern day humans did in fact have children. This was an article I believe the BBC covered.

        September 12, 2011 at 2:14 pm |
      • R3@LLY?

        You're missing the point Betty. To state that they all evolved independently would suggest that they do not have common ancestors. It is true that animals that come from close evolutionary branches can breed and create new species, Arctic galls are a good example of this, but what you are suggesting is that they come from a different genus and species. You are implying that humans (African, European, and Asian) evolved independently, with Africans having all of the fossils found there, and Homo-Neanderthalous having its own origin, along with your mystery Asian ancestor. That would mean that it would be wrong to call Neanderthals Homo-blank at all. What you are suggesting is called convergent evolution. Bats and birds cannot breed with each other till bat or bird DNA doesn't exist anymore, they can't breed at all. And neither would Europeans, Asians, or African people if your "theory" were true.

        September 12, 2011 at 2:45 pm |
    • Ouka

      Actually, Neanderthal genes have been found in all human-sub races except for sub-Africa peoples. This is direct evidence of intermixing of humans with Neanderthals as they expended into Neanderthal territories.

      September 12, 2011 at 4:20 pm |
      • Jerry

        Ouka is right, but we don't even have to go genetic. There are places where africans crossed paths with Neanderthals in Africa, or where the land masses between Europe proper and Africa where the thought is also that they interbred there. They have found skeletons of humans which are not properly homo sapien and not properly Neanderthals.

        September 12, 2011 at 7:25 pm |
  98. kyle

    Faith is beleife in something for no good reason. The knowledge of evolution does not requrie faith, just the patience to look at and comprehend irrefutable evidence.

    September 12, 2011 at 1:33 pm |
    • scientific method

      kyle – The scientific method calls not for trying to provide irrefutable evidence supporting evolution. Instead, the scientific method calls for researchers to try and disprove it as a theory. This has not been done. The theory of evolution remains as a viable theory NOT because it has been proven to be true, but because it has never been proven to be false. It has not conquered, it simply survives the tests of the scientific method.

      September 12, 2011 at 1:44 pm |
      • Kyle

        It is a viable theory because it makes sense to those who are trying to prove it. They stumble, try and retry and at the end agree there has been mistakes, privide examples of what they have learned and try again.

        Religion or belief through the faith agreen with the whole notion of 'facts' blindly without testing any theories (at least that is my humble opinion).

        September 12, 2011 at 7:51 pm |
    • wilson

      There is proof. Evolution happens all around you. For example, ever wonder why there is a different flu shot every year? It's because the flu that is caused by RNA viruses are constantly evolving and changing over time. The shot no longer works because the influenza has mutated. That is why there is a hugh fear that a super flu can happen (again) because it can mutate into something extremely virulent to humans. There are literally hundreds of examples but I'll leave it up to you to go take a class on anthropology to get a better understanding. But, proof of God? There isn't any.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:00 pm |
    • Careful Thought

      Wilson never read the peppered moth story.

      Evolution means one specie BECOMING another, such that the new specie didn't even exist before. The rise in population of drug-resistant virii is attributed to the fact that we killed off the other type, and the void is filled with those.

      If you had a plague that killed every human EXCEPT people from the outbacks of Australia, they'd be the only ones to survive, and they'd eventually re-fill the earth. By Wilson's argument, Humans evolved into Aborigines.

      That's not evolution- that's natural selection, and that does happen. It's a different argument. No one is contesting natural selection. Better things survive. There is weeding out. What DOESN'T happen is a specie giving birth to a new specie that is genetically different and better than its parent.

      Evolution, as taught today is very very different from what I was taught in school We now teach that what I was taught is not true. Heck, when I told them that at the time, they called me a radical religious freak wanting to cling to my bronze age myth.

      Who's the one clinging to a failing myth? Sheesh when DAWKINS says that :

      It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

      Getting warmer, Dawkins. Getting warmer..

      September 12, 2011 at 4:32 pm |
    • Ouka

      Careful Thought – Darwin's Finches. 14 (or 115 depending on who you talk to) evolved from a single common ancestor when the populations were isolated from the mainland. The molecularly, the leading difference between the recognized species is expression baaterns of a bone development protein, BMP4. Differing levels of this protein during embryonic development lead to the different, and distinct, types of beaks the species have.

      This is adaptive mutation at its finest – a single population of birds from the mainland entered a food-rich environment where they had no competition for the resources. With an abundance of different types of food available, and the fact that the populations were further isolated not just from their parental species back on the mainland, but even largely from one another on the different islands, led to specialization of beaks to exploit different food sources which reduced the direct competition between each population and allowed each to flourish in their own niche.

      September 12, 2011 at 5:16 pm |
    • Kyle

      I would rather be wrong thinking evolution is right than thinking, God created all the bees and the birds, differentiated them and .... put them on earth.

      If I am God, I have better things to do with my time...

      September 12, 2011 at 8:04 pm |
  99. us1776

    "Invisible Being" cults were started by the earliest rulers in order to govern their people at a distance.

    Once people thought there was some invisible entity that could spy on them then they would be more likely to obey the wishes of the ruler. And this has proven true to this day.

    .

    September 12, 2011 at 1:32 pm |
    • Cleareye

      What is needed is a new philosophy that can attract the current "believers' to change their way of life. Not an easy undertaking.

      September 12, 2011 at 1:40 pm |
  100. alma1313

    I like to believe evolution or any discovery is evidence of a creation. Gods' creation.

    September 12, 2011 at 1:28 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      I'd like to believe that the flying spaghetti monster will fill my plate nightly with his noodle appendages... Pastafarian for life, baby.

      September 12, 2011 at 1:46 pm |
      • KrashUndBurn

        R'amen............

        September 12, 2011 at 2:26 pm |
      • Gravy

        Everyone knows that the true God is neither spaghetti nor R'amen.

        ...It's the all mighty Linguine Noodle!

        September 12, 2011 at 5:04 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      yes, love so powerful that he is willing to allow eternal torture... try again religitard.

      September 12, 2011 at 1:59 pm |
    • Nitrogen

      Who are you going to believe? Your pastor or your own eyes?

      September 12, 2011 at 2:14 pm |
    • wilson

      For some people there is no hope. You are one of them.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:15 pm |
    • Rich

      You're right, science can do good. Such as curing diseases previously though to be caused by demons. Discovering that the Earth is not the center of the universe. Realizing that snakes/donkeys cannot talk. And definitely that a woman cannot give birth without having sex.

      September 12, 2011 at 2:24 pm |
    • Arturo

      Lucifer? That's a scare tactic that the church implemented. Truth is, no one knows the details to the creation. I believe in god and science. Like an earlier post I read: The Holy Bible, Torah, & Koran don't have time lines.. Who says it all isn't the same? God could've created the earth trillions of years ago and could've created dinosaurs, what does that change?

      September 12, 2011 at 3:10 pm |
    • Jordan

      If you actually believe that fossil remains were put here by satin to confuse us, then I would probably have to say that you are the remnant of a bygone era of Christians that are fanatic to the point of insanity

      September 12, 2011 at 3:14 pm |
    • sumday

      at rich- science can also do bad like atom bombs, global warming, ect. I don't know were in any hold book it claims the earth is the center of the universe (sure some people believed that but no were in any book is that stated, then again science believed many things too until it was proved false), as for the women not giving birth without sex- hmm ever heard of artificial insemination? I suppose you believe humans are the only intelligent life form in this universe huh? Bc if believe in evolution then you can't exclude the possibility of a more evolved creature somewhere out in space that might have created us. I mean just look at all the UFO's claims- they claim they are teleported right on to their ship- do we have that technology today? Or might there be another race out there that is capable of things that you don't understand? But I guess if your 3.5 lb mind can understand it then it must all be fairy tale huh?

      September 12, 2011 at 3:15 pm |
    • Bman

      Dam, did Satan steel my pen too? If he left those bones in the ground how do you know he didnt play a part in the bible? He seems pretty sneaky. Maybe God created Earth and satan created us to destroy it.

      September 12, 2011 at 3:51 pm |
    • Gregg

      So those who believe that the earth goes around the sun, and that the stars are distant suns, are also going to hell. In the bible, the earth is immobile and the stars are little lights attached to the inside of this huge vault called the firmament. All the astronomy, space probes, etc. are a conspiracy by Satan to undermine belief.

      September 12, 2011 at 4:02 pm |
    • seriously226

      Better get off your Satan box then...aka "computer"...because it was created via science.

      September 12, 2011 at 4:06 pm |
    • Belseth

      Lucifer sure has been busy. It's impressive that he created an entire evolutionary history in the form of fossils. Also did you know that there is also a genetic history that can be traced and even dated? Science isn't evil but willfull ignorance is dangerous. Religious leaders have always fought against science because it's based on proof and they know religion can't meet the same standards. FYI the Bible never refers to Lucifer as evil. That version of Lucifer evolved in the middle ages. Lucifer was an Archangel. There's nothing in the Bible to indicate the kind of trickery you are claiming. In fact what you are talking about is a pagan deity called a trickster. In Norse mythology he was called Loki and in native american cultures he was represented as a coyote. Your belief in a trickster is a pagan belief not a Christian one. Never debate religion with an Atheist. They read.

      September 12, 2011 at 4:17 pm |
    • Rottindam

      Can you prove god is a male?

      September 12, 2011 at 4:33 pm |
    • Osro

      Hilarious!! Good satire, you almost sound like one of those absurd people who refuses to accept reality, and instead is obsessed with a 2000 year old book written by people wandering the desert and who's understanding of the world would today be considered laughable by anyone with a 5th grade education.

      September 12, 2011 at 5:10 pm |
    • CalgarySandy

      Loves us? Is this why he put two trees we could not have in front of us and then threatened us. He set us up. As he is all knowing he already knew that if he created creatures with freewill and then tempted them they would fall. How is it love to entrap people? How is it love to be threatened for thinking the story makes him sound like a real jerk. Look what he did to poor old Job in order to win a bet with this Lucifer fella. He sent a bunch of bears to eat a group of kids who had laughed at a prophet's long beard. Apparently, he gave us freewill in order to have reasons to drop us in our tracks or burn us for ever. Nice guy. Kind of like a dealer giving you your first hit. I use my free will to point out bullies and liars. I learned about their existence in the Baptist Church, I learned in the Baptist church that intellilgence is pretty close to a carnal sin when you are a girl. Just shut up so some man will like you. Some jerk wad who gets off on tormenting people and thinking he owns me. Even in the 50;s and being a kid I knew there was something wrong with all of this. Don't you dare tell me that God is love as he is not loving and seems to get great pleasure out of hurting billions of people. The Christian God is the god of bigotry. He invented it. He encouraged it. He appears to enjoy it. I would never let him into my life and if that means I go to HeII I will be in better company that the arrogant jerk and insipid folk who have no desire to use their brains or learn anything at all. Boring. Useless. I am speaking of Fundamentalists. I found out years after I ran away from home that there are nice, loving Christians who try to live as Jesus did rather than worshiping the monstrous institutions surrounding him. If only we had more of those.

      September 12, 2011 at 5:59 pm |
    • CalgarySandy

      The Trickster is character found in most religions. He is seen as the Creator for some North American Natives. He may be a coyote or raven and in the south of the US he is Kokopeli who dances while playing a flute. April Fool's Day is his day, the day to keep the balance between light and dark, chaos and order. Without the balance it will all fall down, according to the myths. Christians believed this and set aside to honor him. In Greece he was Hermes and in Rome he was Mercury. God of the cross roads, thieves and travelers. He was a healer. A trickster often uses outlandish or vulgar means of bring attention to things or to bring them into being. The point of his misbehavior is growth not obedience or annoying everyone with your arrogant sanctity. Coyote was my totem animal long before I knew anything about Shamanism and the whole world of Trickster studies. It does not matter whether I believe they actually exist. It is what is behind the symbol that is real in the world. Lucifer ,brightest star, exercised his free will and look what happened to him. Whoops. Why do the most interesting who actually do something with their free will end up being punished forever. If God does exist and did create freewill to be used freely he is a liar and a bully for punishing people for using it or for tripping over the so-called stumbling blocks.

      September 12, 2011 at 6:16 pm |
    • JP

      @calgary sandy

      When I look at the story He gave them freewill and then told them the consequences of their actions. They made a choice knowing would happen to them and then there were consequences. He would be a liar not to give them the punishment. He gave them everything in the world but one tree they couldn't eat from (the tree of the knowledge of good and evil). In all fairness HE made a huge garden for them to live in and only One tree they couldnt eat from. So I don't see how he set them up for failure by telling them the standard and then allowing them to choose.

      September 12, 2011 at 6:38 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      @ JP,

      So why make the tree in the first place? And being omniscient, he surely knew that Eve would be tempted by the (giggle) talking snake, and she would fall for it, but he still made the tree and still put it there for them... he could have put it outside of Eden, where they wouldn't be tempted... But why would he NEED to make the tree in the first place? If we weren't meant to gain that knowledge... and He already had it... seems like He was looking for a reason to punish them.

      September 12, 2011 at 7:02 pm |
    • satanbug

      Lucifer...are you serious?!? What are you like 7? What does this Lucifer look like...all red with horns? Living in fire with demons....ohhhhh I am scared a made up mythological creature is gonna get me...how long did your parents let you believe in Santa? They didn't do you any favors,...no dog heaven, no purgatory, no faires or leprechans..GROW UP! You are not going to live forever...

      September 12, 2011 at 8:39 pm |
    • Diego

      MotherFER et al, you sum it up perfectly. I want to believe some powerful god created everything (even fossils) and no scientific alternative will be considered.
      "If you could have a rational conversation with a religious person, well, then there would be no religious persons"

      September 12, 2011 at 10:46 pm |
    • beelzebubba

      If I was all-knowing, all-powerful and created a form of life and wiped it out because 'it displeased me', I would be a sociopath. If you follow a sociopath's cult, what good will come out of it?

      September 13, 2011 at 6:35 am |
    • CalgarySandy

      @JP and anyone else who did not get what I said. There was no reason for God to set them up. It does not matter what he/it/she gave them. What matters is that he he did it purposefully, knowing they would try the "apple" because he already knows everything. Why would free will be given when he knew humans would misuse it? Is this some kind of game he is playing, like he did with Job? He could more easily have given everything except free will and let the species live happily ever after instead of cursing the entire race, not yet created. What god gave me was a damaged brain that was further messed up by being raised by monsters, Baptists. I prayed every day of my life over and over to be safe but the abuse and insults and threats just kept coming. I did not set out to be an atheist. Christians first made me hate them and later it was God and now I would like to see every Fundamentalist put on an island where they cannot hurt anymore people and cannot undermine democracy. They would kill, happily, everyone who does not believe the way they do if they could get away with it. I be they are jealous of terrorists who can and do get away with it. The absolute worst abusers in Western history are Fundamentalist Christians. The sad thing is that moderates are so afraid of the Fundamentalists that they just sit their and watch them destroying everything of value and taking away the help for the vulnerable in our society. Sterilize them, take away their children and put them on an island somewhere where they will all be Fundies and see what happens or not.

      September 13, 2011 at 3:35 pm |
    • fin

      "Lucifer is the great deciever, He has planted the bones to be found and false beliefs in science are the result."

      You see? I told you so!.... there is actually a real person that believes this crap!...... wow...

      September 13, 2011 at 4:21 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Contributors

  • Elizabeth LandauElizabeth Landau
    Writer/Producer
  • Sophia DengoSophia Dengo
    Senior Designer