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. Caleb

    Who gives a sh**? Beleive what ever you want to beleive in, and don't bash people for what they want to beleive in.

    September 13, 2011 at 2:31 am |
    • Pastafarian

      That would be fine if these religious nutbags weren't trying to ram their beliefs down our throughts – specifically in the teabagger party and several GOP presidential candidates. If you want to go pray to your god for rain in your state (which ironically is on fire now), go for it. but don't spend any of my tax dollars doing it, and don't try to legislate with your bible.

      September 13, 2011 at 2:35 am |
  2. WG Marshall

    Same debate that has been going on since the Scopes Monkey Trial of the 1920s. The creationists never give up the same old stale arguments. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has already ruled that creationism is not a science, and cannot be taught as such in schools. As a creationist would say, AMEN!!!!!! Too bad we have a guy like Parry that is gullible enough to believe it, and could be in charge of the U.S. science budget.

    September 13, 2011 at 2:21 am |
  3. miscreantsall

    "Theory of Evolution"

    I thought that's what it is called………NOT the "Fact of Evolution".

    I believe in a "higher presence"……….call it God, Allah, Jehovah, Budha, aliens, "The Universe", whatever. I also believe in ADAPTATION (a "softer" version and not as extreme as evolution).

    Though the ideas of evolution are very interesting, there is so much of it that is speculative though compelling. Bottom line: it is the THEORY of evolution.

    September 13, 2011 at 1:56 am |
    • Pastafarian

      The word theory is NOT the same when used to describe science as it is when used by laypeople. Please Google "theory vs. scientific theory" and read anything – even wiki – and understand the HUGE difference.

      September 13, 2011 at 2:00 am |
    • Andrew

      Just like the THEORY of General Relativity. So is gravity "just a theory", after all, the theory of gravity is general relativity.

      September 13, 2011 at 2:01 am |
      • Questionable

        I thought it was the path of least resistance an object follows through the curve of space/time created by objects containing mass

        September 13, 2011 at 2:04 am |
      • Andrew

        ... Well if we're going to go about it like that, then we might as well argue that gravity doesn't "exist" at all, which, to be fair, might not be so inappropriate. There might after all be no "force carrying particle", no "graviton". The general relativistic description of gravity makes "gravity" just a useful word to describe the phenomenon.

        September 13, 2011 at 2:11 am |
      • Questionable

        I'm just joking, im very annoyed yet intrigued by all of these posts. I wonder if it is a good sample of the American population.

        September 13, 2011 at 2:17 am |
      • Andrew

        Oh, I knew, I just liked my answer anyway. It's an interesting bit to think about. It's fun to play with our perceptions of the universe.
        I'm not sure how good CNN.com is for a sampling of the US public. It probably wouldn't be too difficult to get CNN to agree to a well designed study however. They'd probably be quite interested to know how accurate a reflection of views their articles are. Especially if you can get some fairly detailed information.

        ... Wonder if you'd be paid for that. HEY CNN, if I design the study, would you pay me to conduct it for you? 😛

        September 13, 2011 at 2:33 am |
      • Questionable

        I'de rather be fishing. Hahaha no joke.

        September 13, 2011 at 2:42 am |
  4. ezt

    Without God, good nor evil would exists. Killing and raping is just evolution taking its course. Without God all prisons and jails would need to be eliminated because evolution dictates only the strong will survive. Without God, I answer to no one and I am the center of my universe to kill, rape, and what ever pleases me.

    Thank goodness for God and Jesus Christ that keeps in line.

    September 13, 2011 at 1:26 am |
    • Pastafarian

      God and your jesus have NO power over me. I do not rape or kill or hurt others. i'm kind and always try to help others in need. I do this because it's the right thing to do – not because I'm afraid of your nasty god sending me to your hell to burn. I'll take my version of morality over yours any day.

      September 13, 2011 at 1:29 am |
      • Questionable

        Thank you. Why can't being kind just be that? I am kind because I feel it is right. You should read "The Sociopath Nextdoor"

        September 13, 2011 at 1:36 am |
    • Acromyrmex-versicolor

      Why do you need God to tell you moral right from wrong? Most people (atheists and non-Christians included) agree on certain moral imperatives and recognize them regardless of any "higher power."

      September 13, 2011 at 5:32 pm |
  5. MOHAMMED N. RAZAVI, DALEVILLE, AL

    What evolution? It has taken a God to mess it up so bad. If man was designed by GM, it would be called a lemon, if you had to buy one at Lowes, you would take it back directly for a refund.

    September 13, 2011 at 1:23 am |
    • Questionable

      Chaos theory could explain that.

      September 13, 2011 at 1:27 am |
  6. Ron

    I'm a PhD Physicist and I know that Evolution is the truth. If an intelligent person without a prejudicial belief system stands back and looks objectively at Creationism vs. Evolution that person is lead to a simple yet profound truth. Evolution makes God a Brilliant Genius, Creationism makes God a Simpleton.

    Any preschool child can pick up a set of crayons and draw lots of animals. They might not be anatomically accurate, but most of us would recognize them. However, It is an act of Supreme Genius to take the components of paper and crayons: carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen and give them some few very simple rules to follow, which though simple allow for virtually infinite possible forms, and place them into some water and say "Live, Be Fruitful, and Become the Very Best You Can!". With the result being that after a few billion years these basic chemicals and rules form limitless varieties of living organisms thriving and improving (Evolving) in intricately balanced Biosystems.

    I Know Evolution is True because I Know God to be The Supreme Genius who by Creating simple elements and Laws of Physics brought forth the Limitless, Magnificent, Ever Youthful Universe we live in. Please don’t treat God like an Elementary School child.

    September 13, 2011 at 1:18 am |
    • Pastafarian

      Wow! Religious people are really good at contorting their fairy tales to fit scientific facts It's painful to watch, honestly.

      September 13, 2011 at 1:27 am |
  7. RickOhio

    I consider myself both religious and spiritual, and I have no problem whatsoever accepting the theory of evolution. I earn a living as a forensic accountant ... following the science is part of my nature. During a long stretch in a Catholic seminary, I learned that the early books of the Bible are oral traditions that were passed down generation to generation, and committed to writing centuries after they were originally composed. It is remarkable how closely the 'seven days of creation' mirror scientific thought! It is enough for me to believe that a 'Higher Power' flipped the switch that initiated our universe and life as we know it; I don't expect a primitive society 30 centuries ago to get every fact right!

    September 13, 2011 at 1:09 am |
    • Questionable

      So you dont believe the story is 100 percent accurate but you will say God is the correct god even though many other religions are very similar.

      September 13, 2011 at 1:21 am |
  8. K.Shin

    Problem with religious zealots ( like a few of you here) is the fact that they are blinded by their own ignorance. The fact is that science has now proven the god myth dead millions of times. There is no prefabricated plan and it's in your head.
    If god is real then so is the tooth fairy and jack in bean stock. I must admit though the free will argument is a funny one as it is a testament to the Judeo Christian mindset that our way is the right way... God gave you free will to believe so that if we don't like you we will invade your land, rape your children and women, destroy your sacred symbols because we have god on our side. But god loves you .... Hey sounds just like a dictatorship to me....
    Please grow a brain and snap out of the make believe world of religion.

    September 13, 2011 at 1:07 am |
  9. Bobby

    I believe in the third theory of Creation of Man kind.. To me the God of the Bible sounds very flesh and blood .. " I am a Jealous God", the smell of Animal Flesh is pleasing, to choose one tribe of humans over another.. I believe that Zacharia Stichen comes close to truth.. The Annunaki Theory makes sense.. Science needs to investigate the possibility of humanity being the result of geneticmanipulation by a more advanced race of beings.. I truly do not believe that evolution explains how man evolved naturally from monkeys.. If so, how many modern day apes are magically being transformed into humanodis.. Try 00000000

    September 13, 2011 at 12:51 am |
    • Questionable

      Theory of evolution never said we came from monkeys, do a little reading.

      September 13, 2011 at 1:01 am |
      • Anon A mouse

        I think Bobby was saying there is no "missing link", just the before and after.
        Something like that.

        It's like saying here is dough. Now here is bread.
        It takes an oven and a lot of care to make it rise.
        Not to mention the perfect blend of ingredients, yeast, etc.
        Only the evolutionists believe it all fell together and cooked on a hot rock somehow.
        Correct me if I'm wrong, but metaphorically what Bobby is saying, is someone brought an oven and knew exactly what they were doing 😉

        Hey, don't get me wrong, I'm sure I'll find a naturally occurring puff pastry one day 😉

        September 13, 2011 at 1:06 am |
      • Questionable

        Your oven=time plus competition for resources ect.

        September 13, 2011 at 1:09 am |
      • Pastafarian

        It's important to remember that just because YOU don't understand the explanation doesn't mean god did it. I remember back in grad school, a pref describing the structure of ribosomes said imagine a bunch of trucks full of materials dumping them all out and they just happen to fall into the form of a skyscraper! That describes the complexity of a ribosome. But we understand how they form and how they work. You don't understand this (and why would you?), so you would just say it's a miracle, rather than the thermodynamically favored protien-protein interactions and formation of secondary and tertiary structures.

        September 13, 2011 at 1:25 am |
      • Questionable

        @Pastafarian
        Good explaination

        September 13, 2011 at 1:32 am |
  10. Tim

    Where did all the matter of the universe come from? Where did the massive amounts of energy come from when energy can neither be created nor destroyed?

    What was the original cause of this massive universe, what set it into motion? To believe that God is the uncaused cause of all that we are able to observe today is more credible to believe than to believe in a fairy tale that somehow it all just appeared; that somehow, by chance, matter and energy came into being from nothing and that out of chaos came a universe and life so complex, so precise and so varied is absurd.

    However, it is not so absurd when you begin with the presupposition that there is no God. Your logical conclusion is to try to explain life, the physical along with the soul and morality, in another way. With this presupposition logical people end up with interesting ideas when someone digs up another bone of someone or something that died a long time ago. There is so much excitement because people are looking for an explanation of the fact that we are here, an answer that we have been given in the Bible.

    My faith affirms science and science affirms my faith as we discover how incredible the universe and life really is.

    September 13, 2011 at 12:47 am |
    • Anon A mouse

      Well said. Quantum science actually gives credit to creationism more-so than evolution in my opinion.
      IE; Double slit theory with duality function = the universe is aware, etc.
      Branches from choice (trees again!)....
      It's funny, some people say if you don't talk in their notation, then there is no intelligence, yet they fail to grasp others personal notation and pass it off because it's "not understood" 😉

      POV = point of view.
      Self realization is a gift that gives meaning to interaction, without it, it wouldn't matter if there is or is not a universe for it would not be perceived

      😉

      September 13, 2011 at 12:52 am |
      • Questionable

        Saying the dual slit theory means the universe is aware is a slippery slope, either you do not understand it or you are with holding

        September 13, 2011 at 12:59 am |
      • Andrew

        The double slit experiment does not do what you believe it does. It shows wave particle duality. It doesn't require consciousness, and the word "observation" typically means "hits a detector", which tends to mess up wavefunctions. There is no requirement that sentient beings be present. Why is it that people who talk about the double slit experiment almost universally seem to be people who have apparently never taken physics courses in their lives?

        September 13, 2011 at 1:12 am |
      • Pastafarian

        wow, my head hurts listening to religious people try to fit quantum physics into their bible. Wave–particle duality theorizes that all particles exhibit both wave and particle properties. This duality addresses the inability of classical concepts like "particle" and "wave" to fully describe the behavior of quantum-scale objects. Wtf does that have to do with the universe being aware??? i'm going to bed. Educating the uneducated is too exhausting for me.

        September 13, 2011 at 1:46 am |
    • Questionable

      Ok, the Big Bang is more of a way of saying this is the point in which all known matter in the universe came to be, we are slowly moving towards an explanation of how and why. So unless you are saying God is as abstract and is just a reference point such as the Big Bang, it doesnt make sence cause what made God?

      September 13, 2011 at 12:56 am |
      • Anon A mouse

        The act of observation changes everything?
        That, my friend, gives a whole new meaning to perception.

        The universe changes for ?

        September 13, 2011 at 1:01 am |
      • Questionable

        You need to do a little more reading than a brief explaination of the theory.

        September 13, 2011 at 1:05 am |
      • Anon A mouse

        I've done lots. Should I post it all to suffice your ego? lol.

        September 13, 2011 at 1:17 am |
      • Questionable

        One can read and not understand just like one can hear but not listen

        September 13, 2011 at 1:25 am |
      • Pastafarian

        Questionable asks a question which is always avoided by religious people: if there is a god, who created him/her/it?

        September 13, 2011 at 1:48 am |
      • Questionable

        Funny thing is, I do not deny the possibility of a god. I just find it highly improbable, nearly to the point of irrelevance.

        September 13, 2011 at 2:01 am |
  11. Kelly

    and why we were created. Also I want to point out, the Bible (and again many other scripture) state that Adam and Eve were the first PEOPLE. It does not say that God did not create others at the same time. And there is evidence that others were created and lived during the same time in scripture and scientifically. Again, I'm not getting into it. But these are thing I have found and made serious notes on. Ya know, believing and respecting science and scientific evidence shouldn't deter someone away from religion or the concept of God. In fact quite the opposite. Nor the other way around. There is nothing wrong with wondering how we all came to be. There is no question, as far as I am concerned, God would want people who believe in him to use the brain he gave them and starting to want to understand the world around us. There is nothing wrong with seeking out of the best books and sources of information to understand further what he created. There is absolutely nothing that says otherwise. And people can throw Steven Hawking in my face and bible quote thumping in my face all they want. I am big fans of both, read the Bible and other scriptural texts a dozen times from cover to cover with prayer in mind and an eager mind. I am a huge fan of both, I know what's written, I've studied a lot and from my own perspective I have yet to find one that discredits the other.
    My vast apologies for this making no sense. I'm sure you all gave up on reading this a long time ago. I gave up trying to make sense a long time ago. Good for you. I hope you all had something more interesting to say.

    September 13, 2011 at 12:41 am |
  12. LeotheGreat

    Look nowhere else, we [humans] are the aliens. The wild life and anything else that cannot communicate through speech is the original inhabitant of planet earth. We just took over this planet and we are using as we wish. Animals don't destroy planets Aliens do.

    September 13, 2011 at 12:40 am |
    • Anon A mouse

      All respect to all faiths everywhere, but I find that just as plausible as evolution really.
      Gives a whole different take on the ADAM, EVE story. IE. Rib (bone marrow) etc.

      September 13, 2011 at 12:44 am |
      • Pastafarian

        if species originated from aliens, there's no reason to believe that it didn't happen millions of years ago, and that these alins were/are also subjected to selective pressures and evolution. It's much more consistent with evolution, and still doesn't help support anything in the bible. Bone marrow? Ribs?? really??? You can't just throw out random words and hope someone thinks you have some deep theory on your mind.

        September 13, 2011 at 1:52 am |
  13. Acromyrmex-versicolor

    Out of genuine curiosity, because I've read more than once on this forum that there are those who believe in micro- but not macroevolution:

    What are your thoughts on fossils of extinct species? Are they a hoax? Did they once co-exist with all extant species? Have species on Earth been created in "waves" such that, when some go extinct, new ones are created to replace them? Something else entirely?

    Just curious to hear other people's take on this.

    September 13, 2011 at 12:39 am |
    • Questionable

      Survival of the fittest. The fittest can out compeat its common ancestor.

      September 13, 2011 at 12:49 am |
      • Acromyrmex-versicolor

        The idea of a common ancestor inherently entails a belief in macroevolution, because there is no common ancestor without speciation.

        What I'm talking about is a person who believes that humans did not evolve from any previous hominid species, but rather have existed more-or-less as they are now, forever. If that is the case – how do you explain the fossils of non-human hominids?

        September 13, 2011 at 12:54 am |
      • Questionable

        Thats what I am saying, thought you were asking for an explaination of macro

        September 13, 2011 at 1:14 am |
      • Acromyrmex-versicolor

        Sorry for the confusion. *I* believe in macroevolution, I am curious as to how those who don't (but do believe in microevolution) explain the presence of fossils.

        September 13, 2011 at 5:35 pm |
  14. Colin

    The fact that this is even still being discussed in th 21st Century speaks volumes about our ability to subordinate facte to our false dreams as a species.

    A few things creationists have to pretend don’t exist:

    (i) The most obvious, the fossil record. The fossil record is MUCH more than just dinosaurs. It includes the Stromatolites from the Precambrian (colonies of prokaryotic bacteria), the Ediacara fossils from South Australia, the Cambrian species of the Burgess shale (circa – 450 million years) the giant insects of the Devonian period, the many precursors to the dinosaurs, the dinosaurs themselves, the subsequent dominant mammals, including the Saber Tooth Tiger, the Mammoths, the fossils of early man in Africa, the Neanderthals of Europe. It shows a consistent and worldwide record of the evolution of life on Earth dating back to about 3,500,000,000 years ago. There are literally millions of fossils that have been recovered, of thousands of different species and they are all located where they would be in the fossil record if life evolved slowly over billions of years. None of them can be explained by a 6,000 year old Earth and Noah’s flood. Simply google “history of life on Earth” or open up a tenth grade biology or geology textbook.

    (ii) Oil, natural gas and other fossil fuels. Any geologist who works for Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP, Haliburton, Schlumberger, Gasprom, Saudi Aramco, Baker and Hughes, Petrobras, China’s national oil company or any of the thousands of mining or oil or natural gas related companies that make a living finding fossil fuels, will tell you these fossil fuels take millions of years to develop from the remains of large forests or marine creatures. That’s why they are called fossil fuels. Have a close look at coal, you can often see the fossilized leaves in it. The geologists know exactly what rocks to look for fossil fuels in, because they know the age of the rocks. I encourage anybody who would like to know more to google “finding oil” or “finding natural gas.” You will find a host of articles that describe in detail the process by which the great forests of the Cretaceous Period (circa 145-65 million years ago) slowly develop into coal and how sea life slowly developed into oil and natural gas. Creationists have no credible explanation for this (nor why most of it was “given to the Muslims”.)

    (iii) Most of astronomy and cosmology (the latter being concerned with the study of the overall structure and origins of the Universe). In short, as Einstein famously showed, light travels at a set speed. Space is so large that light from distant stars takes many years to reach the Earth. In some cases, millions or billions of years. The fact that we can see light from such far away stars means it began its journey billions of years ago. The Universe must be billions of years old. We can currently see are galaxies whose light left 13.7 billion years ago. This is obviously a totally independent reason to the fossil record as to why the Earth cannot be a few thousand years old and it is fatal to the “talking-snake” nonsense.

    (iv) Not just carbon dating, but also, all other methods used by scientists to date wood, rocks, fossils, and other artifacts. This includes uranium-lead dating, potassium-argon dating as well as other non-radioactive methods such as pollen dating, dendrochronology and ice core dating. In order for the age of any particular rock, fossil or other artifact to be aged, generally two or more samples are dated independently by two or more laboratories in order to ensure an accurate result. If results were random, as creationists claim the two would rarely agree. They generally do. They regularly reveal ages much older than Genesis. Indeed, the Earth is about 750,000 times older than creationists claim. Google “atomic dating”.

    (v) DNA and genetics. The new science of DNA mapping not only convicts criminals, it shows in undeniable, full detail, how we differ from other life forms on the planet. For example, about 98.4% of chimp and human DNA is identical, slightly less, about 97% of gorilla and human DNA is identical, and slightly less again of monkey DNA and human DNA is identical. This divergence continues as we get further away from humans and it is EXACTLY consistent with the fossil record and is EXACTLY what we would expect to see if life gradually evolved on Earth over billions of years. Indeed, scientists can use the percentage of DNA that two animal share (such as humans and bears, or domestic dogs and wolves) to get an idea of how long ago the last common ancestor of both species lived. It perfectly corroborates the fossil record and is completely independently developed. It acts as yet another, completely independent and fatal blow to the “talking snake” theory. Google “genetic drift” or “DNA mapping” or “speciation”.

    (vi) The entire field of historical linguistics. This discipline studies how languages develop and diverge over time. For example, Spanish and Italian are very similar and have a recent common “ancestor” language, Latin, as most people know. However, Russian is quite different and therefore either did not share a common root, or branched off much earlier in time. No respected linguist anywhere in the World traces languages back to the Tower of Babble (the creationists explanation for different languages). Indeed, their paranoid fascination with the fossil record (which includes, almost, surreally, a “creation museum” in Cleveland, Ohio where one can see biblical children playing with dinosaurs) Hell, American Indians, Australian Aboriginals, “true” Indians, Chinese, Mongols, Japanese, Sub-Saharan Africans and the Celts and other tribes of ancient Europe were speaking thousands of different languages thousands of years before the date creationist say the Tower of Babel occurred – and even well before the date they claim for the Garden of Eden!!! Google “protolanguages” or “the history of languages”.

    (vii) Lactose intolerance. Most mammals only consume milk as infants. They no longer produce the enzyme “lactase” that digests the lactose in milk, after infancy and become lactose intolerant. Humans are an exception and can drink milk as adults – but not all humans – some humans remain lactose intolerant. Who? Well those EXCEPT those who evolved over the past few thousand years raising cows. They evolved slightly to keep producing lactase as adults so as to allow the consumption of milk as adults. This includes most Europeans and some Africans, notably the Tutsi of Rwanda. On the other hand, most Chinese, native Americans and Aboriginal Australians, whose ancestors did not raise cattle, remain lactose intolerant. Don’t believe me? Try buying milk in rural China.

    I could go on and elaborate on a number of other disciplines or facts that creationists have to pretend into oblivion, including the Ice Ages, cavemen, Neanderthal man, much of micro-biology, paleontology and archeology, continental drift and plate tectonics, even large parts of medical research (medical research on monkeys and mice only works because they share a common ancestor with us and therefore our fundamental cell biology and basic body architecture is identical to theirs). Evolution is a fact, creation is discredited religious dogma.

    To all you Bible-cuddlers out there, your book is Bronze Age mythology. You are not immortal. Get over it.

    September 13, 2011 at 12:38 am |
    • Pastafarian

      outstanding comprehensive post. Of course, no creationist is going to read it, but the rest of us appreciate the effort!

      September 13, 2011 at 2:02 am |
      • fimeilleur

        Ramen brother.

        September 13, 2011 at 2:33 am |
  15. Brian

    Ever heard of the two slit experiment in quantum physics? A single electron can behave as both a particle and a wave. Scientists do not know why an electron can behave as both a particle and a wave at the same time. They just accept that it is a repeatable phenomena for which there is no logical explanation.

    So, what's to say that how we got here is not both mystical and natural at the same time? Or neither...

    September 13, 2011 at 12:38 am |
    • Colin

      See above. I could just as easily promote the "stork theroy" to answer where babies come from and then claim it is a mystery.

      September 13, 2011 at 12:40 am |
      • Brian

        Collin, would you really be happy if there was a definitive answer? Either way there wouldn't be a whole lot to live for. Heck, I'll probably stop listening to AM talk radio. Wouldn't that just take all the fun outta morning drive time? (Sigh)

        I do so love a good debate. (Are we having one yet?) 🙂

        September 13, 2011 at 1:22 am |
    • Questionable

      Someone watch "Down the ribbit hole"? That is a very simple explanation of what you are speaking of.

      September 13, 2011 at 12:42 am |
      • Brian

        I've seen it. You are right. A good explanation.

        September 13, 2011 at 1:24 am |
  16. evoman11

    Fr33th1nk3r

    well placed, sorta like aliens coming all the way across the galaxy to probe our butts. Wouldn't they have better things to do?

    September 13, 2011 at 12:37 am |
  17. Kelly

    Now before I make any comment let me just state that I have been up until past two in the morning working on school assignements. I am only meaning to make a simple point without getting too in depth.
    I am in my final few semesters of receiving a bachelors degree in Biology and debating if I should continue with a PHD in Archaeology. Since there is so much here in NC to justify that major....so I may be toddling off to BYU to persue a degree in Arabic studies. anyhow. I have no idea what the point was of me stating that, but I am sure it had something todo wtih stating I am not an uneducated novice and perhaps to try to justify why I am sure this will make no sense and be terribly choppy as I tend to ramble when exhausted. I am also deeply religious. This issue has always been a great interest of mine and from the time I was a little girl it always baffled me why this was such a black and whited issue. To either have one or the other never made any sense. If you read the book of Genesis alongside the proposed stages of how the world was created from a scientific point of view they do compliment one another and fit together. Scripture also states "time is measured only unto man." I believe before even reading this I thought it was obvious as a child, that the world was not created in seven literal days as we know it. But was described this way to suit our understanding. To throw out science when finding out the mysteries of the world and universe is completely and utterly irresponsible and well, stupid. To me the purpose of religion, though many do not see it or use it as such, is about progression in every form. Why would not the world over time evolve and progress accordingly? I do not believe we ourselves are evolved specifically from Apes but then again, I wasn't there and I'll certainly know when I die wont I. There is strong evidence, and I certainly do believe that there was an evolvement of species. Rather we are linked to them directly or not, like I said I am not so sure but then again, I wasn't there. I also don't see how believing we could be (hypothetically) directly evolved from apes as contradicting scripture is far and beyond me. Scripture does not tell us we were void of any evolution. Lets say as a Muslim, Jew, Christian etc we do believe Adam and Eve directly evolved from Apes and were the first man and woman made in the likeness of God. Are they any less created by God? I think Science and Religion are really one another's closest allies. If you know to truly understand both and don't just believe what you think you are supposed to believe because every Sunday you feel you should, or because you had a few science teachers who may have believed in evolution and read some atheist book and now you think you are an expert on discrediting the opposing stance because you decided to copy cat someone's opinions and quote someones quotes because you think it makes you look smart. There is directness and order in science and and nature as there is (and you people can pick this apart all you want but I am not going to get into an organized religion debate because I have a life) from my point of view the "word of God". I am not talking about man viewed religions and denominations but simply the source itself. People also need to understand the Bible (and other scriptures because many don't realize the history of the Bible or written scripture in general) is written in so many different ways. Literally, figuratively, metaphorically etc. It is not one big book, but several books comprised together written at different times, in different languages and deciphered and re translated many many times. Scripture is layers and layers of understanding and research. I am by no means claiming to be a scholar on the matter. Too many people, religious and non religious don't get that. They're either only thinking on the whim t heir pastor told them too, or thinking the way some anti religious book told them too. It's all the same concept with opposite opinions in the end. God created the world. Therefore he created the concept of Science. It makes no sense to me that he would not let the world he created to evolve based on the very concept and principles he created the world on. Science has also time and time again built incredibly strong evidence supporting many many things from Scripture. It seems almost insulting that someone would only devote themselves to say they will only believe what is right in front of them without putting any thought or pondering in

    September 13, 2011 at 12:35 am |
    • Anon A mouse

      Math and English are simply languages that are used by varying branches of specialization.
      Notation is basically encryption for function.
      Beyond that we'll revamp it all in a century and throw all of this out.

      Cars were invented over a century ago, we are really lagging right now.

      September 13, 2011 at 12:38 am |
    • Questionable

      Kinda long to be simple and to the point ehh

      September 13, 2011 at 12:38 am |
    • Andrew

      I suggest you don't attempt to continue to graduate studies until you can write in paragraph form. If you're an undergraduate nearing completion of a degree, you should write better.

      Further, I think you might really need to talk to professors about the subject because it's clear your religious beliefs are having some negative impact on your understanding of evolutionary biology. Professors are there to help, use them. Probably the lesson that I never learned myself and wish I did.

      September 13, 2011 at 12:38 am |
      • Brian

        Andrew, you really are quite pompous, aren't you? But I'll bet you can write one heck of a research paper.

        So, where have you been published? Seriously, where? Between your knowledge and your ego some form of literary excellence must surely have been composed by now. Are you up for a Nobel prize?

        Have I used enough spacing in my paragraphs to meet your standards? I'm very concerned, you know. I may have a restless night contemplating that my proficiency in the English language is not graduate student level.

        September 13, 2011 at 1:13 am |
      • Andrew

        You're aware there's a rather big distinction between a decent peer reviewed publication, and the wall of text I was responding to, yes? You seem to be treating my standards as though they're unreasonable. "A basic undergraduate understanding of mathematics, and avoiding rather large walls of text" should not be considered that extreme. I am the first to admit my rather large faults in physics and mathematics. I'm well aware of the limits of my understanding of the subjects. But at the very least I can avoid writing giant blocks, and understand what a partial derivative is.

        That's really, REALLY not saying much. Stop treating my standards as though they're something unobtainable expect by a few select brilliant individuals. I'll be the first to shout that you don't need to be that smart to understand basic mathematics, or learn to use paragraphs. My ego doesn't feel very stroked by that.

        (Although, I did last term compose a pretty cool project for a professor concerning the white dwarf cooling spectrum in the cluster 47 Tucane, I was able to show that it isn't a single stellar population of white dwarfs. But that's not really cool enough or relevant enough to anything to compose an entire peer reviewed journal article on. At least not in anything beyond an undergraduate journal.)

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

        I've published in several peer-reviewed journals, and I have to go with the pro-paragragh people here. That huge wall of text is nearly unreadable. Plus, it doesn't take much to add a few carriage returns here and there, does it?

        September 13, 2011 at 2:07 am |
    • evoman11

      Hmm interesting.... making a fairy tale bend and strain to fit science. I think this has happened before, yawn. You forgot santa and the bunny with eggs.

      September 13, 2011 at 12:40 am |
    • Colin

      It's called paragraphing.

      September 13, 2011 at 12:42 am |
      • Brian

        "Paragraphing". By George! And here I was all these years thinking it was "2-a-graphing".

        My brother lied to me. He told me I was limited to only two sentences before hitting the "Enter" key!

        September 13, 2011 at 1:28 am |
  18. Questionable

    I have yet to read a reasonable arguement as to why evolution is not real or why God is.

    September 13, 2011 at 12:31 am |
  19. Fr33th1nk3r

    Even before examining the nearly endless supply of scientific evidence verifying the Theory of Evolution and the methods used to arrive at the theory, it should be obvious to even the most stalwart religious fanatic that WE LIVE IN A DYNAMIC UNIVERSE that is constantly changing. Stars, planets, cultures, languages, and even our very societal norms are constantly evolving and came from earlier, less developed, less complex stock. Nested hierarchies are the norm in the natural world– not sure why the religious have such a hard time accepting the fact that we as a species, like EVERYTHING else in the universe, changed and evolved from an earlier, less developed form. It is plainly obvious we are but a miniscule part of a much larger universe– it is the arrogance of the religious in not being able to accept this. This is what leads to them inventing cosmic, universe-creating beings who, of course, take an active interest the daily affairs of human beings, and actually care whether we have missionary sex or oral sex. Religion falls flat on its face whenever it comes at odds with science, and this situation is no exception to the norm.

    September 13, 2011 at 12:22 am |
  20. LADRIKIUS

    Aren't we all in favor of evolution? To trend the other way seems like a bad idea.

    September 13, 2011 at 12:21 am |
    • Anon A mouse

      I'd say when it comes to these types of things the answer is always something we never expect.
      I take the side that both are wrong to some degree.
      There is an element of truth in everything.

      September 13, 2011 at 12:24 am |
  21. evoman11

    Ok so what do you get when you have an agnostic dyslexic insomniac?

    someone who stays awake all night wondering if there's a Dog.

    Evolution is the only answer.

    September 13, 2011 at 12:18 am |
  22. Brian

    I'd rather a monkey my ancestor than a fundamentalist. Of course, it's hard to tell one from the other.
    All that gibberish, you know...

    September 13, 2011 at 12:13 am |
  23. Richard

    They are both theory.It is easier for me to believe that a supreme power created rather than a complicated cell and animals happened by chance.

    September 13, 2011 at 12:13 am |
    • Andrew

      "Theory" is not equivalent of a scientific theory.
      Scientific theories: Theory of General Relativity, Quantum Field Theory, Atomic Theory, Plate Tectonic Theory, Germ Theory of Disease, Theory of Evolution, Theory of Special Relativity. They are large explanatory bodies in science supported by rather large amounts of evidence.

      "God made us" is not, in any sense, equivalent of the scientific theory of evolution. You could call them both "theories", but evolution is a scientific one, and a hell of a lot better supported.

      September 13, 2011 at 12:17 am |
  24. Andrew

    By the way, anyone with first year university level calculus and above (especially anyone who has taken multi-variable calc or above), I invite you to see creationist "math" firsthand for yourselves. Specifically the paper "A new cosmology: Solution to the starlight problem". It's published by answers in genesis and is AMAZING! Google it, it's free, and really really funny.

    I invite you to skip to the section that says "calculations". Notice that for "equation" 1 the guy decided that 'd' would not look fancy enough to be called a calculation, so instead he used partial derivative notation. Cause making it look fancy really justifies the argument, eh? Then he sets the non-partial derivative equal to a constant, which he pretty much admits, he got from nowhere, it's just used to arrive at his presupposed conclusion for the second "equation".

    Then, of course, he plugs it into his silly looking fairly trivial integral, with the not-partial derivative inserted for "dt"... which is remarkable as that isn't even consistent with the notation already set up, as t_0 is supposed to be time on earth, meaning the numbers or variables, even if we excuse the non-partial derivative, is still backwards. This is the entirety of the "calculation" section.

    Yes, my fellow physics and math majors, that is the "math" that creation "science" uses. We're not arguing this on the same level, we're not even playing with the same toolkit. What is scary is that creationists show no qualms using real mathematic symbols, and those who haven't taken calculus might have a hard time distinguishing between math, and random scribblings made to look complex just to gain an air of authority.

    My only real problem though is that to anyone who hasn't taken calculus might is likely not able to distinguish between a creationist pretty looking "math", and real math used to derive an actual conclusion. Thus, creationists are successfully able to look like they know the material without actually knowing any, and then we seem like the bullies when we say "no, that doesn't make any sense at all, what the hell did you just do". It's the perfect tactic to gain an air of legitimacy without the requisite knowledge.

    September 13, 2011 at 12:08 am |
    • Anon A mouse

      Newtonian... ??? Aha flawed when it comes to these things?
      Now you'll lecture me on Quantum gates I suppose which we really don't know much about... to the point we want to spend BILLIONS on detectors to search for ole' Higgs... that "God particle"....
      Find it yet?
      Now I understand how this complex math you speak of made everything ...
      (sarcasm intended).
      We have no idea of how "that math works" in fact we have no clue how anything really works unless it's basically just 3-Dimensional.... now add that extra measurement = time.
      Evolution is all about "T" isn't it?
      If you are that good at the cellular level, cancer should be a no-brainer.
      After all, you just need to deal with "timers".
      Again, we are cave men in many ways still.

      Ergo ego, I think therefore I am.

      September 13, 2011 at 12:15 am |
      • Questionable

        WTF does cancer have to do with this? Sounds like word salad.

        September 13, 2011 at 12:24 am |
      • Anon A mouse

        Something to do with the fundamentals of DNA/RNA sequencing... beyond that, I dunno, you got me .... that's a tough one huh?

        September 13, 2011 at 12:29 am |
      • Andrew

        I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say. Anyway, I say we should spend BILLIONS on things like trying to find the Higgs because in doing so we improve the world in many tangential ways.

        For example, notice the "html" on your web browser at the end of many web addresses? Do you know much about the history of the internet? Well, you see there was this physics lab in Europe known as CERN, yes, the same lab that made the Large Hadron Collider which is trying to detect the Higgs. They didn't have the LHC at the time though, they had a weaker collider known as the Large Electron-Positron Collider, or LEP..

        Now, LEP was collecting a lot of data for the time, and physicists at CERN didn't really know how to collect and transmit data for all the physicists to, you know, work on it. Their solution to the problem of collecting data? HTML. In fact that was the birth of the world wide web you are using to apparently complain about "billions" being spent on physics research. How's that for irony?

        In terms of return on revenue, physics research is one of the consistently best ways to spend money. Think of all the things we could accidentally invent to better mankind rather than spending hundreds of billions on wars, we spent hundreds of billions on science. Much of the benefits of science come incidentally, not as the purpose of research, but because the research happened to yield new practical and never before thought of benefits.

        So yeah, I say we should keep investing billions in places like CERN or the now fairly dead fermilab. And I'm deeply depressed that the Superconducting Super Collider was scrapped, why let Europe dominate the particle physics world?

        None of this, however, seems to be related to what I said. I was just talking about a rather specific Answers in Genesis article and using it to highlight the pitfalls of the mathematics that creationists use. Namely, it not really being math. Anyone who has been schooled in mathematics beyond first year calculus would easily be able to see that, anyone not, would probably think most of what I said in my post was gibberish.

        September 13, 2011 at 12:29 am |
      • Questionable

        Uh right. Unless you are trying to argue that cancer in some way could cause a population bottle neck or allele drift, I dont follow.

        September 13, 2011 at 12:36 am |
    • Brian

      You make it easy to accept evolution theory. You gibber worse than a monkey.
      Go back up your tree for another 10,000 years, please.

      September 13, 2011 at 12:19 am |
      • Andrew

        If you've never taken upper level calculus, and didn't bother to look at the Answers in Genesis article I cited to see what was inherently flawed with what they said, then why would you be expected to glean anything I had said? I rather specifically stated that my criticisms were laid out regarding a single paper to highlight the failings of creationist "mathematics", and further, my criticisms would only be understood by someone who has the required background in math.

        It seems evident you don't, so why should my words seem anything but gibberish to you? Do you typically read textbooks on general relativity only to complain that it's meaningless because you've never heard of a "tensor"? No? Then why do you do so here? It's fairly clear my post wasn't directed at anyone without the required background. I've got other posts for that.

        September 13, 2011 at 12:35 am |
      • Brian

        Andrew, please stop touting your mathematical education as if some how it contains all the answers.

        If you have studied quantum physics you know of the two slit experiment which remains explainable, but repeatable, to this very day. This raises the question why you are so afraid of the mystic? It is just as much a part of the world as molecules, atoms and strings.

        A truly creative and intelligent person examines all phenomena prior to making a declaration of "the truth".

        September 13, 2011 at 12:47 am |
      • Brian

        Andrew, pardon my mistake. I meant to say "...two slit experiment which remains UNexplainable, but repeatable, to this very day."

        September 13, 2011 at 12:59 am |
      • Andrew

        I'm not touting my background as math as though it contains all the answers. I am using my background in math to compare math to creationist "math" as exemplified by the "Answers in Genesis" article I quoted.

        I am a fairly poor math student in point of fact. I could give you topic after topic that I find difficult. But, I am still generally much more knowledgeable on the subject than an individual who has not taken any calculus courses. A basic first year undergraduate level of mathematics is really all you need to understand what I am saying... MAYBE second year vector calc.

        So it's not that I'm saying "hey, I'm really really smart, look at math!", it's that I'm trying to highlight just how poor the "mathematics" exemplified by creationists when trying to appear scientific is. I'm trying to show other people who also have the same mathematical background or better (or even worse) the type of math creationists use, or rather, show the lack of any math at all.

        That doesn't make me a very good math student. I don't need to be a very good math student to see what the creationist wrote is absurd. I just need to be mildly competent, as would anyone else.

        Again, I didn't say anything about having answers, I'm saying when creationists try to make their work look scientific, it's just that, looks. Their math is made to look pretty, it doesn't actually represent what the symbols should mean.

        Which has NOTHING to do with the double slit experiment. Though people who bring that up seldom have studied it themselves. All the double slit experiment really does is give a pretty good experiment to prove wave-particle duality. It's hardly mystic, it makes perfect sense in light of the qunatum hypothesis (quantized light) and it of course also agrees with the classical E&M picture. Stop treating the double slit experiment as something so profound and esoteric, if you really want weird physics, look at charge-parity violation in the K meson. Lot more interesting stuff goes on there than the double slit experiment.

        None of that has anything to do with my original point, that creationist math isn't math. It's some weird distorted form made to look like math containing none of the explanatory powers. I'm not saying my math is any good, but creationist math isn't just "2+2=5", it's "2+2=tree". It doesn't make sense, it's not math.

        September 13, 2011 at 1:06 am |
      • Andrew

        By the way, I *could* give you a better understanding of the double slit experiment, but unfortunately, short of me being Feynman, my only understanding of it requires, god forbid, mathematics. Something you seem very hell bent on not using. Now if I were Feynman, I'd probably be able to explain it simply and intuitively while not compromising the science itself, but I am nowhere near as brilliant as that man.

        Now if anyone deserved to be called a god among men, it'd be Richard Feynman. Wish he was still alive.

        September 13, 2011 at 1:09 am |
      • Brian

        Andrew, why should I resort to mathematics when I am having so much fun watching you pontificate ... in gibberish.

        Good night, dear Andrew – Prince of the Lab Coat Deities. Ah gotta git my butt up early outta bed so I kin goes to work.

        I leave you with the quote from Andrew Jackson:

        Ittsa dammed week mined thet kin ownly thinck uh won whey tu spel ah wert.

        September 13, 2011 at 1:36 am |
      • Brian

        Jackson's quote is applicable to mathematics as well.

        September 13, 2011 at 1:48 am |
      • Andrew

        I've got the feeling anything harder than "a^2+b^2=c^2" would be called gibberish by you. My standards are exceedingly low, I've said very few difficult things, and any graduate physics student would be well aware of that. Because I don't know as much as a physics grad student. I don't know as much as a post doc. I don't know as much as a professor. The things I've been saying are really quite simple.

        Your failure to understand anything I've said, to call it "gibberish", is a reflection of your ignorance on any of the relevant subjects, and nothing more. I can't make it abundantly more clear, this isn't me stroking my ego by shouting things pretending I'm "oh so smart", it's me saying "I'm an idiot, and even I can see how blatantly stupid these creationist arguments are".

        I don't consider myself nearly as smart as you seem to think I do, because I'm knowledgeable enough to know I'm not, and know my own limits well enough to only talk within them. "Creationist math is bunk" doesn't require much to show to anyone with even a moderate education.

        September 13, 2011 at 1:55 am |
    • LADRIKIUS

      Yeah, we were discussing all that down at the tire plant just yesterday.

      September 13, 2011 at 12:24 am |
  25. Chris

    Could it be that at the time we separated from our common ancestor we were touched by a much higher force? I am just putting that out there. It just seems that something big happened when we separated so.....just food for thought.

    September 13, 2011 at 12:06 am |
    • Questionable

      Not likely, there are many other highly evolved creatures that have extinct common ancestors.

      September 13, 2011 at 12:14 am |
    • Acromyrmex-versicolor

      Although I personally am an atheist, I believe that is neither an uncommon nor unreasonable reconciliation between evolution and religion.

      September 13, 2011 at 12:22 am |
    • Brian

      I think aliens were screwing the platypuses (platypi?) giving birth to used car salesmen and mothers-in-law.
      It sure would explain a lot...

      September 13, 2011 at 12:24 am |
  26. Kathryn

    Someday it may also be said, "At one point in history we thought evolution was true and scientists supported it."

    September 12, 2011 at 11:59 pm |
    • Questionable

      No one will ever disprove God because people will continue to adapt religion around scientific findings saying "well maybe God started it or that what God wanted" what we can do is show hostatistically improbable God is. If you do not beleive in evolution then you would believe that God made other intelligent primates and then plopped humans in or you will have to believe that all of the fossils are fakes

      September 13, 2011 at 12:09 am |
    • Brian

      Yer funny. Probably think we should abandon lightning rods too, heh? Finger of God myth.
      "Nope, no such thing as naturally occurring lightning. It's all the Big Guy just cracking His knuckles."

      September 13, 2011 at 12:28 am |
  27. Boruch N. Hoffinger

    YET A G A I N,
    C H E C K out 'Loshon HaKodesh' (The Tongue That's Holy–'the holy tongue' Hebrew) and witness how far
    advanced it is over English...there is NO COMPARISON. The Holy Tongue was man's first universal language.
    Go to 'edenics.org' a secular website to see how all the world's languages evolved from this language then
    do a little research into the holy tongue (Mystical Hebrew) to see how deep and amazing it is!
    Scientists know this...but there's not enough 'scientific' evidence...shards of pottery, etc. (I suppose)
    Certainly our language skills have plummeted...a sign of 'DE VOLUTION!'

    September 12, 2011 at 11:58 pm |
  28. Anon A mouse

    Read this article on the similarities between pigs and humans (we used swine organs to develop insulin).
    It basically debunks evolutionists ironically via genome comparisons.
    http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/05/03/2887206.htm

    September 12, 2011 at 11:55 pm |
    • Earthling

      Where was the debunking part?

      September 13, 2011 at 12:01 am |
      • Anon A mouse

        You sir are right. In fact there are many of the in-between stages all around you. Look hard.

        September 13, 2011 at 12:06 am |
      • Earthling

        Huh? We didnt evolve from pigs. We share a common ancestor with them. Do you understand the difference?

        September 13, 2011 at 12:11 am |
    • Acromyrmex-versicolor

      Pigs sharing 98% of their genome with humans isn't surprising at all if you know anything about genetics, and in fact *supports* evolution because it is an illustration of just how closely related we are (in the grand scheme of things – after all, pigs and humans are both eutherian mammals which means we're more closely related to one another than, say, a shark is to a tuna).

      The cells in a pig's body have to do 98% of the exact same things that the cells in a human's body have to do...

      September 13, 2011 at 12:30 am |
  29. Boruch N. Hoffinger

    S I M P L E:
    Just go H E R E : 'Darwinism Has Been Disproved Before' (This math formula has N E V E R been disproven!)
    http://chabad.info/index.php?url=article_en&id=20548

    (The initiative for this brilliant math formula was started by The Lubavitcher Rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneersohn.)

    September 12, 2011 at 11:53 pm |
  30. Kathryn

    Microevolution can be proven. Macroevolution has not been proven.

    If only those skeletons could talk.
    It's too bad we can't bring them life.

    September 12, 2011 at 11:46 pm |
    • Questionable

      Well there is a lot of evidence that supports macro, remember just because it hasnt been proven yet doesnt mean it isnt true. At one point in history we thought the earth was flat and the church completely supported it

      September 12, 2011 at 11:49 pm |
  31. CoreyJ

    If you don't believe in evolution you are basically COMPLETELY irrelevant. I would LOVE to see somebody that had serious problems with evolution that wasn't trying to push some sort of religious agenda. I got news for all you fantasy chasers out there! You are increasingly losing your battle to pervert the public with your B.S.! America will only continue to search for answers, and when they do they will come to rely on science a lot more than myth. We don't need it anymore to function as a society. Give up your eternity and face the facts....

    September 12, 2011 at 11:41 pm |
    • Boruch N. Hoffinger

      Darwinism Has Been Disproved Before

      http://chabad.info/index.php?url=article_en&id=20548
      (The author, Professor Avrohom Michoel Hasofer, used to be an Atheist)

      September 13, 2011 at 12:08 am |
  32. Haysus Cristo

    There's no such thing as Evolution. My dad, Rick Perry, made everthing in 6 and 1/2 days. And then he set Texas on fire.

    September 12, 2011 at 11:36 pm |
    • Pastafarian

      lmfao! very nice.

      September 12, 2011 at 11:39 pm |
    • Brian

      Ya know...I believe you!

      September 13, 2011 at 12:30 am |
  33. nutmegthetuba

    I think that God was more creative by setting evolution into play and being wise enough to realize what would come of it than he would have been if he'd individually designed every creature. The idea of evolution as God's work is way more convincing to me, and it's kind of sad that we don't believe that He would have the power to create something so powerful and wonderfully connected as evolution.

    September 12, 2011 at 11:34 pm |
    • Pastafarian

      First of all, how does this jive with the bible and Adam and Eve, etc? They can not co-exist.

      Second, if there is a god, who created him?

      Not being sarcastic. Truly want your take.

      September 12, 2011 at 11:41 pm |
    • Questionable

      Soooo where did God start? Amino acid? RNA? DNA? Single cell organisms? Saying God started evolution is a great way to say yeah evolution happened but it was started by something intangible

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

      Geez..... I mean you can stretch it as far as you'd like to fit the structure you've already constructed for yourself but that still doesn't make it true!

      September 12, 2011 at 11:42 pm |
    • Acromyrmex-versicolor

      Wow, kudos to nutmegthetuba for being willing to look at the evidence and incorporate it into his/her beliefs without outright attacking or denying it.

      It's also a little disappointing to see only 3 responses that are all *still* antagonistic towards religion. Whether or not a person believes in God or religion, I think it is commendable to keep one's mind open to new ideas.

      September 13, 2011 at 12:46 am |
  34. tgreen7

    to believe in this world and everything in it you have to believe that something is infinite. Now it is up to you to believe that it was and infinite being called God and He created everything for His glory, or it was a clump of atoms that came together and exploded billions of years ago giving us the world we see today.

    September 12, 2011 at 11:25 pm |
  35. Dean

    There's some more inconsistencies in the story: One, Adam and Eve were just as they were made, if they weren't strong enough to withstand temptation, blame the potter, not the pot. Two, Adam and Eve didn't know right from wrong until they ate the fruit, so they (and all their descendants) were punished for something they couldn't know was wrong when they did it. Three, the talking snake was allowed to tempt Eve, what kind of irresponsible parenting is it to leave one of those crawling around when the future of humanity is at stake? Didn't matter of course, sooner or later some sap would have given in and doomed all their descendants. If it hadn't been those two, it would have been their kids or grandkids. As a metaphor and just-so story it's interesting. As an adult human in the 21st century, taking it literally is delusional. Hundreds of millions of Christians find a way to reconcile the findings of science with their faith. As far as the devil and fossils, if there's one thing we can be sure God, if it exists, created; it's the universe, by definition. If he allows Satan to falsify his creation, there's no reason to believe Satan's not allowed to do the same with other divine works, like Bibles and such.

    September 12, 2011 at 11:16 pm |
  36. Dan Steeves

    The 2nd law of thermodynamics, also known as the law of increasing entropy, completely disproves the theory of
    evolution. This a universal LAW while Darwinism is a theory born dead. Only somebody blind and senseless could
    believe that the cell in all its staggering complexity could create itself from the lifeless dust of the earth.

    September 12, 2011 at 11:07 pm |
    • tgreen7

      Thank you, someone finally said it.

      September 12, 2011 at 11:12 pm |
    • Questionable

      Well quantom physics kinda disproved that the thermodynamic theories are the end all be all. No one who truely understand evolution said cells came from dust.

      September 12, 2011 at 11:13 pm |
      • tgreen7

        however according to the primordial soup theory, life did come from dust. it rained a lot and BOOM out came life.

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

      So, clearly you have no understanding of evolution OR physics. Nicely done.

      September 12, 2011 at 11:16 pm |
      • tgreen7

        so what does the law mean. please, enlighten us

        September 12, 2011 at 11:17 pm |
      • Pastafarian

        You can't apply laws of thermodynamics as an argument against the ordered progression of evolution – which is based on random events. These systems have selective pressures on them, and energy being added to them via nutrients of some kind – be it phosphate or carbon bonds. These laws are not applicable here.

        I don't even understand why you're bringing them up unless it's to try to say that cells or organisms could have never formed in the face of entropy – which is very misguided due to energy being added to drive reactions in a particular direction.

        September 12, 2011 at 11:37 pm |
      • Andrew

        tgreen, entropy is a quantity derived via statistical mechanics. It has to do with the properties of a system. It is as a result of probability that in general entropy increases, but that doesn't, in any way, prevent evolution. It's not like the earth is an isolated system, there is energy input from the sun. As long as you have a constant influx of energy, in other words, as long as the sun exists or there exists geothermal energy on earth, entropy doesn't provide any constraints on what happens on earth, because entropy can decrease on earth, but increase in total.

        Consider ice. When you put water in your freezer entropy in the freezer decreases. But entropy outside the freezer actually increases, and slightly moreso than entropy inside the freezer, hence entropy increases, but not if you limit scope to just the freezer.

        Because the sun is acting as our energy source to beat entropy (like electricity in a freezer), trying to apply the second law to biology in such a trivial way is a bit absurd.

        In fact, however, there ARE ways to apply thermodynamics to biological systems. It's particularly done when discussing biochemistry, for example when trying to explain the process of how ATP is favored to form and give energy to cells. But these instances require a lot more understanding of biology and chemistry than "entropy prevents evolution". People who say that I sincerely doubt have ever taken either a classical thermodynamics or statistical mechanics course in their lives.

        September 12, 2011 at 11:48 pm |
      • Earthling

        Tgreen, The second law of thermodynamics essentially states that the total amount of order or entropy in a closed system is always decreasing. A local increase in entropy, however, can be created so long as it is accompanied by a corresponding decrease somewhere else. No, the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesnt refute evolution.

        September 12, 2011 at 11:51 pm |
      • Andrew

        Earthling, you have it backwards.

        September 13, 2011 at 12:13 am |
    • Questionable

      Well in the real world there is no way for there to be a reversible process entropy all that fun sh*t Law 2, sorry I spoke to quick and had some stuff @ss backwards so this does have to do with quantum machanics and the uncertainty of the placement of an electron. Maybe this could be possible if your system only included the earth but we are talking about a system much bigger than our comprehension. its kindof a slippery slop to say that Law 2 disproves it. Find a place that says cells came from dust please.

      September 12, 2011 at 11:31 pm |
      • Pastafarian

        can't entropy within a system be reversed by the additon of energy? Those arrows do go both ways 😉

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

        not in the real world it cant

        September 12, 2011 at 11:45 pm |
      • Andrew

        Questionable, obviously you've never heard of snow, or ice. Entropy can decrease with addition of energy, just not globally. But why treat the earth as an isolated system, we do have the sun you know.

        September 12, 2011 at 11:50 pm |
      • Questionable

        I think, im def no physics expert

        September 12, 2011 at 11:52 pm |
    • CoreyJ

      Uhhhhhhhh right. Glad you got all the answers pal! I got a number of Evolutionary Biologist that would disagree with you on that one. I don't understand the logic that just because we don't understand something we have to throw our hands in the air and say GOD! How can we look at this flower and just think that it popped out of nowhere! It's always the same rhetoric.. I could puke if I hear that one more GODdamn time..

      September 12, 2011 at 11:48 pm |
  37. Analoger

    As far as I am concerned science has evidence proving the existence of GOD and it is right under our noses but many choose to ignore it. Birthing is Birthing is Birthing. Their has been evidence that comets carry amino acids. Conception and gestation of the earth, similar to the conception and gestation of all species. Although I do agree that the planets are probably billions of years old . I have doubts that life on earth is millions of years old. There are too many holes in the evolution theory for one to accept as truth. Although I did believe in the evolutionary theory years ago. I don't anymore because all one has to do is an analysis of nature to make the determination and not believe everyones s...it.

    September 12, 2011 at 11:05 pm |
    • Questionable

      You would be right to question the Earth being millions of years old because an extraodinary amount of evidence concludes that it is about 4 billion years old.

      September 12, 2011 at 11:10 pm |
      • Pastafarian

        The Earth is actually 4.500000030 billion years old. I know this because in high school, I was taught that it is 4.5 billion years old, and that was 30 years ago.

        September 12, 2011 at 11:18 pm |
  38. college student

    Faith by Choice, monkeys as we know them now were not our ancestors. No one who studies human evolution would ever make that claim. And by monkeys, I assume that you mean current living primates genetically closest to humans (Chimps and Bonobos, followed by Gorillas and then Orangutans). These, by the way, are not monkeys, but the Great Apes.
    Scientists do not propose that we came from a Chimp, or Gorilla. The idea behind evolution is that chimps, bonobos, gorillas and orangs are as evolved as we are (they have had the same amount of time to evolve). 7 million years ago, our evolutionary path split from what we now know as the chimpanzee. Over the past 7 million years, both humans and the other great apes have evolved from a 'common ancestor', a primate-like creature (not a biped and certainly with a brain size smaller than 1130cc).
    Frequently, people say that chimps are 'not as evolved' as Homo sapiens, but this is not the case. They are just as evolved- they simply took a different evolutionary path than we did. The pathway of our ancestors (various forms of Australopithecus, and eventually forms of Homo) led to the modern Homo sapien. Along the way, adaptation pressures allowed us to become bipedal, develop a larger brain size, reduction in tooth size, develop the physiology in the vocal tract to produce language as we know it etc... Chimps and other primates simply fell under different adaptational pressures, but have spent the same amount of time evolving. Some might say we were the lucky ones, though 🙂
    By studying species like Australopithecus sediba, we start to see changes that eventually led to the modern human. While there is controversy about whether this particular species was a direct ancestor to what led to the modern human (as many species that stemmed from the original common ancestor 7 million years ago became extinct along the way) A. sediba is one of the many species that shows developments that have led to the modern human.
    Well, this has been a rather long post, and while I don't guarantee 100% accuracy with this information, I do feel confident that the main ideas are correct. For me, the idea of creationism simply does not make sense when one views this from a paleoanthropological POV, but to each their own.

    September 12, 2011 at 11:01 pm |
    • Questionable

      Problem is.... people decide that they will not look at these type of facts because it contradicts their beliefs.

      September 12, 2011 at 11:06 pm |
    • college student

      I should also clarify, by 7 million years, I simply mean that that was the divergence of the modern human and modern chimpanzee. By this point we already had very physiologically complex creatures. To get to this point, there was a whole lot of evolution taking place prior to this.
      Additionally, by looking at all forms of what paleoanthropologists believe to be descendants of the 'common ancestor' (whether or not they were our ancestors, we don't know), we can see a gradual evolution of beings that begin to look more 'modern human'. These changes are SLOW and not always physically noticeable. An idea behind evolution is that it takes time. If one was to look at all of the fossils that we have now, these small changes could be detected as time goes on.

      September 12, 2011 at 11:26 pm |
    • Pastafarian

      Great post, but unfortunately, it will be over the heads of your target audience. The rest of us already know this stuff 😉 Nice post, either way.

      September 12, 2011 at 11:32 pm |
      • college student

        Haha thanks! I figured it might've been a bit much once I mentioned the frequently forgotten Bonobos and then again when I got to the third paragraph, but once you're on a roll... 🙂

        September 12, 2011 at 11:52 pm |
  39. Ed Denver

    Listen. I talked to God the other day. He just stopped by out of the blue and asked me how things were. I was shocked, of course, but he seemed real and looked to be a pretty nice guy, so I asked Him if all this evolution stuff was real. He said of course it was. So there, straight from the horses mouth. Before he left I thought I should thank Him for his great book, the Bible. He said, "What book?"

    September 12, 2011 at 10:47 pm |
  40. Pastafarian

    God help us!

    September 12, 2011 at 10:45 pm |
  41. Questionable

    I would be willing to bet that the main reason people don't believe in evolution is that they have not truely tried to understand it. I mean using scientific journals to gather evidence and then form their own conclusion. This is easily seen in many christians and even nonchristians who think evolution says man came from monkeys or life just happened to form from a perfect sequence of events in the primordial soup. Also many people can't conceive the timeline we are talking about. Evolution is evident in our everyday lives, ever hear of MRSA. Stands for Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, a strain of bacteria that was more fit than other similar bacteria, to survive in an environment containing Methicillin (an antibiotic). Therefore this bacteria was able to reproduce offspring with the same antibiotic characteristics.

    September 12, 2011 at 10:39 pm |
  42. Anon A mouse

    Evolution is the improvement or adaption over time of code.

    Now take a tree...
    Did evolution create the first seed?
    If so, where did the first seed fall from?...
    The "first tree" ?

    Explain that please.

    September 12, 2011 at 10:39 pm |
    • Questionable

      You are thinking way too big, evolution does not occur in such a way that all of a sudden there were no trees and then there was one. It is billions of years of gene mutations allowing more fit species to survive, thrive, and reproduce.

      September 12, 2011 at 10:46 pm |
  43. Wes Comer

    Evolution is a proven scientific fact. I have no problem believing in God and evolution. The Biblical story is just that...a story, or better yet 2 stories. I have seen evolution occuring right before my eyes in the lab when bacteria and viruses mutate for their own survival.

    September 12, 2011 at 10:37 pm |
  44. tgreen7

    Gen.15 has nothing to do with Children sacrifices. neither does Deuteronomy 25, it just talks about justice for what they did against the Jews. Joshua 6 is your first reasonable question in which can be answered very easily, they were a pagan people that God did not want influencing His people, which, if you look at their history, it happened a lot. Gen. 19 is about God's judgement on the land of Sodom and Gomorrah for their evil. God commanded Abram to kill Isaac then stopped him because it was a test of faith. Hosea 9 is also a righteous Judgment on His own people. Num 5 is talking about a sacrifice in which the woman committed adultery secretly that the water that she will drink from the priest will make her belly to swell and her thigh to rot, it doesn't kill her just gives her a severe punishment, and if she didn't she has nothing to worry about. Yes, i did look up these verses i hope you are satisfied but i don't think you will.

    September 12, 2011 at 10:32 pm |
    • tgreen7

      this was supposed to be a reply but apparently it wasn't

      September 12, 2011 at 10:41 pm |
  45. MacInDetroit

    What's incredibly clear from these comments, is how few people understand basic science. Here's some advice: try being quieter and less assuming, go read a few books on hard science, starting with what the scientific method is, then be patient and start to accumulate a little knowledge. At this point, you might start to notice that science is exacting, precise, methodical, well-tested, and harder than you ever imagined back when you were yelling stupid things off the top of your head with no knowledge of anything whatsoever.
    What is happening to this Country? It's as if the USA is becoming a big dumb Jerry Springer show more & more every day.

    September 12, 2011 at 10:30 pm |
    • Pastafarian

      it has been a slow and steady decline, and it will be accelerated if any of the religious nutbag GOP candidates gets into the white house.

      September 12, 2011 at 10:47 pm |
  46. David

    Faith by choice is just another choice for ignorance. Nothing could be worse for this planet.

    September 12, 2011 at 10:28 pm |
  47. Chris McCoy

    My "opinion" on evolution is irrelevant, as are these opinions coming from a religious perspective. Opinion has nothing to do with the millions of years of strata and the fossils they have produced. Opinion has no place in clear decendantcies and the clear development and adaptation of simple to complex traits in organisms. Finding a missing link is irrelevant. What is relevant is that we have NEVER, in all our observations , found a complex organism in strata before a simple one. Simple-complex=evolution. You won't find a dinosaur before a bacteria. You won't find dolphins before sand dollars. There is progress in one direction only. This is fact. This is not opinion, and it makes evolution proof. There is no doubt. There is no controversy. There are asinine opinions by uninformed people with tiny minds and tinier agendas, but there is no proof or fact to support intelligent design or creationism. Those are opinions, not theories. This entire discussion is moot. It only continues to indulge people that remain willfully ignorant.

    September 12, 2011 at 10:27 pm |
  48. d

    There is one thing that is true from all the comments that have been made. People are going to be dogmatic about their beliefs whether they are true or false. It is my belief that God created the earth in six literal days, and by the grace of God that is not going to change because it is the truth. Contrariwise, those who believe in evolution are more than likely going to hold onto their opinions. In the end, it's a waste of time to argue because arguments usually never solve anything. Those who believe in evolution, I'm praying for you.

    September 12, 2011 at 10:26 pm |
  49. evoman11

    Susan,... you are horribly misinformed. There is other information available to you , I mean ,... besides your church and your lil' ole bible. Evolution has not been disproved, the contrary is true. I hate that it is called "The Theory of Evolution" enough time has passed to simply call it evolution. The evidence supporting it is every where. God hasn't been dis-proven because why would you need to prove or refute a fairly tale? Does anyone have to prove apollo really doesn't carry the sun across the sky? Take a trip to the smithsonian , the natural history building, and tell your lil' ole bible makes more sense to you, that it is a better explanation.

    September 12, 2011 at 10:20 pm |
  50. underarock

    Darwin loves you!

    September 12, 2011 at 10:20 pm |
    • Acromyrmex-versicolor

      Sir Alfred Russel Wallace thinks you're only OK.

      September 12, 2011 at 10:24 pm |
  51. Pinecone

    I will be so glad that 50 years from now the question "do understand evolution?" (btw I did not say "believe in") will never be asked. Asking the question today is like asking if you believe in gravity. And also the question won't be discussed in a political arena where it does not belong. I am sure glad my daughter will not have to deal with this nonsense. Thank you Huntsman for being the only candidate with a brain. You will have my vote.

    September 12, 2011 at 10:20 pm |
  52. Frank

    I feel very strongly both ways. I never argue.

    September 12, 2011 at 10:16 pm |
  53. Mark C

    The US is the only allegedly developed country on earth where this is even remotely an issue. Elsewhere, Creationists are regarded as the loons they are. What a sad, pathetic excuse for a nation we have become.

    September 12, 2011 at 10:10 pm |
    • Pinecone

      I agree.

      September 12, 2011 at 10:21 pm |
  54. FlamingNot

    It is far more simple to deny or cast spurious doubts on facts, than it is to accept that one's worldview is wrong. And "simple" is what many people want, nay, it is what they need, because they're regrettably incapable of and/or unwilling to understand the notion of its opposite: complex. Especially complex facts supported by subtle evidence (smaller facts, LOL) and threaded together by a sophisticated argument. And evolution is such an argument. So is global warming. It is not surprising that those who deny one usually deny the other. We're dealing with a bunch of delta minuses and epsilons here.

    September 12, 2011 at 10:04 pm |
  55. emodido

    Seems like this page would evolve enough to make following the comments easy enough to follow. Hey science guy, use the same type of format as the other CNN pages does.

    September 12, 2011 at 10:00 pm |
  56. Pastafarian

    Ok, here's a little scenario to ponder:

    Take one devout Jew, one devout Christian, and one devout Muslim and lock them all in a room.

    The only given is that at least two of them are wrong, yet all three will kill for their beliefs.

    September 12, 2011 at 9:58 pm |
    • emodido

      The Buddhist wins. What did the Buddhists say to the hotdog vendor? Make me one with everything!

      September 12, 2011 at 10:06 pm |
    • OpforOpfor

      Take an atheist, and he kills everyone including himself!

      September 12, 2011 at 10:10 pm |
      • Pastafarian

        I'm sorry. That response about atheists killing makes no sense. Nor is it relevant to the OP.

        September 12, 2011 at 10:24 pm |
  57. Zeynep

    Wow – We REALLY have to STOP comparing religion to science! Did I time travel to the dark ages or what? People NEED EDUCATION!

    September 12, 2011 at 9:52 pm |
  58. cantwealljust...

    What never ceases to amaze me is how vicious people get over this discussion. The fact is, everybody believes they are right just as deeply as you do. Will their well reasoned argument or their expletive-laced insult make you change your mind? It won't change theirs either. In the end, what difference does it make to you? After all, you all "know" you are right, don't you? Why can't you all just leave it at that, and let others wallow in their ignorance?

    None of us understand the mysteries of the universe and we never will – you flatter yourself if you believe otherwise. You are each comparing your 1 billionth of knowledge against everybody else's, which is fine as long as it ends at an intellectual exercise, but becomes pointless and destructive when you fling insults at one another.

    September 12, 2011 at 9:51 pm |
    • tor5

      But it’s fun to anonymously insult complete strangers… if you’re 12 years old.

      September 12, 2011 at 9:58 pm |
  59. NetNinja

    How many years has this debate been going on? If the proof were so Iron clad why so much controversy?

    September 12, 2011 at 9:50 pm |
    • Pastafarian

      because ignorance is bliss.

      September 12, 2011 at 9:53 pm |
    • Mark C

      Because there are a lot of half-wits like you around, utterly incapable on understanding science.

      September 12, 2011 at 10:13 pm |
    • Acromyrmex-versicolor

      "If the proof were so Iron clad why so much controversy?"

      That's simple enough to answer. Evolution challenges a lot of people's beliefs, beliefs that have been established for hundreds if not thousands of years. Some people don't like change, and it's not unreasonable that people would be upset when presented with something that contradicts their worldview.

      September 12, 2011 at 10:28 pm |
  60. Dave

    More than half of you can't spell, use grammer or express your thoughts in a logical, organized manner. Despite your obvious ignorance you think you can disagree with some of the smartest, most dedicated scientists of the last couple hundred years. Is it because you "feel" that there is a god, or is it because the bible is the only book you've ever read (or maybe it was read to you assuming you're as illiterate as I think you are)? If you truly believe in god than do us all a favor and give away all your worldly belongings to the poor and live your life humbly and without any sin. Who cares about the next 50 years when you have an eternity in heaven? If I believed in god I'd certainly be kissing his ass right now, why aren't you?

    September 12, 2011 at 9:48 pm |
    • OpforOpfor

      Dave, get a grip.

      September 12, 2011 at 9:50 pm |
    • JOregon

      Then there are the grammar Nazi's.

      September 12, 2011 at 10:02 pm |
      • Pastafarian

        JOregon: Ironic much? LOL

        September 12, 2011 at 10:25 pm |
  61. Pastafarian

    There seems to be a lot of confusion in the Creationist camp on the actual definition of the word theory when referring to the scientific method. Maybe the simple act of copy/paste can help educate some of you.

    In your world, theory is usually defined as an abstract thought or unproved assumption.

    In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists “theory” and “fact” do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton’s theory of universal gravitation and general relativity.

    The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions about things not yet observed. The relevance, and specificity of those predictions determine how (potentially) useful the theory is. A would-be theory which makes no predictions which can be observed is not a useful theory. Predictions which are not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term ‘theory’ is inapplicable.

    In practice a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a minimum empirical basis. That is, it:
    ■ is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense, and
    ■ is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.

    Additionally, a theory is generally only taken seriously if it:

    ■ is tentative, correctable and dynamic, in allowing for changes to be made as new data is discovered, rather than asserting certainty, and

    ■ is the most parsimonious explanation, sparing in proposed entities or explanations, commonly referred to as passing the Occam’s razor test.

    Let's start with that. Very simple and straighforward. The "theory" of evolution is supported by multiple independent fields as diverse as molecular biology, developmental biology, genetics, behavior, and paleontology. It doesn not depend on the words written in one unsupported book written 1500 years ago.

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

      Good guide, for a high school science experiment.

      September 12, 2011 at 9:49 pm |
      • Pastafarian

        Yes, and if the religious right didn't want to keep cutting education, more of the "adults" on this site might have the most basic grasp of how science works. Then they can weigh ignorance and faith against knowledge and facts.

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

      Try to use the scientific method to prove that I exist.

      I can refuse to do anything you ask me to do, refuse to engage in your experiments, refuse to perform on demand, refuse to do what you tell me to do.

      Yet, I exist.

      Gravity is a property, it is inanimate.
      God is a person.

      You're trying to use a tape measure to listen to music.

      September 12, 2011 at 9:52 pm |
      • Pastafarian

        Holy sh.it! Did you drop acid before writing that post??? Take a high school science class then come talk to me.

        September 12, 2011 at 9:56 pm |
    • JOregon

      The thing with evolution is it is a belief system based on theories.

      September 12, 2011 at 10:05 pm |
      • Pastafarian

        JOregon: Did you even read my post? Did you understand the basic point was that the word THEORY is not defined the way you think it is. Try to read it again, and stop to look up any words you might not know.

        Evoltion is NOT a belief system! *facepalm*

        September 12, 2011 at 10:27 pm |
      • JOregon

        I understand theory. In the world of evolution theories are created to support the belief system.
        One of the basic cornerstones of evolution is the theory that similar characteristics are evidence of evolution.
        It is the CORNERSTONE of evolution. Similar creatures have similar characteristics because they must have shared a common ancestor.
        The camera eye is found in the Human, Octopus, and many others such as the Box Jellyfish.
        There is no possibility that they evolved from a common ancestor. The eyes develop in a completely different manner.
        The octopus eye forms from an epidermal placode through a series of successive infoldings, whereas the human eye forms from the neural plate and induces the overlying epidermis to form the lens (Harris 1997).
        Remember that cornerstone? Now we have totally unrelated species sharing a common feature.
        Because of this it was necessary to create a new theory to keep the belief system alive.
        Convergent Evolution.
        So now we have 2 theories to cover similarities between creatures.
        Theory #1 – Creatures share similar traits because they had a common ancestor.
        Theory #2 – Creatures share similar traits because they don't have a common ancestor.
        Talk about covering you bases!
        Besides if similarities are evidence of evolution why isn't a lack of similarities evidence there was no evolution.

        September 12, 2011 at 11:12 pm |
      • Pastafarian

        oregon: you're wrong. there are tons of cases of paralel evolution between unrelated species under similar pressures. Just becuase they're eyes, doesn't mean they developed the same way – only that htey are functionally homologous.

        It's truly impossible for me to teach you decades of biology in a CNN blog. You really need to go read some non-partisan book on scientific theory and evolution and gain some understanding.

        September 13, 2011 at 1:09 am |
      • JOregon

        Ton's of THEORY.
        The fact is evolution was based to the observance of shared characteristics with similar creatures.
        Yes there are many more so called Convergent Evolution examples. All they really do is shatter the very cornerstone of evolution, the theory that evolution is shown by the shared traits of similar creatures.
        That is after all the basis for this whole article, creatures look similar to man therefore they must have been our forefathers.
        The human eye and the octopus eye are almost identical, That one such complex organ could evolve is very unlikely that it would evolve totally independently in many species living above ground and under the ocean is astronomically unlikely.
        The idea that an intelligent creator would use the same organ is very plausible.

        September 13, 2011 at 1:54 am |
    • chad

      You guys keep forgetting the crux of the issue. God is a person.

      You are trying to use a method used in science to determine the validity of theories regarding the nature of the world around us, to examine a persons activities.

      Again, try and use the scientific method to prove I exist.

      September 12, 2011 at 10:39 pm |
      • Pastafarian

        Chad: first of all, your assertion that god is a "person" flies in the face of every other religious zealot on this blog. He is supposedly an omnipotent being – impossible to see. If he were a "person", I would be able to see him and prove his existence by his physical presence. In your case, I would probably boil you down to you basic components in a hot acid bath, then use GC to analyze your chemical content. It would show a bunch of carbon, but mostly just hydrogen and oxygen in the form of water. Your argument is silly.

        September 12, 2011 at 10:53 pm |
    • chad

      God is a one of a kind being, obviously I didnt mean that God is a human like you or I. My point is that he is not a physical property like gravity. My point is that the scientific method is a in place to test scientific theories regarding the physical properties of our world and the universe at large and just isn't going to work to prove or disprove the activities of a "person".
      How would you use the scientific method to prove the existence of a person, if that person refused to participate in the method?

      September 13, 2011 at 8:58 am |
  62. lMNOP

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

    September 12, 2011 at 9:45 pm |
  63. tor5

    What a bizarre debate. The creationists argue that the theory of evolution is “full of holes” but have no problem going to the doctor or taking medications that positively would not exist if not for the theory of evolution. And the atheists poke fun at the simplistic “man in the sky” idea of God but have no answer for the origins of existence. The irony is that it is only mindless orthodoxy on both sides that manufacture this “argument.”

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

      The problem is few recognize the difference between Micro-Evolution (the ability to adapt) and Macro-Evolution (the ability for a creature to become a different species).
      Micro-Evolution is very real, Macro-Evolution is not.

      September 12, 2011 at 10:08 pm |
      • Pastafarian

        JOregon: wtf are you talking about? So you believe that small changes can happen within a species through a process of selection, yet the idea (and overwhelming scientific FACT) that a series of small changes accumulating over millions of years is beyond your grasp? Help me understand wtf you're talking about.

        September 12, 2011 at 10:29 pm |
      • JOregon

        Read a little further down for an explanation. Dr Giertych is much more of an authority than I am, and probably everyone else on this message board.

        September 12, 2011 at 11:14 pm |
  64. emodido

    It doesn't bother me much one way or another whether someone believes the theory of evolution or not. What bothers me the most is that on both sides of the issue there are those who blindly defend their points of view without knowing even the fundemental mechanics of the other. What I have seen of some against the theory of evolution seem to have made no further attempt than to look at wikipedia for an explanation or what it is. On the other hand, some of those who protect the theory the most seem to simply be against any concept of religion and just as narrow minded.

    September 12, 2011 at 9:40 pm |
    • Pastafarian

      I believe someone made the point earlier that just because there are two sides does not mean they deserve equal consideration. One is science. Testable, repeatable, supported by multiple bodies of research. The other is faith. It has no basis in science and no support to prove it exists. That's the essence of faith – believing something with no proof. So let's remember that we are comparing apples and oranges here.

      September 12, 2011 at 9:43 pm |
    • emodido

      At the same time, don't forget that both sides are trying to explain the same question. How did we get here, why did it happen, and what is the point? One is attempting with scientific thought which uses logic. The other side with belief which can be quite illogical; however, it doesn't make it necessarily mutually exclusive.

      September 12, 2011 at 10:03 pm |
  65. hnrast

    Several trillion years ago, the cosmic outhouse was extremely hot and overflowing with dense matter, it began to expand rapidly with the culmination of the big bang, thusly bringing forth the proponents of evolution.

    September 12, 2011 at 9:38 pm |
    • chad

      Not true, there was nothing, then nothing exploded.. Stephen Hawking.

      September 12, 2011 at 9:43 pm |
      • OpforOpfor

        That line that Stephen Hawking said, can be applied to something of a "smelly" nature, if you know what i mean....

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

        Steven Hawking's theory does say that universe(s) can spontaneously form and don't need anything – not even TIME! But, we all have to be a super genius to understand what he means! Too bad everyone can't be an expert in theoretical physics, but they still have to be an expert in it! Some of us have no intellectual curiosity or capacity to figure this out, so we just make up stuff!

        September 12, 2011 at 10:03 pm |
    • JOregon

      You can't make something from nothing.
      Everything in the physical universe requires building blocks.
      God is Spirit, therefore he is outside of the laws of the physical universe.

      September 12, 2011 at 10:14 pm |
      • Zeynep

        So why are we comparing someone's particular religion to the Physics of the Universe?????

        September 12, 2011 at 10:19 pm |
      • Pastafarian

        God is...{insert any word here}. Prove it.

        September 12, 2011 at 10:31 pm |
      • JOregon

        "God is...{insert any word here}. Prove it."
        Why?
        I can no more prove God than you can prove evolution.
        We both have our belief systems.

        September 12, 2011 at 11:22 pm |
  66. chad

    "complexity of tracing the evolution of our species"

    LOL

    If in fact, humans evolved out of the slime the fossil record would be REPLETE with intermediate forms. Evolution by definition implies millions of years and millions of gradual intermediate forms.

    The FACT is, we just dont have what is required for evolution to be true, so folks are forced to create a theory of complexity that is directly at odds with the fundamental guiding principle of evolution. Gradual mutation and natural selection.

    It escapes me how someone buys into it..

    September 12, 2011 at 9:38 pm |
    • Acromyrmex-versicolor

      "If in fact, humans evolved out of the slime the fossil record would be REPLETE with intermediate forms. Evolution by definition implies millions of years and millions of gradual intermediate forms."

      Well there's your problem – humans didn't evolve out of "slime" – life in general did. The leap from the first living organisms to humans is an enormous one. The so-called "transitional stages" you're asking for would more-or-less be the entirety of animal diversity, not to mention all the unicellular organisms that predate even the earliest animals.

      Humans evolved from hominids, which evolved from other ape-like mammals. The fossil discovery in the aforementioned article is one of many, many transitional forms that likely led to or shared common ancestry with modern humans. It's hard to take your argument seriously when the transitional forms are, for the most part, there. How they fit together may be unclear, but to deny that these hominid fossils represent human ancestors or relatives of human ancestors, given that they resemble us more than any living organism, is just foolish.

      However, you're naive if you think that fossils of every species that has every existed are out there and will be easily found, or that (if we theoretically *did* find fossils of all species) they'd make a nice neat line leading from simple unicellular prokaryotes to modern humans.

      September 12, 2011 at 9:57 pm |
      • chad

        "s hard to take your argument seriously when the transitional forms are, for the most part, there"

        please.. if they were, there wouldnt be an argument. the reason the argument is still an argument is that they dont. You dont see anyone arguing that the earth is flat, or that the sun revolves around the earth do you?

        they arent, why not? "We havent found them yet" please... how many truly new ones are found every year? It's very un-common. For evolution to be true, there would be MORE intermediate forms than final forms. By definition.

        For me to believe you, I would have to believe that the only fossils preserved were snapshots at regular periods of the evolutionary process. How likely is that?

        September 12, 2011 at 10:06 pm |
      • Acromyrmex-versicolor

        "please.. if they were, there wouldnt be an argument. the reason the argument is still an argument is that they dont."

        Rather than bother with this exercise in futility, I'll just recommend that you go ahead and do a little independent research into the diversity of early hominids and models for human evolution.

        It sounds to me like what you want is a nicely preserved fossil of every single organism that has ever lived, to which I can only answer you are supremely naive if you honestly believe that fossils are formed so easily, that there even *is* a fossil for every organism that has ever lived, and that they are all easy to find.

        The fact that most of these fossils have been lying around for hundreds of thousands of years and weren't discovered until now is testament to the fact that no, they're not so easy to find as taking a walk around South Africa looking for a few bones.

        FWIW, fossil evidence of a new hominid species was found in Siberia in 2010, which in itself is particularly interesting because it adds yet another group that would have coexisted with modern humans and H. neandertalensis after the departure from Africa (assuming the "out of Africa" model for human dispersal).

        September 12, 2011 at 10:23 pm |
      • chad

        again, you just completely side step the issue with "we just havent found them yet"

        you would have me believe that somehow, the precise forms that would be needed to document evolution (which by definition would exist in greater numbers than the species that we do have a fossil record of), are some how all missing. What are those odds?
        That somehow, over millions and millions of years, snapshots of life on earth are preserved in fossil records at regular intervals. It's really a fantastic claim..

        September 12, 2011 at 10:34 pm |
  67. OpforOpfor

    Truth be told, I have seen a spirit or apparition. My sister and I both saw it, while my mom and dad saw nothing. The supernatural does exist.

    September 12, 2011 at 9:36 pm |
    • Pastafarian

      Oh, ok! Well in that case, forget everything I've written here. Goodnight. lmfao

      September 13, 2011 at 1:18 am |
  68. evoman11

    How can grown, otherwise intelligent people, believe in such fairy tales that they know just can't be true? Adam and Eve? Really??? God created the world in seven days? Really??? Is Santa Claus real too? The Easter bunny? If you don't believe in evolution crack a book or two. You clearly do not understand the scientific method. Why do ALL living things have similar DNA? Why do all things living even have DNA? God-doers please explain Dinosaurs. At one time people believed in Zues. He was invented by man (As were all gods) to explain things he didn't have the resources and reference points to understand. Religion is on of the worst problems in the world today. It divides us as a people. People die every single day in the name of religion. Religion is almost as dangerous as mosquitoes. There is an endless supply of evidence supporting evolution but people still believe in Zues. I don't get it.... Simple logic works to figure this question out for yourself. Evidence that everyone can go out and literally dig up for yourself vs a book/s written thousands of years ago by a person that has no understanding of modern science. oh well I guess were are doomed by our collective ignorance.

    September 12, 2011 at 9:36 pm |
  69. Sandbur

    So when evangelicals watch the Flintstones do they think it's a documentary?

    September 12, 2011 at 9:33 pm |
    • Pastafarian

      lmfao. nice.

      September 12, 2011 at 9:48 pm |
    • Zeynep

      Maybe sci-fi?

      September 12, 2011 at 10:06 pm |
    • SciGuy

      Stranger still, evolutionists read their just-so stories and imagine it's history!

      September 12, 2011 at 10:14 pm |
      • Pastafarian

        SciGuy: Based on previous posts from you, I doubt that you have any background or knowledge in any of the biological sciences. You should really change that name. It's insulting to people who actually do science for a living.

        September 12, 2011 at 10:32 pm |
      • SciGuy

        Pasta, based on previous posts of yours, I suspect you may be in middle school; we'll wait for you to grow up.

        September 12, 2011 at 10:37 pm |
      • Zeynep

        I think all mythology is part history – we just have to connect the dots and understand the clues that were left to us by the earth's history. I am currently researching ancient alien theory which seems to successfully connect most of the dots and explain how religions might have come to earth. Most of the stories that all religions have in common are written in the Sumerian scripts from 2600 BC. The stories echo on all continents when they did not have the means to travel across oceans – we need to keep learning and never settle for shortcut answers. That's what our creator would have expected from us!

        September 12, 2011 at 10:37 pm |
      • Pastafarian

        sciguy: not even close. I'm actually an educated, open-minded professional. My PhD is in molecular biology with a post doctorate in protein biochemistry. My jobs have focused on molecular virology and infectious disease. So, when it comes to understanding science, I think I can hold my own, as can many on this board. You sir, are not one of them.

        September 13, 2011 at 1:14 am |
  70. Nick Naranja

    Even as a biologist, I have a difficult time with what some people parade around as evolution. I have a problem with the way it was explained to us as children. You have to start with something that then evolves through spontaneous additions to it's own genome. As far as humans go, we should have had a ancestor that basically had a homo sapiens phenotype and a chimpanzee phenotype and we each found our niche.

    September 12, 2011 at 9:33 pm |
    • Acromyrmex-versicolor

      This really hits the nail on the head for me. I've never met a person who *understood* modern theories of evolution and still refuted evolution as a whole. People who are up to speed on current scholarly work in the field of evolutionary biology may debate the specifics of evolution, but not whether or not to accept it.

      Many people, on both sides of the debate (at least in a public venue like this one), operate on a very simplistic grade-school understanding of the concept of evolution.

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

        There is a Professor, Dr. Maciej Giertych that doesn't believe in evolution.
        At Oxford he received a BA and a MA in forestry.
        At Toronto a PHD in tree physiology.
        At the Agricultural University of Poznań he received his Habilitation degree. It is a European degree above PHD.
        From the Foreward he wrote to Gerard J. Keane's book, Creation Rediscovered:
        -"My primary objection as a geneticist was to the claim that the formation of races, or microevolution, as it is often referred to, is a small scale example of macroevolution – the origin of species. Race formation is, of course, very well documented. All it requires is isolation of a part of a population. After a few generations, due to natural selection and genetic drift, the isolated population will irreversibly lose some genes, and thus, as long as the isolation continues, in some features it will be different from the population it arose from. In fact, we do this ourselves all the time when breeding, substituting natural with artificial selection and creating artificial barriers to generative mixing outside the domesticated conditions.

        The important thing to remember here is that a race is genetically impoverished relative to the whole population. It has fewer alleles (forms of genes). Some of them are arranged into special, interesting, rare combinations. This is particularly achieved by guided recombination of selected forms in breeding work. But these selected forms are less variable (less polymorphic). Thus what is referred to as micro-evolution represents natural or artificial reduction of the gene pool. You will not get Evolution that way. Evolution means construction of new genes. It means increase in the amount of genetic information, and not reduction of it."-

        September 12, 2011 at 10:26 pm |
      • Acromyrmex-versicolor

        Thank you for your reply JOregon.

        In response to the professor's preface:

        He only addresses a single factor of genetic diversity in a specific scenario. No one disagrees that, when gene flow is cut off between populations, they will undergo genetic drift separately. Similarly, no one disagrees that genetic drift reduces genetic diversity.

        However, the professor fails to recognize (or neglects) any other selective factor, as well as genetic mutation. He also limits his scope to a few generations, exactly the amount of time required for microevolution to occur, without addressing the possibility of accumulated change (or the pressures that would drive such change) over many hundreds of generations, the time required for macroevolution to occur. The idea that microevolution is perfectly palatable and macroevolution is incorrect is not a novel assertion, and people making that argument almost always neglect to consider macroevolution on a macroevolutionary timescale.

        Nonetheless, I am interested and may be checking his book out from the library soon to read it.

        September 13, 2011 at 12:36 am |
      • JOregon

        AV
        He actually does cover more elsewhere.
        Usually CNN does not allow links so I'll just quote:
        On Breeding:
        –"The same is true of breeding. Breeders eliminate unwanted genes making domesticated forms genetically poorer. These are usually helpless in nature and perish when left without human help. If not, this is due to quick inter-breeding with wild forms that replenish the gene pool.

        Most of the successes in breeding come from guided recombination. The breeder pools certain rare genes into one individual or population to achieve the desired combination of traits. Nothing new is produced. "–
        On Positive Mutations:
        –"A useful mutation (e.g. an orange without seeds) is not the equivalent of a positive mutation. I felt uneasy lecturing about positive mutations when I could not give an example. There are very many examples of negative and neutral mutations, but none I know of which I could present as a documented example of a positive one.

        Genetic literature on the subject often confuses mutations with alleles, or even mutations with recombinations. The finding of an allele that is useful for some purpose is not the equivalent of demonstrating a positive mutation — similarly when the find concerns a useful recombinant of alleles existing in the gene pool.

        Variants of alleles in a gene pool are a fact of life. How they came to be is another matter. Some, usually neutral or excessively deleterious, arise from mutations. Some are introgressants from other species. Still others are within the population since its origin — however that came about. "–
        He has been around for a very long time, make me wonder why our schools don't teach what he teaches.
        I can understand keeping the religious opponents out of our schools, his is a scientific opposition.

        September 13, 2011 at 2:04 am |
  71. Matt W.

    Science by definition is "observable," "testable," and "repeatable." Evolution is none of those. Added to that, whenever you start with a conclusion and try to prove it, you are no longer dong science but philosophy.

    September 12, 2011 at 9:32 pm |
    • Acromyrmex-versicolor

      Evolution is observable in a number of cases, and testable as well (selective breeding of domestic animals has been an ongoing evolutionary experiment for a large part of human existence).

      September 12, 2011 at 10:01 pm |
    • Zeynep

      Then why are we even trying to explain evolution through religion? Religion is beyond philosophy – it is a belief system! You can't prove or disprove beliefs –

      September 12, 2011 at 11:32 pm |
  72. FlamingNot

    It seems evident from this discussion that what Isaac Asimov said years ago is true: "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" It seems that some people fear knowledge, they fear something, anything, that eats at the roots of their belief system. When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger. Part of the issue is facing this question: What constitutes "evidence"? I've heard a woman claim that the only book you need to read is the King James Bible, (which could have been emailed in English from Heaven for all that she knows about its origin), that all knowledge flows from that. On the other hand, there is strong evidence from scholars who have studied ancient manuscripts that the writings in today's bibles (multiple modern versions are extant, of course) have been copied and miscopied, translated and mistranslated - perhaps innumerable times - all due to the very human errors of the copyists and translators. The woman is ignorant of the origins of her own holy book; how can she be expected to respect knowledge generated by other humans in ANY field, especially science. She never asks, "Why?" Pity the ignorant and those who pander to them, but don't try to change their minds. It's like trying to teach a pig to sing a lullaby; it almost certainly won't be effective, and it annoys the pig.

    September 12, 2011 at 9:30 pm |
    • Pastafarian

      one of the best posts of the night.

      September 12, 2011 at 9:50 pm |
  73. Sandbur

    My late mother and I agreed on most things, but Evolution was an exception.
    She did finally admit that some of her ancestors did swing from the trees –
    but it was by their necks and not by their tails!

    September 12, 2011 at 9:29 pm |
  74. Guest

    There is way more proof supporting evolution over religion.Not only are people evolved from monkeys,most people are not too far removed.With the existence of reality tv shows and Internet debate forums,can you really tell me that people arent at least part monkey,if not all?

    September 12, 2011 at 9:29 pm |
    • OpforOpfor

      We can act like monkeys! lol

      September 12, 2011 at 9:30 pm |
  75. Geoscba

    Why is it so hard to believe that God could be big and wondrous enough to have created everything through the big bang and to have initiated evolution? Is God so powerless that he needs a cosmic light switch to flip to create something? Why can't science be the way God works? How are they contradictory? Perhaps you all should watch "Inherit the Wind". But, the arguments will continue anyway...

    September 12, 2011 at 9:25 pm |
    • OpforOpfor

      If you read the Bible you would see why.

      September 12, 2011 at 9:26 pm |
  76. Susan

    hello CNN, why would you assume Evolution is the correct theory? It has virtually been disproved, while no one has yet to disprove God, our creator.

    September 12, 2011 at 9:24 pm |
    • Cass314

      I think you've got that backwards. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, biology would make no sense without it, and no major tenet of the current theory has been disproved. Furthermore, God as a concept is not falsifiable, because no matter what someone did, you could always say "well, he's all powerful, so he avoids it". It is impossible to prove a negative–or, can you please prove for me that in your garage there is not an invisible and intangible dragon which needs no sustenance, emits no waste or byproducts, and also cannot be smelled, heard, tasted, or detected at all unless he wants to be? Acting like the fact that no one has disproved God means anything is absurd, because once you posit omnipotence your theoretical deity or dragon can do whatever the heck he likes and no one can ever find him.

      September 12, 2011 at 9:31 pm |
  77. David Crosby

    God didn't create anything..because God is an invention..sorry..The star systems surrounding us were not created by a person, deity or individual..that's crazy..

    September 12, 2011 at 9:22 pm |
    • OpforOpfor

      Still keeping the jokes going David Crosby!

      September 12, 2011 at 9:24 pm |
    • Susan

      Throwing a bunch of rocks into a paper bag, shaking it and coming up with our universe, earth and humankind makes more sense than God our Creator? Really?

      September 12, 2011 at 9:26 pm |
  78. Lighten up

    If you need a break from the intense debate, check out some hilarious youtube posts: http://www.youtube.com/user/DarkMatter2525

    September 12, 2011 at 9:17 pm |
  79. Ignerance is goood

    Blessid Be!

    As a tru blue conservativ im proud to beleev what weev bin told sinse the beginin! Im prowd of it!

    For thees heethen librals to be towtin this stuff–its thi end of the world! Im prowd to be Repulbican!

    Ignerance is OK becawse its thi sourc of wizdom. Rush rules!

    September 12, 2011 at 9:17 pm |
  80. Prowd American and Prowd of It!

    As a tru blue conservativ im proud to beleev what weev bin told sinse the beginin! Im prowd of it!

    For thees heethen librals to be towtin this stuff–its thi end of the world! Im prowd to be Repulbican!

    Ignerance is OK becawse its thi sourc of wizdom. Rush rules!

    September 12, 2011 at 9:13 pm |
    • Ashrakay

      Prase Jebus and Pabst.

      September 12, 2011 at 9:25 pm |
  81. Jason

    I went to a conservative Christian university, but they taught that evolution and creationism, and not contradictory. Evolution basically means that species adapt and evolve over time, in response to their environment and the Biology teachers' point of view was that it would have been a fatally flawed design to not create species that would evolve and adapt over time. People try to include the Big Bang or other theories about the formation of life, into the definition of evolution, but that is not accurate. We should all be able to agree that evolution exists and is ongoing, and has nothing to do with whether or not God created the world and all living beings.

    September 12, 2011 at 9:11 pm |
    • JT

      But the theory of evolution is supported by 100+ years of evidence and Christianity is mythology. That is a major difference.

      September 12, 2011 at 9:18 pm |
      • OpforOpfor

        God is infinite. Beats 100+ every time lol

        September 12, 2011 at 9:21 pm |
  82. Lia Berenguer

    I am thankful for great teachers like Ken Hamm and Henry Morris who can explain logically earth science in a way that believers and non-believers can understand. A great dvd is "God of Wonders", for anyone wanting to watch an amazing creation video. Also "Creatures that Defy Evolution" (videos 1,2,3). This is a great one for sceptics, watch and decide for yourself at the end; this series is hosted by an agnostic college professor that took up a challenge by 2 of his students and after 5 years became a creationist. May God open your eyes as you search for Him

    September 12, 2011 at 9:11 pm |
    • Cass314

      First of all, there is a long history of fundamentalist Christians claiming in promotional materials to be agnostic and atheists and then having rapid and implausible changes of heart. If you were to believe these materials, nearly every single young earth creationist started out as a vocal atheist, which seems unlikely because we don't have any of their "vocal" writings from beforehand. So I am forced to be skeptical as to the veracity of that video, but I will try to see if I can look it up for free.

      Second, I've read a lot of Hamm and Morris' stuff, and they don't actually prove anything. In fact, a lot of what they say is demonstrably false. Such as the age of the earth. While Ham believes radiometric dating to be wrong, he does not explain why, except to vaguely claim the flood did it without any explanation. Even if the absolute numbers of the dating were wrong, allowing a young earth (which he has never shown), he hasn't addressed how human and dinosaur fossils could date so very far apart if they in fact coexisted as he claims. Furthermore, if the Flood was the mass extinction event, why are fossils laid down in discrete layers which correspond with near-perfection to trees of organisms you can build backwards based on skeletal/shell structure or DNA analysis? Wouldn't they instead be mostly in one big layer, if most died in the same extinction event? Finally, he has never demonstrated that this water-based extinction event ever happened–geological evidence is far more in line with the extinction event relating to the dinosaurs, at least, being caused by an impact.

      Ham and Morris don't support anything they say with evidence. Instead, they start from the premise of what their particular interpretation of the Bible says and make things up to explain away as much evolutionary evidence as they can, but they aren't very good at it, and they missed a lot.

      September 12, 2011 at 9:26 pm |
  83. Someone

    What I find amazing about creationists/Intelligent design advocates is that they also deny other facts – most notably the age of the Earth. Most, including Dr. John C. Sanford, place the age of the year between 5000 and 100,000 years old. So it isn't just the theory of evolution they are disputing, it's pretty much everything.

    Most creationists/ID folks want to shove G-d down our throats, in the mistaken belief that it will somehow make our society better. If any of them would actually look at history, they would find that throughout history there have been things that are most decidedly un-G-dly – slavery and exploitation being two of the more obvious ones.

    Also, for those of you who look at my use of G-d as a mistake – it is traditional Jewish way and religious way of writing the name of the Holy One. I am Jewish incidentally – I don't deny the existence of G-d at all – but I deny biblical tales as being fact instead of being allegory, I wish to deny those who want to shove a version of the Bible down everyone's throats, in much the same way they deny the use of evolution in schools.

    September 12, 2011 at 9:08 pm |
    • OpforOpfor

      Someone are you Jewish by heart? That is the real Jew.

      September 12, 2011 at 9:12 pm |
    • OpforOpfor

      God is not his Name. It's who He is.

      September 12, 2011 at 9:28 pm |
      • Someone

        Yes, I am Jewish by heart – Jews are taught to be questioning. Nothing in the Old Testament demands that we accept a lot of things as fact – once you get beyond early Genesis, you'll find it is more of a historical document with rules for living.

        September 12, 2011 at 11:04 pm |
  84. JEM1789

    My thought s on this have evolved over time.

    September 12, 2011 at 9:07 pm |
    • OpforOpfor

      LOLOLOOLOLOLLOL

      September 12, 2011 at 9:10 pm |
  85. Adaptation vs. Evolution

    Two thoughts…First, there is no doubt that over time plants and animals change to better deal with their environment. We humans certainly have, too... BUT – this is ADAPTATION. Adaptation can explain how we share a common ancestor with apes, but cannot explain how that common ancestor sprang into existence.

    How do the elements of a complex organism simply evolve into being? A heart, lungs, liver, etc., etc. I believe that it take a GIANT leap of FAITH to think that a simple organism can develop multiple complex systems… so how DOES a heart evolve??

    Secondly, it sure seems like “someone” developed some rules for design. Call that “someone” God or nature – there is a “programmed logic” (theory, law, etc) to the entire universe… all that surrounds us cannot be the result of random chaos.

    September 12, 2011 at 8:52 pm |
    • OpforOpfor

      No, no. Man can actually make evolution possible. For example cars have evolved. Planes have evolved. Etc, etc.

      September 12, 2011 at 8:56 pm |
    • Cass314

      Evolution is basically just "adaptation" writ large. A lot of creationists like to say things like this (the other favorite being "I believe in micro evolution but not macro evolution") to sound more reasonable when confronted with evidence like antibiotic resistance. But saying you believe in evolution on a small scale (or "adaptation") but not evolution on a large scale is actually quite silly if you understand the science (I am a biologist) because they work based on the same principles. It would be like someone who doesn't know very much about physics saying "Well of *course* gravity makes objects fall down, but I don't believe that it's all that's holding the planets in orbit, there mus be an intelligent force doing that".

      As for organ evolution, you should look up organisms like the lungfish. There actually are transitional species like this. Furthermore, the idea of "irreducible complexity", that is that an element of an organism is too complicated to have arisen by chance because all the parts are necessary, is basically just a creationist trope, and no one in field actually takes it seriously. Part of a flagella could be useful. A proto-eye that senses light could, in fact, be very useful for organisms whose predators attack from above. Etc. And many of these systems (the digestive and circulatory–including that heart you mentioned–are particularly well studied) can be seen in varying forms of complexity across many organisms. So it doesn't take a leap of faith at all. There's a lot of evidence for simple systems becoming more complex, if you would take the effort to look for it, and research is constantly ongoing. None of these objections are considered valid to experts in the field. So really, what takes a leap of faith is to posit that there is some sort of intelligent God or force designing things without ever seeing any evidence for him.

      September 12, 2011 at 9:01 pm |
      • OpforOpfor

        Even if some people were to see God face to face, they would still not believe.

        September 12, 2011 at 9:05 pm |
      • Cass314

        Op–some people, sure. I believe things when there is evidence. If someone were to put forth evidence for God (instead of just circular logic and a long chain of we-don't-know-yet-so-it-must-be-magic, which so far is what I have seen proposed), I would consider it. I can't speak for anyone else. But in the absence of such evidence, the reasonable thing to do is to follow what evidence we do have–and that evidence demonstrates that simple systems can in fact evolve into more complex ones.

        September 12, 2011 at 9:12 pm |
      • Adaptation vs. Evolution

        Just a few serious questions:

        – In order for a mutation to passed down to decendants, if the organism cannot find another matching mutation to mate with, how then can the mutation be perpetuated? (I'm thinking beyond small cellar animals that have the ability to reproduce at a very high rate). From a statical perspective, wouldn't that take an extraordinary amount of trial/error mutations to develop positive attirbutes?

        – There is no delying that a protoeye to sense light would give the organism an advantage, but what would cause that specific mutation to occur. Since the organism cannot will itself an eye and there is "no intelligence" to will the organism to change it would have to develop this eye purely by accident and then be able to pass this mutation to the next generation. Seems like very small odds.

        Incidentally, your gravity example does not fit my comment. There are mutliple elements that keep the planets in place – what I am saying is that there is logic out there – what causes that logic to exist?

        September 12, 2011 at 9:19 pm |
      • OpforOpfor

        What are you talking about Cass?

        September 12, 2011 at 9:19 pm |
      • Cass314

        Op–I thought your comment was directed at me; sorry if I misunderstood you. My interpretation was that you were saying that even if confronted by God I would disbelieve, and was responding to that.

        Adaptation–This is going to be a simplification, because I'm at work waiting for something to finish. But first, the same way any trait gets passed on–more mutations, and the person with the mutation mating. Some traits are dominant, first of all, such as polydactyly (multiple fingers/toes). If the mutation occurred in one organism, half its children would also have the trait, and those who had it would be more likely to survive if it were advantageous. Even if the trait were recessive, since the parent is showing the trait, half the children would be carriers. If they go out into the world and mate with other carriers, or their children mate with other carriers, or the siblings mate, which happens, not just the allele but also the phenotype could be passed on.

        Furthermore, the same mutation can arise independently more than once. This is why deleterious human disease mutations that don't offer a heterozygote advantage (some do) continue to appear in the population. When a disease gene in the population occurs "above the rate of random mutation" we take note of it, because it means something else might be going on. But there are human diseases where the mutations just keep piling up (most muscular dystrophy mutations are new occurrences, for example, because the gene is just so freaking big).

        For the thing about the eye, there are proteins that respond to photons and change conformation and then do something; some bacteria even have them. There are actually a lot of these. This isn't my specialty field, so this is more of an overview than a comprehensive anything, but light-sensing molecules are pretty much everywhere in nature, even in species that don't have eyes. Many metazoa have these but not eyes. Others have "skin" surface patches that detect light (that's what I mentioned above) but don't actually focus/resolve any images. The only jump from having light-sensing proteins to this step is focusing their expression in a cluster of cells, and differential expression in different species is a really, really common thing in evolution. These spots get light/not light and some get intensity. Finally, latest in the tree, some resolve distinct images (eyes as we know them.) Different groups of animals that do have eyes have eyes which are differentiated by a lot of characteristics (chambered vs. compound, cilliated vs. rhabdometric, etc.). They also contain different variations on light sensing proteins, which you can make phylogenetic trees out of that match up with the animals' place in the fossil record or more standard multi-gene trees, suggesting that these differences in eyes did indeed occur along an evolutionary trajectory from a more simple eye precursor, which itself began with something like the sea sponge foot-sensor. You can see the most basic necessary elements of the eye like light sensing molecules all the way back in single-celled organisms (and kept going on the other route into plants, too), you can see the small light-sensing patches in things like sea-sponges, then real surface light-sensing organs in later phyla, then actual eyes start popping up. And while it's clear that eye design branched off in a lot of different directions, you can trace the roots back to some basic features which indicate they came from similar places.

        Here are some papers (I was mostly describing the first one) if you're interested, though you may need to get on a library or university computer to get full access–http://www.sciencemag.org/content/313/5795/1914.full.pdf , http://aris.ss.uci.edu/~kjameson/NatureReviewsOpsinGenes2007LambEtAl.pdf . If you can't access them and you want to, you can give me a throwaway email and I'll send you PDFs.

        September 12, 2011 at 10:08 pm |
      • JOregon

        The reason someone can believe in Micro-Evolution (adaptability or change) and not Macro-Evolution (creating new species) is because they require fundamentally different genetic material.
        Creatures change, or adapt, because of a *decrease* of genetic material.
        To evolve requires an *increase* of genetic material.

        September 12, 2011 at 10:41 pm |
      • Cass314

        JOregon–I'm a biologist. There really is no distinction between so-called "macro" and "micro" evolution accept for scale and political acceptability. The necessary increase idea is often brought up by creationists, but it isn't true, at least not absolutely. Speciation events can occur from dropping chromosomes or dropping genes, and can occur by adding them, and by doubling the entire genome chromosome-for-chromosome, and by just changing how existing genes are regulated. Some of the most important known changes between a lot of the great apes are actually few base pair changes outside of coding regions that change regulation without adding or subtracting any quantity of material. Quite a few of the dramatic events that allow a population to split off and progress without interbreeding with another population and go its own route are actually inversions and translocations–literally, moving the same material around in the genome.

        Furthermore, just an interesting fact, the most complex, stuff-added genome known is not in a human or even a primate or a mammal, but instead in the water flea.

        But if you want new genetic material, gene duplication events are actually pretty common. I've seen them in action, causing an unexpected phenotype in one of my strains. Frequently, a gene will be duplicated and then one will keep on performing its original function while the other is free to sample alternatives. Sometimes both copies instead evolve toward more specialized functions. Sometimes they just split the functions of the original gene while other times they do more complicated things. So an increase in genetic material is not at all uncommon. Whole classes of genes arose this way, and you can actually make trees of the various dozens of say, kinases or gpcrs or phosphataes within a single organism and track them back to a single or handful of similar genes in earlier organisms. You can in some places see places in evolutionary progression where there stopped being 1, say, globin and started being 2, and follow that 2 up to the present day except in some organisms where the other gene was lost and there's just 1 again (again, you can lose genetic information in the course of "macro"evolution, even overall) in it and everything that branched off later.

        Polyploidy (a change in chromosome copy number, often upwards) also occurs, and in plants frequently leads to speciation.

        Overall, "macro"evolution, including speciation events, some remarkably sudden but others slow, which are generally what most people consider to be the hallmark of evolution on a large scale, have been observed both in the lab and in the wild, and there are transitional fossils and even living species that are clearly bridging an evolutionary gulf enough to show that "macro"evolution does happen. It is not remotely controversial or in question among biologists.

        September 12, 2011 at 11:31 pm |
      • JOregon

        Cass
        I'm sure you must be familiar with Professor Maciej Giertych, M.A.(Oxford), Ph.D.(Toronto), D.Sc.(Poznan), head of the Genetics Department of the Polish Academy of Sciences at the Institute of Dendrology in Kornik, Poland?
        –"MICROEVOLUTION
        The example used to support this is usually the story about the grey or black moths (Biston betularia) living on the bark of trees, the population adapting in colour to the colour of the bark — darker in industrial, polluted environments, and lighter in cleaner ones.

        The misinformation lies in concealing the fact that select, adapted populations are genetically poorer (fewer alleles) than the unselected natural populations from which they arose. We find the same in forest trees. In polluted environments, the surviving trees have fewer alleles than in non-polluted ones. Microevolution, formation of races, is a fact. Populations adapt to specific environments with the more successful alleles increasing in numbers and others declining in frequencies or disappearing altogether. Change can also occur due to accidental loss of alleles (genetic drift) in small isolated populations. Both amount to decline in genetic information. Macroevolution requires its increase.

        A useful mutation (e.g. an orange without seeds) is not the equivalent of a positive mutation. I felt uneasy lecturing about positive mutations when I could not give an example. There are very many examples of negative and neutral mutations, but none I know of which I could present as a documented example of a positive one.

        Genetic literature on the subject often confuses mutations with alleles, or even mutations with recombinations. The finding of an allele that is useful for some purpose is not the equivalent of demonstrating a positive mutation — similarly when the find concerns a useful recombinant of alleles existing in the gene pool.

        Variants of alleles in a gene pool are a fact of life. How they came to be is another matter. Some, usually neutral or excessively deleterious, arise from mutations. Some are introgressants from other species. Still others are within the population since its origin — however that came about. "–

        September 12, 2011 at 11:45 pm |
      • Cass314

        I am in fact familiar with Mr. Giertych's work. And I can refute a lot of his claims (some of them just don't make logical sense–for example, when he laments that differences aren't used as evidence against evolution, it's because those differences are often evidence for evolution; that you can see these differences arise from similarities and then be propagated as similarities throughout the phylogeny is quite remarkable. Furthermore he is one of the only and in fact the only that I have ever encountered biologists that believes repeats cannot be accounted for by mutation and selection).

        But honestly, I think you realize in posting a quote from him that the reason he is so oft-quoted by those of a creationist bent is that he is one of the only biologists who believes as he does and furthermore that he believes this. Furthermore, he has falsely claimed that his science credentials alone and not his religious beliefs are what guide him to doubt evolution–except that he has publicly advocated the teaching of creationism, with God as the creator. Strangely, he has never provided any evidence for this particular account of how the diversity of life occurred.

        In fact, in 2006 Nature published an editorial from him protesting that they had published an article outlining the efforts of Polish biologists in promoting scientific literacy (including literacy of evolution) in their country. His was the only letter received protesting the acceptance of evolution. The following issue, Nature published letters from forty-three established biologists refuting the content of his letter, and noted that they received many, many more. The scientific consensus within the field is very clear, and that you managed to find a biologist–an avowed creationist who at least once implied a lack of religiousness in a speech to give his counter-evolution opinion more weight, no less–is not exactly convincing.

        September 13, 2011 at 12:10 am |
      • Cass314

        Oops, should be Dr. not Mr. , and the second half of the first sentence of the second paragraph should be ignored, as I apparently only half deleted it. Alas no edit function.

        September 13, 2011 at 12:19 am |
      • JOregon

        Cass
        What Nature Magazine did was claim he was opposed to the teaching of evolution based on a religious basis.
        His letter was to protest that assumption. He said he was opposed based on a scientific basis.
        –"you incorrectly state that I have called for the "inclusion of creationism in Polish biology curricula". As well as being a member of the European Parliament, I am a scientist — a population geneticist with a degree from Oxford University and a PhD from the University of Toronto — and I am critical of the theory of evolution as a scientist, with no religious connotation. It is the media that prefer to consider my comments as religiously inspired, rather than to report my stated position accurately."–
        I am actually more concerned that our schools don't teach what he proposes, I can understand keeping a religious teaching out, but his is a science teaching.

        September 13, 2011 at 2:17 am |
      • Cass314

        JOregon–first, even if he is 100% truthful that his disagreement with the current theory of evolution is completely scientifically-based (and I find it troubling that he would claim this given a lot of other things he has said, including his appearance in a creationist movie which edited biologists out of context to support its own opinion, his stated religious creationist beliefs, and the fact that he once said to a creationist audience that he thought creationism with god as a creator should be taught in schools), he is on the wrong side of the scientific consensus. Literally thousands upon thousands of biologists, many of them specialists in evolution (which he is not; he's a tree physiologist) think that the things he uses to cast aspersion upon evolution, such as his complaint that diversity is not used as an argument against evolution (a big part of the the point of evolution is that it *explains this diversity*) and that repeats could not have arisen randomly, are actually ridiculous and spurious complaints.

        The way this works in science is that when you are on the wrong side of the scientific consensus, if you believe you are right, you do experiments and try to prove the consensus wrong. You ask "If I were right, what would this imply?" and do experiments to test those predictions. He hasn't done those things. Instead, he's stood around repeating a few similar arguments which don't actually prove anything without getting evidence for them (for example, he's never demonstrated that those repeats could not arise by chance), entered politics where he has said and supported all sorts of bizarre and often bigoted policies that earned him an official reprimand from Polish parliament, which are neither here nor there, given speeches to religious creationist audiences, and gone on and appeared a creationist movie (a movie which edited scientists and played their words out of context to try and support its own opinions, no less). He has not done any experiments to disprove evolution or support his opinion. And so taking his lonely opinion, which he has never deigned to back up with evidence, as a demonstration of anything when there are thousands upon thousands of scientists who think his ideas are ridiculous and who in the meantime have set about doing experiments which further support evolution, is really quite intellectually dishonest, and I think you know that. And frankly, the fact that all the arguments you've raised so far–(Dr. Giertych, the necessity of "adding" genetic material and the flat-out lie that you cannot or that this is uncommon, etc.) are really, really common creationist talking points that can be disproven with a simple internet search if you wanted to actually investigate them, lead me to believe that you are not arguing in good faith. So I believe I am done. The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming scientific consensus within the field of biology is that evolution is correct and explains the diversity of life as we know it.

        September 13, 2011 at 11:59 am |
  86. Rob

    The complexities of the human mind are too advanced to be born of evolution.

    Whether you believe in God or creation or not science still cannot define the origin of big bang theory.

    September 12, 2011 at 8:47 pm |
    • Cass314

      Your first statement is an opinion. Facts please? 'Cause evolution has lots.

      As to your second statement: Yet. That's the beautiful thing about science. It keeps looking.

      September 12, 2011 at 8:50 pm |
    • OpforOpfor

      I think you deserve a Big Bang if you believe in the Big Bang Theory lol

      September 12, 2011 at 8:50 pm |
  87. satanbug

    Man this is like arguing with a bunch of 6 year olds...Santa couldn't possibly get to all those houses in one night...except childern once you explain there is no Santa are pretty quick to get it...these believers here are so desperate to hang onto the notion that their piddly conscience will live on forever, they will believe anything: guys riding around in the belly of whales, the whole human race coming from 2 people in a garden, talking snakes leading all humanity astray, world languages coming from a tower built to shoot an arrow at god...I mean seriously look at what you are buying into...GROW UP! When I was a child, I spake as a child...now i am adult...getta grip

    September 12, 2011 at 8:45 pm |
    • OpforOpfor

      You're an adult?

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

        You're an adult?

        Couldn't be said better about you also Op. Such a useless human being. Echoing only insults.
        Yes of course I insulting you. Accept it.

        September 12, 2011 at 9:06 pm |
      • OpforOpfor

        Gimme a break. How else should I respond?

        September 12, 2011 at 9:10 pm |
  88. J

    If evolution is true, there should be an enormous amount of "in-between" types of fossils. The evolution of lifeless matter into living cells, invertebrates to vertebrates, fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to mammals, mammals to apes, and finally, apes to humans, is not supported by the fossil record. There's also the problem of the origin of life. It requires a person to ignore the laws of logic in order for them to say that it's more probable that life originated from non-life rather than life originating from life. The average cell is made up of about 300 left-handed amino acids. The odds of just 100 left-handed amino acids forming naturally are roughly 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (these are also the odds of you flipping a coin 100 times and it landing on "heads" 100 times in a row) and that's just enough left-handed amino acids to form a small protein. A single protein, and a small one at that, is nowhere near a living cell. We can just keep stacking improbability on top of improbability until we're left with such a small number that one would have to be just plain foolish in order to accept atheistic evolution. It's been calculated by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe that the odds of a single cell forming naturally are 1 in 10 to the 40,000 power. French mathematician Emile Borel calculated that if the odds of an event happening are less that 1 in 10 the the 50 power, that event will never happen. The previous calculation is hundreds of times more improbable than the laws of probability allow, which means that a cell never formed naturally. If a cell never formed naturally, then evolution never happened. If life could never form naturally, then one can easily justify concluding that life originated supernaturally. Even if someone were to tear down every single point I've made so far, there's still a problem. The easiest way to prove evolution wrong is to use the resurrection of Jesus to prove that Jesus was God. By proving that Jesus was God, then we've proven the Bible is correct. If the Bible is correct, then we can easily see just by reading Genesis 1 that evolution is not taught in the Bible and is, therefore, a man-made piece of fiction. By analyzing four basic facts about Jesus, we can construct a very strong case for his resurrection which then vindicates the Bible and tears down evolution. The four facts are that 1. Jesus was buried by Joesph of Arimathea, 2. Jesus' tomb was discovered empty by a group of his women followers, 3. There were multiple post-mortem appearances of Jesus to various individuals and groups of people and 4. The original disciples believed Jesus had been risen from the dead despite having valid reasons not to. All of these facts require an explanation. There is no single natural hypothesis that adequately explains all of these facts. Claiming that the body of Jesus was stolen is unlikely as there would not have been enough time for a conspiracy such as this one to be formulated and there's no rational reason to believe that all of the apostles were so willing to die for something they absolutely knew was a lie (the resurrection). The theory that the appearances of Jesus were merely hallucinations does not explain the disappearance of the body and is out of line with our current understanding of psychology. The belief that Jesus never actually died is simply a good joke, not an actual theory anyone is going to seriously consider. Jesus was beaten, tortured, crucified, forced to wear a crown of thorns, asphyxiated, stabbed, placed in a cold tomb for 3 days with no food or water and no medical attention. Not to mention Jesus would then have to move a boulder that weighed about a ton by himself, fight off any guards, escape without leaving any footprints or traces of blood, walk for miles back to Jerusalem on feet that had been pierced, show up to his disciples and hundreds of other people and convince them that he was the conqueror of death, then he would have to disappear completely without a single trace. I'm sure there are other theories out there, but none explain the four facts I've already mentioned adequately. In order to explain the four facts mentioned naturally, one must concoct a series of natural events into one convoluted plot that is based off of skepticism/speculation and not actual facts. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one, and in this case it's that Jesus was resurrected. If Jesus was resurrected, then that's the ultimate proof that Jesus was God. If Jesus was God, then what he says is true. And if Jesus said the Bible was inerrant and true in everything it says (which he did), then that means the Bible is true. Since the Bible is true and evolution contradicts the Biblical narrative in Genesis 1, then that means that evolution is false since two contradictory teachings cannot both be correct. Thus, there are rational scientific and historical reasons to reject the story of evolution.

    September 12, 2011 at 8:45 pm |
    • Ashrakay

      It's really amazing that someone can write so much but yet have not one original thought included.

      September 12, 2011 at 8:49 pm |
      • J

        It's really amazing how pitiful your response is.

        September 12, 2011 at 8:52 pm |
      • Ashrakay

        Thank you for the response. That was at least an original thought. Welcome to the thinking planet. At least we now have something to work with.

        September 12, 2011 at 8:59 pm |
      • J

        "So fairies are true until you prove otherwise?" This isn't a good response at all. You've switched from proving a historical event to proving the existence of something. They're two entirely different things. An event can be proven or disproven. But the existence of something can be proven while the non-existence of something can't be proven. Question: Do you think at all before you type?

        September 12, 2011 at 9:47 pm |
      • Ashrakay

        It's funny that you think fairies are any less ridiculous than god. So what is your historical evidence to support that the bible is true?

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

      Let me quickly blow your convoluted, illogical argument out of the water...your original premise for the bible argument is horribly invalid. Your 4 "facts" about Jesus are not facts. Where did they come from? The bible? Your using the very thing you are trying to prove is true as facts for your argument. They are not facts. Its that simple. I would go thru a list of other logical mistakes you made through out your post but this first one is so big it renders everything else silly.

      September 12, 2011 at 8:56 pm |
      • J

        I find it interesting how you simply dismissed these facts using your own personal opinion, not historical facts. Anyone with a basic understanding of New Testament scholarship would instantly realize that all four of these facts are widely recognized about Jesus in both liberal and conservative circles. You've also given me no reason to doubt the historicity of the New Testament. I'm simply treating the New Testaments documents as ancient Greek manuscripts and nothing more.

        September 12, 2011 at 9:05 pm |
      • ReasonableXX

        First of all, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. You are claiming that these are facts. You must prove so. Second, even if they were facts (which they most certainly are not) you still can't use them to form the basis for the validity of the same book from which you derived them. I don't care if you consider them Greek manuscripts or the written word of god himself, you can't use unfounded supernatural statements from a book to prove the veracity of that same book.

        September 12, 2011 at 9:21 pm |
      • Ashrakay

        Sorry J, he's right. The burden of proof is on the person presenting the theory. Or don't they teach that at Liberty and Bob Jones University?

        September 12, 2011 at 9:29 pm |
      • J

        "First of all, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim." This isn't even remotely true. If you have no evidence that disproves my claims, then you can't rationally conclude that any of my claims are false. You've provided no evidence that anything I've said is wrong, which means there's literally no reason for anyone to conclude that I've stated anything false. My claims are "innocent until proven guilty" not "guilty until proven innocent".

        "Second, even if they were facts (which they most certainly are not) you still can't use them to form the basis for the validity of the same book from which you derived them." Again, you've provided no evidence to the contrary. You're simply wasting my time with your personal opinion.

        " I don't care if you consider them Greek manuscripts or the written word of god himself," Now you're putting words in my mouth. I've already stated that I'm simply treating these documents as ancient Greek manuscripts. Please leave your imagination out of the realm of rational debate.

        "you can't use unfounded supernatural statements from a book to prove the veracity of that same book." These aren't unfounded statements at all. The facts I've mentioned show that these are exactly what I say they are, facts. Also, the New Testament is not just one book. It's broken up into five individual sections (the Gospels, history, the Pauline Epistles, the General Epistles and prophecy) that were put into one book by the church.

        September 12, 2011 at 9:33 pm |
      • Ashrakay

        Haha... this isn't a court. It's reality. So fairies are true until you prove otherwise? Disprove Zeus.

        By the way, a lot was left out too when the bible was pieced together. Have you read that too?

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

        This debate already bores me, plus I have better things to do that waste my time to see your next fallacious "rebuttal". I've literally set up your argument for you. I used four historical facts to draw the conclusion that Jesus was resurrected. All you had to do was tear down each individual fact. You didn't come even partially close to doing that and it's simply painful for me to try to comprehend how someone could be so dense.

        September 12, 2011 at 9:53 pm |
      • ReasonableXX

        You wasted your own time. It was unnecessary to break down each one of your ridiculous "facts" because the whole premise of your argument was erroneous. I pointed that out in my first response. You simply can not use anything as a source to prove itself. The argument is over after that. Finally, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. That is logic 101. Take a break from your debate club and read up on some philosophy.

        September 12, 2011 at 10:10 pm |
  89. Chris

    There are at least four essential points that always seem to get overlooked in these arguments:

    1. The burden of proof is not on the non-believer. A non-believer should come from the stance that they do not know everything and therefor make decisions based on evidence. It takes a massive logical leap to assume everything was created by an all-knowing God. No evidence points in that direction whatsoever. And to assume old books written by humans hold all the answers is completely unverifiable.

    2. Continuing along that line: Religion is FAITH. To try and debate science with un-testable, super-natural phenomena is pointless and only shows your own lack of faith. You cannot have it both ways - they are polar opposite views.

    3. Humans are NOT believed to have evolved from chimps or anything that really resembles chimps. We simply evolved from a common ancestor. This idea of a missing link completely misses the point of the theory of evolution.

    4. The idea that living creatures are too perfect to have been made organically is also based out of ignorance. Most animals are completely imperfect and have numerous biological functions that could only make sense if they were based on ancestral traits. For instance: Rabbits consume their own feces because their digestive tracks are incapable of extracting nutrition with one pass through.

    Get past these 4 points and maybe we can have a reasonable discussion about evolution.

    September 12, 2011 at 8:45 pm |
    • ReasonableXX

      Good post. You hit the nail right on the head with the 4 most annoying irrational issues that keep coming up again and again. It all boils down to some basic misunderstandings about multiple concepts and terms. It is very frustrating to argue with someone who refuse to study the topic in depth and continues to spout meaningless unfounded drivel as if it was fact and at the same time disregards all the actual facts.

      September 12, 2011 at 9:11 pm |
  90. OpforOpfor

    Read Job Chapter 36 verses 27-28 And he wasn't a scientist 🙂

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

      It's Eliu speaking not Job.

      September 12, 2011 at 8:46 pm |
    • Ashrakay

      Job was a masochistic douche bag. Look it up

      September 12, 2011 at 8:50 pm |
      • OpforOpfor

        Job, a masochist? Job was trying to prove throughout the whole book that he didn't deserve the pain. Read Job.

        September 12, 2011 at 8:54 pm |
      • Ashrakay

        Trust me, I've read Job. The whole time he's whining about his problems, just he refuses to stand up to his torturer. Then god gives him everything back manifold. Like you can replace a child with 2 children and that makes everything better. He's a classic battered-wife syndrome example.

        September 12, 2011 at 9:01 pm |
      • Answer

        It shows that it's acceptable to just replace an entity with some other. To know no attachment or accepting the lost son had anything unique.

        September 12, 2011 at 9:08 pm |
      • Ashrakay

        @Answer, Hence the douche bag. Anyone cool with god taking their child because they got a couple to replace them has some serious mental problems

        September 12, 2011 at 9:13 pm |
    • OpforOpfor

      The memory will still be there of the events that happened, but its called consolation. The servant cannot be greater than his master.

      September 12, 2011 at 9:07 pm |
      • Ashrakay

        Tell that to the slaves that rose up to claim their freedom.

        September 12, 2011 at 9:14 pm |
      • Lia

        You're casting your pearl before swine. These people don't want the truth, they are simple minded people amusing themselves. But I love your ferver, keep it up!

        September 12, 2011 at 9:21 pm |
      • Ashrakay

        @Lia, which is more simple-minded... blind faith or seeking evidence to support ideas? By your reasoning a lot of simple-minded people made that box in front of you called a computer. Talk about pearls before swine.

        September 12, 2011 at 9:41 pm |
  91. Max in NY

    Yes lets hear everyone's thoughts on evolution...not just scientist's.

    Next lets hear what Jimmy from McDonald's has to say about the origins of the cosmos.

    Please- get real. This is will simply be a forum for creationists to spew their absurdities

    September 12, 2011 at 8:37 pm |
    • OpforOpfor

      You tell 'em Max!

      September 12, 2011 at 8:40 pm |
  92. Scott

    Anyone who believes in "intelligent design" AND has been to a doctor for x-rays or antibiotics, and believed that they helped them, are in turn hypocrites.

    The same technological knowledge that makes x-rays possible, or antibiotics useful, is the same as that has been used to prove that evolution is a fact! Science is science – Whether used for medicine or carbon dating... it is the same..

    Believing in God does not mean abstaining from using the brain God created for you.

    September 12, 2011 at 8:37 pm |
    • Max in NY

      Thank you, def agree...I say the same thing about climatologists and global warming

      September 12, 2011 at 8:38 pm |
    • OpforOpfor

      Again, confusion.

      September 12, 2011 at 8:42 pm |
    • Ashrakay

      Well it's easier to test right if the answer to every question is god. Who created the x-ray machine? god. Who created antibiotics? god.

      The thing that nobody seems to point out is, if intelligent design is real, then god really did a piss-poor job and someone should revoke his license.

      September 12, 2011 at 8:53 pm |
      • OpforOpfor

        What are you talking about Ashrakay, really?

        September 12, 2011 at 9:01 pm |
      • Ashrakay

        Infant mortality, bad vision, bad breath, cancer, greed, earthquakes, the oort cloud—which could mean the end of life this very evening ... look around you. There's not a lot of intelligence to speak of. Man has reached the level where we can now print kidneys with a 3d printer and use them to replace failing kidneys in patients and we're only a couple of hundred of years into the science game. What has god done in the last 5k years?

        September 12, 2011 at 9:11 pm |
      • CoreyJ

        What are YOU talkling about Opfor? It makes perfect sense to me! Oh wait, I know what makes even MORE sense.. following an outdated fiction fantasy book!

        September 12, 2011 at 11:58 pm |
  93. ReasonableXX

    I don't know who annoys me more on this topic, those who refuse to believe in evolution despite the overwhelming amount of evidence or the main stream media that continues to frame this as a debate between 2 equal sides with equal and balanced views on the topic. It is not a debatable issue. You either acknowledge the facts of reality or you don't but do NOT pretend that both sides have valid points so you don't upset those who believe in ancient myths and can not accept the facts. The media's responsibilty should be to educate and inform the public not fuel the fire of a silly "argument" between rational people and ignorant believers. We need more articles and news stories on TV, newspapers, and the web dedicated to science in an effort to help the future generations before its too late. Many in this current generation are obviously a lost cause. Those who disregard science and distrust scientists should immediately give up all the conveiniences of modern life, get off their computers and go move into a cave somewhere so they can begin their blissful god-loving life of hunting and gathering.

    September 12, 2011 at 8:36 pm |
  94. Dave

    In the New Testament, Romans Chapter 1:18-24, 'For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
    Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever.'

    September 12, 2011 at 8:36 pm |
    • Ashrakay

      Oddly this turns me on. Any more?

      September 12, 2011 at 8:55 pm |
  95. tensai13

    Far too many Americans don't even have the Math. skills of a Japanese 12 year old, this is a fact, and therefore are incapable of advanced abstract and logical thought so it is useless trying to discuss evolutionary facts and science with these people. These idiot under-educated Christians "know" the "truth" because their Bible tells them so. Very sad, and a major reason why America is becoming a "third world" country.

    September 12, 2011 at 8:35 pm |
    • CoreyJ

      TOTALLY agree..

      September 12, 2011 at 11:55 pm |
  96. John Wilson

    Proof the bible is false: http://godisimaginary.com

    September 12, 2011 at 8:35 pm |
  97. MisterK

    Apes and humans share a common ancestor. We didn't "come from apes". Apes kept evolving one way and we evolved another. There's a huge difference and misunderstanding this might lead people to not believe in evolution. To oversimplify in another, but slightly more accurate way: Apes are not our great great etc. grandmothers, but our distant cousins. This is why there are still apes, and monkeys, and us.

    September 12, 2011 at 8:34 pm |
  98. Rob

    My biggest complaint is that Evolution Deniers refuse to learn about evolution, which makes them sound silly to the science community. Imagine if someone came to your church and made the following statement:

    ""I know that the Bible is wrong because it says that God told Moses to build the Ark of the Covenant, and that it was only 2½ cubits in length, 1½ in breadth, and 1½ in height. Then it says that he put two of every animal into the Ark to save them from the Flood. There is no way that all those animals would fit into the Ark of the Covenant, so the Bible has to be wrong."

    Would you take that person seriously? Would you consider that what they said might be true? Your first thought would probably be that either:

    1. This person knows very little about the Bible. He does not know the difference between the Ark of the Covenant and Noah's Ark, and has confusedly put bits of unrelated scripture together in a misguided effort.

    2. This person has intentionally misquoted scripture in an effort to confuse and mislead people.

    That is exactly how the scientific community responds to people who say that "Evolution is just a theory" or that "Evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics." Just as the imaginary statements about the Ark might convince other people who had never read the Bible, saying that "Evolution is just a theory" might fool someone that knew nothing about science. But just as any Christian would immediately recognize the flaws in the statements about the Ark, anyone who understands science has the same reaction about statements such as "Evolution is just a theory" or that "Evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics."

    Unless your faith is weak enough that you might be convinced that evolution is true, learn enough about it so that you can talk intelligently.

    September 12, 2011 at 8:33 pm |
    • John Wilson

      Well stated. I really think they do not want to know. They have accepted the fantasy spirit world and nothing is going to get in the way. Their faith is more important than scientific facts. Is it possible they cannot mentally handle the cruel world without the promise of walking on streets of gold, singing hymns forever to the creator, and the forgiveness of "sins". Sin that God created by making a garden of Eden in the first place. One mistake and all of mankind is condemned to the burning fires of hell, wow. Who thinks this stuff up? 2,000 yr old desert nomads?

      September 12, 2011 at 8:47 pm |
  99. Marlboro Man

    Does it ever occur to any of you fools that CNN is baiting you to attack each other? What a bunch of stupid sheep, trolled by your own news site.

    September 12, 2011 at 8:29 pm |
    • Answer

      Well has it ever occurred to you that is the intention?

      September 12, 2011 at 9:12 pm |
    • JT

      I find it frightening as it brings out the scientific illitirate Christian fanatics who will believe in talking snakes, zombies, etc. that their pastor teslls them but haven't a clue about science. Their ignorance is astounding and dismaying.

      September 12, 2011 at 9:25 pm |
  100. John Wilson

    Creationist Christians are beyond help. They live in a world of make believe. We stopped believing in Santa Claus when we grew up, they didn't. Maybe parents should stop with the tooth fairy, Easter buddy, etc, could be a contributing factor. Just read the bible cover to cover, it's laughable. Noah's ark, please, Jonah and the whale, please, Garden of Eden (original sin), please. I find the Lord of the Rings more believable.

    Read this book on evolution and get some real facts from someone who knows, not a Christian pseudo-scientist theologian: Proof for thinking people: http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1315872407&sr=8-1

    September 12, 2011 at 8:28 pm |
    • JOregon

      I would suggest you read some also.
      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. He is on the editorial board of two international periodicals: Silvae Genetics, published in Germany, and Annales ses sciences forestieres published in France. He is a member of the Polish Academy of Sciences Committee on Forest Sciences, and on the Forestry Council in the Ministry of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources and Forestry.

      -"Similarities are often used as arguments for evolution. But lack of similarities is never accepted as an argument against it. The similarity of the shape of my hand and that of a frog is an argument for common ancestry. The difference between mine and that of a horse or a bat is not. And yet the latter are supposed to be closer relatives of mine.

      The same logic is used when claiming that the universality of the genetic system (DNA-RNA-protein) proves common ancestry. There are many biochemical systems that are not universal. They are specific for some groups of organisms and absent in others. These are never accepted as arguments against evolution.

      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."

      September 12, 2011 at 10:49 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Contributors

  • Elizabeth Landau
    Writer/Producer
  • Sophia Dengo
    Senior Designer