Amber reveals dinosaur, bird feathers
These 16 clumped feather barbs were found encased in amber in Canada.
September 16th, 2011
12:56 PM ET

Amber reveals dinosaur, bird feathers

We don't know exactly what dinosaurs looked like, but feathers discovered in 80-million-year-old amber provide new clues.

Paleontologists made this discovery of feather specimens near Grassy Lake in southwestern Alberta, Canada, and described the results in the journal Science.

Researchers don't know which feathers were actually from birds that flew and which might have been from theropod dinosaurs, but the filament structures resembles those seen in other non-avian fossils.

There appear to be two types in the sample: those resembling the feathers of modern birds, and "protofeathers," which are similar to the hair-like structures found in a halo around dinosaur specimens from China in early early Cretaceous rock. Those simpler feathers in the amber, which differ from what modern birds have, may have come from small, meat-eating dinosaurs.

"Short of finding a dinosaur trapped in the amber itself, it’s the best we can do," said Ryan McKellar, a paleontology graduate student of the University of Alberta and lead author of the study.

Although the feather fragments themselves are tiny - ranging from only 2 to 8 millimeters in length - they are preserved in 3D in extraordinary detail, scientists say.

Even some of the pigment remains, so we know what color feathers may have covered these prehistoric creatures. The dinosaur-looking ones display a pale to dark brown color, while the bird-like feathers have a wide range of appearances: There are white downy feathers, as well as flattened, veined feathers of black, brown, and lots of shades in between.

The dinosaur-looking feathers resemble mammal hair-fur and would be useful for things like insulation, and perhaps camouflage and display. The bird-like feathers are even more specifically formed: Some fragments have structural adaptations for flight, and others show characteristics of being able to pick up water, so they could carry water back to their nests or dive better.

How do feather fragments get so well preserved?

About 80 million years ago, these feathers likely blew into some tree resin and, over time, it hardened into an intermediate stage called copal, which then turned to amber. The resin hardens as its volatile component dissipates, and what's left behind is similar to plastic in structure.

The amber used in jewelry today is usually about 17 million to 40 million years old; more than 65 million years old is too brittle for decorative purposes, meaning there probably aren't dinosaur feathers in your mother's amber necklace.

But insects do often get trapped in amber; in fact, McKellar and colleagues found a feather fragment trapped in a spider web in one of the pieces of amber. That's right: There were spiders making spider webs 80 million years ago.

"This is sort of the first large survey we’ve had from a single amber deposit," he said.

Post by:
Filed under: Dinosaurs • On Earth
soundoff (911 Responses)
  1. Ben

    Cool.

    I've been fasinated by Dino's sence Kindergarten. I think it is incredible we are finding things like this.

    It's cool to think of Dino's as primative bird like creatures running in formations, singing songs and dancing around like cranes or swans. It must of been quite a show.

    Hopefully this will help scientists understand how genes work and (yes I'm going to say it) how evolution can change a being. Maybe discoveries like this can lead to eradicating cancer and Genetic mutations like Down's syndrome and Autism.

    September 17, 2011 at 12:02 am |
    • A hobby

      It is cool to find stuff like this and that would be amazing if this could be put to such a use but ever since Jurassic Park came out scientists have been quick to explain that there is almost zero useful DNA to be extracted from any fossil record. I'm not sure cancer research is where paleontology is headed.

      September 17, 2011 at 12:17 am |
      • Pope Jon

        Let me guess hobby, I bet you think NASA is a complete waste of time and money to....

        September 17, 2011 at 12:31 am |
      • ConfucianScholar

        Please don't post your inane opinion again.

        September 17, 2011 at 1:15 am |
      • A hobby

        No I don't think NASA is a waste of time. Are you saying that I am incorrect? There is very little usable DNA found in fossils and that small amount would probably not be much use to cancer research. Did I step on someone's toes here?

        September 17, 2011 at 1:27 am |
      • mop

        Hobby,

        Just because we can't find usable DNA doesn't meant we should abandon spending time and effort in this field – who knows what discoveries are just waiting to be found. If you are not happy that there is money and effort being pumped into this field rather then cancer research... well... I can think of many examples that are of much better to focus your anger on (creation science comes to mind...)

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

        What Hobby is saying is: DNA is so so very fragile that the chance of any Dino DNA surviving is practically nil. DNA in your body has to be constantly repaired by enzymes; DNA outside of living tissue does not get the benefit of constant repair. Damage to DNA is caused by just about everything that comes in contact with it.

        FACT: We have trouble getting viable DNA from samples as recent as 10,000 years or so.

        September 17, 2011 at 3:11 am |
      • David

        WOW!! How quickly you witch hunters inferred something in hobby's casual comments upon which to pounce!

        September 17, 2011 at 3:38 am |
    • Ben

      I'll settle for a 1000 lb chicked leg. They found DNA in the marrow of a T-rex thigh bone. Maybe that could be the contribution dinosaurs can make.

      September 17, 2011 at 12:27 am |
      • A hobby

        I think KFC is coming close to that. Don't they already have chickens that can't stand up because their breasts are too big?

        September 17, 2011 at 1:49 am |
      • Codifex

        What *I* want is a Fried Moa. I mean, they had to taste good – all those Maori's just ate the Moa out of existence.

        September 17, 2011 at 3:14 am |
  2. CarchariasUh

    Well, this was in my book, but I'm gonna sneak it in as a comment... MAYBE PEOPLE WILL REALIZE THAT WHEN THE DINOSAURS GOT HIT BY THAT COMET, PREGNANT ONES DIED IN WATER WAYS AND WHEN THE ICE AGE WAS OVER, THERE WERE ALL NEW KINDS OF SPECIES.... WOW...IS IT REALLY THAT HARD TO TRACE OUR ROOTS? AMBER MELTS IN HIGH TEMPERATURES...BIRDS LIVE IN TREES... CONNECT THE (EXPLETIVE DELETED) DOTS....

    September 16, 2011 at 11:57 pm |
    • Codifex

      Pregnant Dinosaurs? Water ways? Ice Age? What the BLEEP?

      September 17, 2011 at 3:16 am |
      • nostra

        "What the BLEEP..."
        Oh, let's not get started on that crappy movie, please.

        September 17, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
    • Bill O

      @CarchariasUh

      Yowza....

      I HAVE to ask... are you saying we're all descended from pregnant dinosaurs that died, froze, then thawed out, came to life and suddently mutated into different species?

      Clearly I'm not intelligent enough to grasp the secrets unveiled in this book. I'd better save my money.

      September 17, 2011 at 10:32 pm |
  3. Mary Ann

    Finaly... Can we NOW get rid of religion so we can live in peace and brotherhood?
    Go into the realm and ideals of Star Trek and explore the universe as one race...

    September 16, 2011 at 11:56 pm |
    • Jake

      You are assuming that religion is the sole source of human division. That is entirely false. If there was no religion people would merely divide over politics, policies, resources, race, culture, etc. There are many things that divide the human race. It's silly to blame it all on one thing.

      September 17, 2011 at 12:42 am |
      • mop

        Jake you are right, but religion is often the primary single strongest force that divides and leaks into almost all other subjects (i.e science, politics, policies, culture, etc). Get rid of religion and you've leveled the playing field In my opinion

        September 17, 2011 at 2:17 am |
      • Tim

        hey jake ya wana know what else wouldn't happen without religion!!!! little boys wouldn't have to worry about going into the house of god and being rapped by the men who speak for god. the crusades would of never happened! the war on terror right now wouldn't be going on as the HOLY war. religion has caused more problems then anything else in history. you tell me when politics have failed to end a war and religion came in and stopped the fighting? im not blaming everything on religion by any means but i am saying alot of stuff goes down because of religion. and @CarchariasUh do you know how hot it has to be to melt amber? did you know here in montana that they have found dinosaur bones with feather imprints around its body? are you going to tell me this one dinosaur happened to be under a tree and melted amber got on it and a bird rolled around all over the dinosaurs body to give it the feathers? did you know that when birds are embryo's they have claws, teeth, scales, and a long tail? maybe you should pick up the "how to build a dinosaur" written by jack horner the greatest paleontologist of our time and learn something.

        September 17, 2011 at 5:35 am |
      • Miriam

        Hey Tim, I really don't think there's anything wrong with rapping, even though it's not a music style I prefer.

        September 17, 2011 at 9:19 am |
      • Tim

        @Miriam thanks for pointing that mistake out as im sure you could figure out i ment "raping". but thank you for pointing it out :)

        September 17, 2011 at 1:04 pm |
  4. Juniper Man

    I believe in Swordfish.

    September 16, 2011 at 11:10 pm |
    • masterofceremonies

      He believes in Swordfish!

      September 17, 2011 at 12:54 am |
    • Tim

      actually if you knew anything the swordfish was put here by the devil to test humans in there faith for god! GOD BLESS YOUR SOUL YOU SIMPLE MINDED HUMAN!!!!!!!!! :P (btw im not religous lol)

      September 17, 2011 at 5:36 am |
  5. steve dawson

    this conversation is borderline rediculus. how in tarnation does dinosaur feathers have anything to do with the bible? read the article. sheeesh

    September 16, 2011 at 11:07 pm |
    • Ben

      I agree, I love science and I read these comments to see what other people with scientific minds think about the latest discoveries not get the same rants and raves every time.

      CNN should filter for off subject crap like that.

      September 17, 2011 at 12:07 am |
    • mop

      you must not know any fundamental creationists (count your blessing you lucky mofo!)

      why does this invoke religious debate? the article mentions amber being 80 million years old – that's fighting words for the American fundi's

      September 17, 2011 at 2:19 am |
    • Niki

      I completely agree...CNN needs to separate the comment board. Have one section for those who want to turn every article into a God vs. No God or political party debate... and then have another section just for those of us who want to actually discuss the discoveries made.

      September 17, 2011 at 10:09 am |
  6. OSIRUS

    AND ZEUS, YOU CAN KEEP YOUR OLIVE OIL AND BAKLAVA, MY EGYPTIANS INVENTED BEER! AND DRANK IT PRETTY MUCH ALL DAY LONG (true).

    September 16, 2011 at 11:03 pm |
    • ZEUS

      ARE YOU TELLING ME YOU DON'T LIKE BAKLAVA?

      September 16, 2011 at 11:22 pm |
    • Codifex

      OSIRIS, your Egyptians accidentally discovered Beer.

      Some Hittites were making their bread one day and after mixing and rising the dough, they dumped it from the bowl and ran some water in the bowl.

      Being lazy (pure speculation), they didn't immediately wash the bowl. Since it took so long for them to wash the bowl, beer began to brew from the leftover dough and water. Later some Egyptian (again pure speculation) wandered by, drank the water and got drunk.

      Beer was born by pure serendipity.

      September 17, 2011 at 3:25 am |
  7. getkicks

    here it is: h ttp://r0.sgsr.us/imgs/250/b2157.gif

    September 16, 2011 at 10:58 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      That freakin' rocks!!!!!
      <3 <3 <3

      September 16, 2011 at 11:18 pm |
  8. getkicks

    On the back of a car the other day, I saw a dinosaur eating a Christian fish. I wanna get one of those just to piss people off.

    September 16, 2011 at 10:57 pm |
    • woosa

      I agree! gooog would even approve (if it existed).

      September 17, 2011 at 12:50 am |
    • Pope Jon

      Here you go... http://www.stickergiant.com/dinosaur-emblem_b2157.html

      September 17, 2011 at 1:27 am |
    • Joesmegma

      If you really want to piss-off christian cultists just wear or display anything promoting atheism.

      September 17, 2011 at 8:31 am |
  9. L. Ron Hubbard

    Scientology is the way.

    September 16, 2011 at 10:42 pm |
    • ZEUS

      YOU HAVE GIVEN ME A LAUGH.

      I KNOW OF YOUR OPERATING THETAN (OT0 LEVEL 8 TEACHING HUBBARD. I KNOW WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT JESUS BEING A LOVER OF BOYS. FOR THIS, I COMMAND:

      HAVE A DRINK ON ME.

      September 16, 2011 at 11:02 pm |
      • Atticus

        the Lord giveth - the Lord may take away! These feathers come from the hand of man. As such they predate the existence of the animal. Earth was not yet born, so we must be careful to accept all that is put before the eyes of man as His Truth! For one thing carbon is used to get the date of these ancient artifacts and carbon was not invented until the iron age of man.

        September 17, 2011 at 1:47 am |
      • eric

        @atticus
        carbon was not invented by man carbon is an element idiot

        September 17, 2011 at 3:57 pm |
  10. Lee Oates

    How does a story about evolution end up attracting religious nuts so easily?

    September 16, 2011 at 10:38 pm |
    • Dr.K.

      The thing is, it's not even explicitly about evolution. It's about dinosaurs. Apparently even the existence of dinosaurs is so upsetting that the religious right lose their minds, which in turn makes the anti-theists lose theirs. The only conversation it apparently does NOT inspire is that concerning the characteristics of prehistoric life.

      September 16, 2011 at 10:53 pm |
    • getkicks

      because they get uncomfortable because it makes sense, so they have to reaffirm creationism so they won't lose faith.

      September 16, 2011 at 10:55 pm |
    • A hobby

      Actually, start reading all of the posts that start on the far left of the page and you will find a majority of them are people speaking out against the bible, christians, anti-evolutionists, etc. The one post I started had nothing to do with religion or evolution and someone started going after me for "not having Jesus's bones."
      Someone starting a post saying how all the crazy bible-thumpers are coming out over this article is just that, someone starting a religious conversation.

      September 17, 2011 at 12:26 am |
    • MLK

      They have to lie to themselves to believe it, yet they know they know they're lying to themselves and still believe it. It's funny really it's just like the Japanese in WW2. They believed the emperor was an actually living god to them and had his seal stamped on every rifle in his army. When the soldiers thought their weapons were going to get taken they would try to get rid of his seal because a gods rifle couldn't fall into the hands of man.

      September 17, 2011 at 1:21 am |
      • Atticus

        I repeat my prior post:
        the Lord giveth – the Lord may take away! These feathers come from the hand of man. As such they predate the existence of the animal. Earth was not yet born, so we must be careful to accept all that is put before the eyes of man as His Truth! For one thing carbon is used to get the date of these ancient artifacts and carbon was not invented until the iron age of man.

        September 17, 2011 at 1:51 am |
    • A hobby

      Lee, did you get a chance to read all of the posts yet? I did. Well I skimmed. In the vast majority of posts it's the science-leaning community that's picking the fight with, well, anyone else....tea partyers, michelle bachman supporters, christians, bible-thumpers, home-schoolers, you name it. There's a lot of hypocrisy going on here.

      Now that I read your question a second time I realize how ridiculous it is. Why wouldn't a story about evolution attract religious "nuts?" I think you are just trying to start something yourself. They call that a troll right?

      September 17, 2011 at 1:36 am |
    • Codifex

      I say, God is not stupid. Why would he be so unintelligent as to create a life form that could not adapt? I give him more credit than that.

      September 17, 2011 at 3:31 am |
  11. getkicks

    Here, let me revise the bible for you: HOLY BIBLE " Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That's it. one sentence, throw everything else out. Christians won't like that because it means that they would have to mind their own business.

    September 16, 2011 at 10:32 pm |
    • A hobby

      You almost got it. Jesus actually summed it up for us in Matthew 22:37-40.
      Jesus replied: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

      I am a Christian and I love this commandment.

      September 17, 2011 at 1:47 am |
      • silverdae

        So the bible commands you to lose your mind? That explains a lot.

        September 17, 2011 at 10:44 am |
      • nostra

        Unfortunately He only got it half right.

        September 17, 2011 at 5:30 pm |
  12. OSIRUS

    NEVER MIND THAT ZEUS GUY. I'VE WAS RISING FROM THE DEAD EVERY SPRING THOUSANDS OF YEARS BEFORE THOSE SILLY GREEKS EVER FOUND MOUNT OLYMPUS! AS FOR THE CHRISTIANS THEY'RE MOSTLY HARMLESS BUT THEY SHOULD KEEP THEIR RELIGION OUT OF POLITICS!

    September 16, 2011 at 10:29 pm |
    • ZEUS

      SON OF A....

      September 16, 2011 at 10:43 pm |
  13. LuisWu

    You guys are wasting your time. You could show a Christian a full dinosaur covered with feathers preserved in amber and he would still deny it. Christians just don't have the intellect to understand that science is correct and their archaic old book of mythology is not.

    "Never argue with an idiot, he'll pull you down to his level and beat you with experience" – Will Rogers.

    September 16, 2011 at 10:27 pm |
    • Jared Roussel

      I am a Christiac being. The modern religions (reformations of the 12 original Krystic legions; RE-Legions) are very distorted today, but they still hold elements of the historical truth. The true issue here is not only that some of us believe in false things, but is really that some of us don't have enough respect for one another. What we call modern science on this planet has so many shortcomings that it's hardly in a position of deciding what is and isn't the truth. Science without spirituality and spirituality without science are equally misguided. The truth is both combined, all knowledge as the eternal oneness that is.

      September 16, 2011 at 10:40 pm |
      • ZEUS

        YOUR BIBLE IS ONE OF THE TWO LARGEST SHORTCOMINGS OF ALL MANKIND AND THE FUTURE OF HUMANITY. THE OTHER IS THE KORAN.

        GET RID OF BOTH AND YOU MORTALS CAN PROGRESS.

        KEEP BOTH, AND YOU'LL NEVER MAKE IT ANYWHERE.

        September 16, 2011 at 10:45 pm |
    • Peter

      I'm a Christian and believe in evolution. Meh, sounds like you'd hate me anyway.

      September 16, 2011 at 10:43 pm |
      • a cool guy

        i do too, day age creationism where the universe wasn't actually created in 7 24hr days but that each "day" was a period of millions of years

        September 16, 2011 at 11:57 pm |
      • Jake

        What cracks me up is that everyone associates fundamentalist/evangelical Christians with all "Christians". What about the moderate to liberal Christians, emergent Christians, and Orthodox Christians that have no voice? You don't have to believe the Bible is inerrant or literal to believe in God or even Jesus. By including two very different creation stories it is obvious that the author of Genesis never meant to give a literal account of what happened. This means that creationism vs. evolution is ridiculous. Most of the Bible cannot, and SHOULD NOT be taken literal. It was never meant to be. Much of it is religious fable and interpretive history meant to convey spiritual sentiments, not literal events. Interpreting it literally would be as ridiculous as us interpreting the story of the boy who cried wolf literally. There are all sorts of progressive Christians that believe it is wrong to force their beliefs on others and that science is a major key in the advancement of mankind. The BIble is not a book about politics or science, but about changing human hearts to become more compassionate, loving, generous, and forgiving. Therefore, it is foolish to include it in scientific discussions.

        September 17, 2011 at 1:07 am |
      • MLK

        You can't be a Christian and believe in evolution. Oh yeah, that's right, I forgot you guy's pick and choose what you follow from Christianity that's why there are 7 or 8 Christian churches. This alone should tell you your wasting your time.

        September 17, 2011 at 1:30 am |
      • mop

        MLK, you are not even close, the number last i checked was more like 30,000+ denominations

        September 17, 2011 at 2:24 am |
      • fimeilleur

        Wikipedia lists it over 38,000

        September 17, 2011 at 2:55 am |
      • David

        No, what it tells me, MLK, is that you're only capable of accepting a reality in which people fit into the neat tidy boxes imagined by a simple mind.

        September 17, 2011 at 3:50 am |
      • nostra

        @a cool guy,
        The day-age thing doesn't really work either, because the sequence is off. You can't have plants around an entire "age" with no sun. Not to mention birds before land animals and flowering plants before any animals and so on. It really doesn't work at any level other than allegory or metaphor.

        September 17, 2011 at 5:39 pm |
    • hello

      Yeah I agree with you there. Blind faith is extremely dangerous because it surpassess all else, including logic and reason. I have meet many great people who are Muslims but just look at the few extremists... Sometimes it's just not worth the time...you can bring as much evidence as you want and it still won't make a difference.

      September 16, 2011 at 10:43 pm |
    • 1wakeupcall

      I'm not a Christian, but you show your dim witted take by trying to tie intelligence to a belief in faith. Some of the most religious people in the world have been devout Christians, and some of the most stupidest people on the planet have been atheists.

      September 16, 2011 at 10:51 pm |
    • sybaris

      Don't ya just love how the "new christians" who combine science and faith pop up to offer a pseudo-clever way to veil their criticism of science.

      September 16, 2011 at 10:54 pm |
      • a cool guy

        there's actually no criticism at all and if you break down the theory of the "7 day" creation period, where each day is a time period of a million years, then the big bang and formation of the early universe to the present is actually in chronological order in terms of water, then tectonic activity causing land formation, etc.

        being close minded will get you no where

        September 17, 2011 at 12:06 am |
    • Miriam

      You are assuming all Christians are the same. I am a Christian, yet I think the whole 6,000 year old earth thing is absolutely ridiculous, and that people who disavow evolution are willfully ignorant and blind to the facts.

      September 17, 2011 at 9:26 am |
  14. JOregon

    I should add the difference is in the thigh bone.
    Unlike all other land animals birds are knee runners. The reason is it gives the lungs more capacity.
    You can read about it in The Journal of Morphology – Cited

    September 16, 2011 at 10:25 pm |
    • JOregon

      Posted in the wrong place sorry.

      September 16, 2011 at 10:26 pm |
      • Dr.K.

        Yeah, no kidding. That level of discussion is not possible here.

        September 16, 2011 at 10:36 pm |
      • nostra

        where's that discussion, it sounds better than this one?

        September 17, 2011 at 5:43 pm |
  15. getkicks

    Christianity, well all religion is mythological. It all needs to be left behind, because as Madalyn Murray O'Hair once said, "Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." Think about it.

    September 16, 2011 at 10:18 pm |
    • Jared Roussel

      It's not mythological. It's piecemeal truths. Science is also piecemeal truths. So they're both equally misguided in their current form.

      September 16, 2011 at 10:26 pm |
      • getkicks

        I disagree. Science is much more credible than anything written in the bible to me. The Bible's just a book of suggestions on how people should live their lives, treat each other, etc. But it's heavily flawed.

        September 16, 2011 at 10:37 pm |
      • ZEUS

        YOU CAN LIVE YOUR LIVES WITHOUT A GUIDE BOOK OF TWISTED MORALS AND ATROCITIES.

        AMEN

        September 16, 2011 at 10:46 pm |
    • Steveo

      How did life start? Big bang? It cannot be proven. You have to have some kind of faith.

      September 16, 2011 at 11:52 pm |
    • Jake

      Actually I have to disagree. Although it has caused much misery it hasn't caused the MOST misery. Bad political policies and leaders like Genghiis Khan, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Kim Jogn-Ill, etc are all prime examples. Also, the invention of weapons of mass destruction like the nuclear and atomic bombs don't have religion to blame. Think about it.

      September 17, 2011 at 1:22 am |
  16. Adam

    Psh... call me when we find mosquitoes preserved in amber.

    September 16, 2011 at 10:16 pm |
  17. ZEUS

    CHRISTIANS FAIL TO REALIZE THAT THEIR RELIGION CAME FROM MINE. TAKE TARTARUS FOR EXAMPLE. IT'S HELL. THE HELL OF MY REIGN. THEN WHAT HAPPENS? SOME GREEK DUDE DECIDED TO STOP BELIEVING IN ME AND INSTEAD WROTE SOME BOOK FOR THE BIBLE. HE LEAVES ME OUT, BUT HE INCLUDES TARTARUS.

    NOT ON MY WATCH.

    THE AUTHORS OF THE BIBLE STOLE GREEK MYTHOLOGY, AND I'M TAKING IT BACK.

    September 16, 2011 at 10:07 pm |
    • Jake

      Hahaha... You will have to fight with the prophet Zoaraster of Persia who said there is a lake of fire awaiting the evildoers

      September 17, 2011 at 1:16 am |
    • MLK

      Yes, and did you know Jesus's birthday wasn't the 25th. He changed it to that date to coincide to pagan rituals to ease their future transition to Christianity. Jesus created Christianity by merging three older religions. I also wonder if the Christians realize Jesus committed suicide. Not by his own hand, but by the term "suicide by cop".

      September 17, 2011 at 4:56 am |
    • ...

      thought TARTARUS was only for putting on fish...

      Speaking of fish, Jesus moved his birthday so he could get his guild license early and get out of his parent's house. Can you imagine having a Jewish mother who was still a virgin? sheesh.

      September 17, 2011 at 5:49 pm |
  18. getkicks

    A lot of you in here seem to think you know what god wants.... isn't that a bit egotistical? Everyone says their god is the correct god but who the he|| are they to say that???? That's why I'm agnostic. Besides that, there's some really crazy stuff in some of these religious texts. I mean people make fun of scientology but have you read the sick, twisted stuff in the bible? Like that part in judges that... well here: "While they were enjoying themselves, the men of the city, a perverse lot, surrounded the house, and started pounding on the door. They said to the old man, the master of the house, 'Bring out the man who came into your house, so that we may have intercourse with him.' THEN....(Judges 19:22).."And the man, the master of the house, went out to them and said to them, 'No, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Since this man is my guest, do not do this vile thing. Here are my virgin daughter and his concubine; let me bring them out now. Ravish them and do whatever you want to them; but against this man do not do such a vile thing.' That's pretty messed up, by the way he sends the concubine out, they rape her all night and when the man wakes up to leave in the morning she's dead, so he cuts the body into 12 pieces to send to each tribe of Israel.... I've found that conservative Christians seem to sweep stuff like that under the rug while they're sitting there saying "the bible said a man shall not lay down with another man..." Etc. Well the bible says a lot of weird things and that's my point. Now anybody who can think and reason cannot simply just throw out science. The fundamentalist Christians might want to do that but science exists whether they like it or not. Evolution makes a great deal of sense, don't tell them that though. There was a book, "Hen's Teeth and Horses Toes" Scientists experimented with chicken genes and were able to show that chicken embryos could actually produce tooth growth, showing that this has remained dormant in chickens for millions of years. That plus archaeopteryx were enough to convince me about evolution, actually as I'm writing this someone else here posted what I just wrote about chicken embryos. I think the fact remains that people who believe in creationism will most likely continue to believe in it. Some religious people can't even accept continental drift... Probably when I was in the first grade the first time I saw a world map, it was quite obvious that Africa would fit between North and South America.

    September 16, 2011 at 10:03 pm |
    • ZEUS

      BELIEVE IN ME, MY SON.

      I'LL BE GENTLE.

      September 16, 2011 at 10:08 pm |
    • RideFaster

      A semi-interesting point, but I do think it's worth noting that when you read that biblical passage, you're not reading about what God says you should or should not do, but rather you're reading about people that God decided to punish by raining fire from the sky. So, yeah...

      September 16, 2011 at 10:18 pm |
      • getkicks

        I don't know about that but to me it suggests: "If a gang of men are about to rape you, send your concubine out to get raped in place of you.... and your host's virgin daughter" God punished the men of the tribe of Benjamin for this, but the guy that threw out his concubine didn't seem to get punished.

        September 16, 2011 at 10:21 pm |
    • IH

      I agree with you. While I have great respect for cultural diversity and the many religions that people practice, religion is in many ways similar to Greek mythology...stories without reason or proof. Science follows reason and can be validated again and again in well designed studies. If countries like the US want to maintain their standing in the world, they really need to support and encourage education in math and science. I only hope our politicians in D.C. get their act together and continue to invest the the education of our children so that they can be prepared to compete in a increasingly competative and technologically driven world.

      September 16, 2011 at 10:27 pm |
      • getkicks

        What happened to us? We used to be at the top of math and science! In ten years, we progressed from rockets blowing up on the launch pad, to walking on the moon. What happened? This : "I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uh, some . . . people out there in our nation don't have maps and, uh, I believe that our, uh, education like such as in South Africa and, uh, the Iraq, everywhere like such as, and, I believe that they should, our education over HERE in the U.S. should help the U.S., uh, or, uh, should help South Africa and should help the Iraq and the Asian countries, so we will be able to build up our future, for our children." and guess what, it's getting worse.... you ever watch network tv lately? maybe if people stopped texting for a second and stop being all wrapped up in themselves something might change.

        September 16, 2011 at 10:49 pm |
    • agonyflips

      @getkicks. I'd call my self agnostic, but I haven't decided. (Badum–Tish)

      Amusing writings of yours. I come from a religious upbringing and still religious family, but as Christians there was never any disbelief in Evolution or Science. Plus generally Christians are supposed to ignore all the old testament Hebrew bible wrath of god cr@p and follow the New Testament, which is about a loving caring, happy god or something and not some vengeful god.
      Anyway, I kind of strayed away from religion–the whole Jesus son of god bit, way over the top, so I'm happy being a good person, and for the most part let people be what they want. In the big picture, one might believe that some being created the universe, but I don't think they're omnipotent, controlling our lives like it's a video game, awaiting our constant gratitude and indulgence, or they'll smite us.

      If so then why does the Vatican have lightning rods?

      September 16, 2011 at 11:38 pm |
  19. trex

    So........the teabaggers fiction of true HISTORY that humans rode dinos like Fred Flinstone is incorrect. Well, time to change the Texas school book committe again.

    September 16, 2011 at 9:53 pm |
    • Geez

      Why the need to be a bung hole? ...... Even the Grinches heart grew in the end. Let go of your hate. Youll feel much better. Im Conserative and think this is awesome

      September 16, 2011 at 11:29 pm |
  20. pseudobliss

    Oh my Gawsh! Can this have DNA?

    September 16, 2011 at 9:48 pm |
  21. God

    Seriously? You guys are still arguing about this?

    September 16, 2011 at 9:45 pm |
    • ZEUS

      Sit down.

      After all, you wouldn't exist if it wasn't for me.

      September 16, 2011 at 10:02 pm |
  22. Greg G.

    Christian deniers are the #1 obstacle to proper education in the country.
    The ones on top (Republicans) keep the battle lines drawn and wave the flags,
    and the peons below with their Bibles memorized (but have never read a paragraph of a science book)
    come on these blogs and message boards and show us all how stubbon someone can, while still be dead flat wrong.

    September 16, 2011 at 9:37 pm |
    • Greg G.

      ,,,,sorry for the typos.
      "...show us all how stubborn someone can be while still being dead flat wrong".
      is how that last line should have read.

      September 16, 2011 at 9:39 pm |
    • JOregon

      Obviously fishing (trolling) for a Christian reply.
      Interesting that science has pushed the – "birds evolved from Theropod dinosaurs" – line for years even though it has been obvious that never happened.

      September 16, 2011 at 9:55 pm |
      • ZEUS

        It never happened?

        YOU WERE THERE?

        September 16, 2011 at 10:03 pm |
      • Andrew

        [citation needed]

        September 16, 2011 at 10:04 pm |
      • JOregon

        We have had evidence since the 90's that birds came before the theropods.
        It has also been shown that the skeletal structure of the dino's would have never given the lung capacity necessary for flight,
        You might want to look up John Ruben, an OSU professor of zoology.

        September 16, 2011 at 10:18 pm |
      • JOregon

        I should add the difference is in the thigh bone.
        Unlike all other land animals birds are knee runners. The reason is it gives the lungs more capacity.
        You can read about it in The Journal of Morphology – Cited

        September 16, 2011 at 10:26 pm |
      • Andrew

        Interesting... his view is apparently certainly not mainstream, but at least he's not a crackpot, and the mainstream has been known on occasion to be wrong on issues like this. However, he alone will not sway me, mostly because as it isn't my major, I am not really properly equipped to go against the mainstream evolutionary biology community from any real base of knowledge. I'll err on the side of the mainstream until he can convince more of his argument. I'm cautious with my skepticism.

        September 16, 2011 at 10:28 pm |
      • Short Trip To Tomorrow - BRB

        WOW, JOregon has a time machine.

        September 17, 2011 at 7:44 am |
      • JOregon

        No time machine just the research from scientists.
        Besides, if you believe in the dating systems, we have bird fossils that predate theropods.

        September 17, 2011 at 1:34 pm |
  23. chad

    So spiders were making webs "80 million years ago".....you would have thought that they would have evolved by now! And birds had feathers??? I guess they were left out by that Darwin guy;)

    September 16, 2011 at 9:00 pm |
    • secularbear

      You obviously haven't the slightest grasp of evolution. Evolution suggests – and evidence supports – the notion that species who comfortably occupy a stable niche will persist indefinitely without any selective pressures to evolve.

      September 16, 2011 at 9:06 pm |
      • Arfy

        I guess that pretty much negates the whole idea of evolution. Kind of sounds like each species "reproducing after their kind"

        September 16, 2011 at 9:12 pm |
      • secularbear

        Arfy, you're committing the typical christian misunderstanding that evolution means gradual improvement over time. It doesn't. Read up on punctuated equilibrium.

        This is so depressing and discouraging. The realty-denial of christians is a true force of nature.

        September 16, 2011 at 9:19 pm |
      • Doug

        Well said secularbear – it IS incredibly depressing and discouraging!

        September 16, 2011 at 9:50 pm |
      • Andrew

        By your logic, Arfy, would the new cecal valves on Italian Wall Lizards then be an example of evolution and not "reproducing after its kind"?

        Truthfully, the word "kind" is never defined. Creationists always seem to love its ambiguity, "oh, they're still the same kind" after any example of speciation. But evolution doesn't really say anything different. A eukaryote will always give birth to a eukaryote, a mammal will always give birth to a mammal, a primate will always give birth to a primate. What is so important about evolution though is that each new category today is highly specific, but could comprise a large number of new species in a few thousand years.

        A eukaryote will always give birth to a eukaryote, but one eukaryote could diverge to be a plant, while another line diverges and becomes animals. The animal line, when it first came about, would be comparable to humans, or Italian Wall Lizards, or common doves, or canis lupis, etc. It'd be all that existed. But its offspring might be slightly different, some go onto the line which becomes reptiles, others go onto the line which becomes sharks, etc.

        It's always "reproducing after one's kind", you never have an animal giving birth to a non-animal, or a shark giving birth to a non-shark, or a dog giving birth to a non-dog, or a plant giving birth to a non-plant... but somewhere far back in history, each wildly divergent branch is related to some other wildly divergent branch.

        Spiders are all related to spiders from 80 million years ago. That's because spiders will always give birth to spiders. Just like us humans are all related to early mammals from 70 million years ago. Mammals always give birth to mammals. Spiders always give birth to spiders. But we're both animals, and as we know, animals always give birth to animals.

        September 16, 2011 at 10:01 pm |
  24. thaine

    It seems most of the responses to the Christian viewpoint assumes that all Chrittian are fundamentalists.
    Many Chhristians can accept that God worked through evolut ion . We who have felt the Spirit of God forgiving us and giving us His power to change our lives cannot doubt His/Her existence.

    September 16, 2011 at 8:47 pm |
    • snow

      Spoken like a perfect cult member! Amen brother!

      September 16, 2011 at 8:59 pm |
    • secularbear

      Yeah sure maybe 1% of all christians accept the reality of a round earth, heliocentric solar system, and evolutionary history of mankind.

      September 16, 2011 at 9:07 pm |
      • Tex Gritter

        In no place in the Scriptures does the Bible ever speak of a "flat earth." You will nt find any such reference. What you will find is reference to the "four corners of the earth." Meaning the four cardinal directions: North, South, East snd West. I think probably that a certain Catholic (Universal) church sprang up in order to hold together the faltering Roman empire and "they" began to enroce thought control on almost every aspect of every persons life. Much of the Liberal perception of Christians is nothing less than Leftist Media bias.

        September 16, 2011 at 9:33 pm |
      • db

        The Bible DOES describe a flat earth. You can deny it all you want but it's clear...

        Dedicated believers often say that the word “circle” could actually mean “sphere,” since both are round, but they ignore Isaiah’s use of a different word in another verse where he speaks of a “ball:

        He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a BALL (duwr) into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord’s house. (Isaiah 22:18)

        The Hebrew word used in scripture for “circle” in Isaiah 40:22 is chuwg. If the author meant to imply that “circle of the earth” indicated that the earth was a sphere, it would have made more sense to use the Hebrew word for “ball,” which is duwr. The word “chuwg” more likely refers to a flat, circular earth.

        September 16, 2011 at 10:04 pm |
    • getkicks

      try saying that 500 years ago; you would've been burned at the stake.

      September 16, 2011 at 9:38 pm |
    • sqeptiq

      That feeling was generated within you, not from some external sky fairy.

      September 16, 2011 at 9:49 pm |
    • trex

      Exactly CORRECT. The BIBLE says that a moment is as a thousand years in Christ. Therefore, time is of no issue with GOD. Evolution is GODS way of making us. Only GOD could come up with this. It is perfect.

      September 16, 2011 at 9:57 pm |
      • Andrew

        I'd hardly go so far as to say perfect. If god wanted to create humans, he really chose one hell of an error prone method. What kind of designer would put the urinary tract directly through an organ which tends to enlarge as you age? Why on earth design our eye so that a decent amount of brainpower is used to right our vision because it's projected to us upside-down?

        September 16, 2011 at 10:08 pm |
      • ZEUS

        INCORRECT.

        September 16, 2011 at 10:09 pm |
      • IH

        Yes, and God gave everyone an appendix which serves absolutely no purpose except to get inflammed and kill people early. God decided to send conjoined twins to the world on randon whims too, and strike toddlers with lymphomas and other cancers when they are barely old enough to attend kindergarden. Of course, just perfect...I see that now.

        September 16, 2011 at 10:39 pm |
      • Short Trip To Tomorrow - BRB

        God is so perfect
        everything he creates...........dies.

        September 17, 2011 at 7:50 am |
    • Jake

      Very true. Most of these comments prove BOTH sides to be very ignorant of one another. Most people assume you have to be a fundamentalist Christian to believe in God. However, evolution is a brilliant design, allowing life to adapt to environments rather than becoming extinct in droves. Genetic variation is exactly what life needs to survive. This does not contradict belief in God. It DOES contradict blind fundamentalist faith, just not moderate or liberal Christians that know better than to take the entire BIble as literal accounts of events. It was never meant to be and is ridiculous for us moderns to look at it from that point of view. Just check out the works of Marcus Borg for example.

      September 17, 2011 at 1:34 am |
  25. snow

    aww commmmon... This is not dinosaurs feathers.. Everyone knows God created the world only a few thousand years ago. There is nothing that can be so many years old! That's it!! What the scientists found are the angel feathers from the war between God and Satan.. So don't you dare study the find. Build a temple and worship!!! That is the only way to salvation!

    for the uninitiated.. Pun intended!

    September 16, 2011 at 8:22 pm |
  26. Ajay

    When you guys are done, will you tell me who won? :-)

    September 16, 2011 at 8:06 pm |
    • THE BROWN NOTE

      nothing happens when we die

      September 16, 2011 at 8:45 pm |
      • Ajay

        Are you kidding? All kinds of insurance activity, etc... kicks in.

        September 16, 2011 at 9:18 pm |
      • vorn

        Not to mention the fighting over who gets to keep dear old Aunt Bessie's fine china.

        September 17, 2011 at 5:05 am |
  27. Native Son

    I don't agree with your saying about my God. I will however fight to the death for your right to say it.

    September 16, 2011 at 7:54 pm |
    • Religious sects

      Money Mouth

      September 16, 2011 at 8:39 pm |
      • Religious sects

        I had this whole clever Money where ur mouth is, drawing type thing .. and that is all that showed up .. fail

        September 16, 2011 at 8:44 pm |
    • Jake

      We need more people like you. Whether you're an atheist, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, or whatever we all have the right to be WRONG. Seems like nobody has the tolerance or respect to concede that to the other though. Dialogue is great, but most people are too intolerant or immature to engage in such. They result to petty insults, believing the other is a complete moron. Fundamentalist or atheist, neither has enough love to engage the one they believe to be a moron respectfully. Everyone needs to take a good hard look in the mirror before they run their mouths about the other being intolerant and foolish.

      September 17, 2011 at 1:46 am |
  28. hammertime

    LOOK AT ME, I'M AN INTERNET TOUGHT GUY!!!!!
    BTW, god created science and evolution. And god got this gig after obtaining his masters at Brown. But before all of this silliness began, God was yet just a young boy trying to make it out in the real world. In west Philadelphia where he was born and raised, on the playground was where he spent most of his days. Chillin' out maxin' relaxin' all cool, and all shootin some b-ball outside of school! When a couple of guys, who were up to no good, started making trouble in his neighborhood. He got in one little fight and his mom got scared, and she said 'You're movin' with your auntie and uncle in Bel Air'. He begged and pleaded with her day after day, but she packed his suite case and sent him on his way. She gave him a kiss and then she gave him his ticket. He put his walkman on and said, 'I might as well kick it'. He whistled for a cab and when it came near, the license plate said fresh and it had dice in the mirror!! If anything he could say is that this cab was rare, but he thought 'Man forget it' – 'Yo home to Bel Air'!!!!! He pulled up to the house about seven or eight, and he yelled to the cabbie 'Yo homes smell ya later'. He looked to his "kingdom", he was finally there.........to sit on his throne as the Prince of Bel Air!!

    September 16, 2011 at 7:40 pm |
    • the real john

      can anybody say "wordbrick?"

      September 16, 2011 at 7:58 pm |
      • THE BROWN NOTE

        lol

        wall of text

        September 16, 2011 at 8:46 pm |
    • tamina

      everyone knows god got his masters at princeton dei sub numine viget

      September 16, 2011 at 7:59 pm |
    • Ben

      You made a better point with that rediculus word brick than most of these Koolaid drinkers ranting about fossils being placed here as a test of faith from god.

      If you don't believe in science, throw away all your plastic and medicine. Sell your car and put on a linen tunic and live in the woods.

      Bad anti-science people...using computers made of refined million year old dead plants. The bible doesn't say anything about microchips so they don't exist. Burn them and repent.

      September 17, 2011 at 12:14 am |
    • I may have a name but not sure

      Hahaha Thanks for the laugh and the memories !!! Brought me back to this morning while I was watching it

      September 17, 2011 at 4:40 am |
  29. Pirate Hooker

    I wonder if they'd give me this fossil so I can make an awesome new pair of earrings.

    September 16, 2011 at 7:35 pm |
    • talon

      It's gonna look much better as the pendant I am making with it.

      September 16, 2011 at 8:45 pm |
  30. Daniel

    Birds that fly ARE theropod dinosaurs...

    September 16, 2011 at 7:32 pm |
    • Kyle

      Scientists have done some genetic engineering and have found that in chicken embryos, they are able to turn genes on and off. They have been successful in turning on the gene that makes them grow teeth. It's pretty impressive.

      September 16, 2011 at 7:37 pm |
      • Dave

        I saw that also. The other night I watched a show where they were turning on genes that cause a chicken to grow a long Dinosaur like tail as well.

        September 16, 2011 at 8:07 pm |
      • BuffetBoy

        I'm looking forward to those dino-chicken drumsticks!!!

        September 16, 2011 at 8:28 pm |
      • Kyle

        I am! I bet those things will be meaty and delicious. With bacon.

        September 16, 2011 at 8:47 pm |
      • Craig

        Almost frightening think of a man made chickensauras with teeth and a tail w/mash potatoes and gravy.

        September 16, 2011 at 10:17 pm |
      • Jake

        That's one of the most intelligent things I've seen posted in the awful blog.

        September 17, 2011 at 1:40 am |
  31. rosestew

    With all the other fossils that have been discovered in this area, and yes I live in the area where it was found, think that this is cool.

    September 16, 2011 at 7:25 pm |
  32. Pope Jon

    Are all you creationists home schooled or were you some how exempt form 7th grade science class? Please do yourself a favor and look up the word "theory" then look up the word "fact". Evolution theory is a "theory". It does not explain how everything works, that is why its called a "theory" and is not yet a fact. But it is based on many, many known and proven facts. Over time there are parts of the theory that will be proved and parts that will be disproved.... That's how real science works. Creationism's answer to the unexplained is "god did it". That is anything but science.... I would even say that is completely counter productive to real science.

    September 16, 2011 at 7:19 pm |
    • Jackie Treehorn

      You know you're dealing with the scientifically illiterate when you hear the "it's only a theory" line. As if theories somehow "graduate" into laws or facts. They don't. Laws and facts are completely different things. Laws are simply observations of repeated patterns, with no attempt to explain the pattern. The Law of Gravity does not explain gravity. A Theory of Gravity would. Facts are the bits of data used to support a theory, again they are not explanations. BUT NO THEORY IS EVER CONSIDERED "PROVEN" in science, there are only those that are well-supported by facts and those that are not. So to say "it's only a theory" is meaningless. Every explanation is a theory.

      September 16, 2011 at 7:39 pm |
      • Pirate Hooker

        Totally agree. Except I wouldn't say "every explanation is a theory", because it made me think that this would put creationism and evolution on the same bar, which of course it is not. But I understood what you were saying, I just didn't want someone else to see that and twist it around.

        September 16, 2011 at 7:42 pm |
    • Pirate Hooker

      Gravity is a theory too, but it's also a fact. And this is also true of evolution. The problem is when people can't distinguish the two. When it's a fact we know HOW something happens, but a theory tells us WHY something happens. So for someone to say "Oh, well evolution is just a theory" is completely ignorant, and it's the only argument a creationist has against evolution which isn't an argument at all.

      Evolution was discovered using the SAME scientific method and empirical evidence as any other scientific discovery: gravity, cell biology, plate techtonics, etc. But why aren't those discoveries being challenged, I wonder? Why is evolution so special that it should be singled out? It really boggles the mind.

      September 16, 2011 at 7:40 pm |
      • the real john

        gravity is not a theory

        September 16, 2011 at 8:09 pm |
      • Southern Charm

        Pirate-

        One cannot test the theory of evolution as it is done with systems biology approaches. What are your positive and negative controls for evolution? Unless you can recreate existence and monitor its progress with the appropriate controls, you cannot describe how the earth and its modern inhabitants came to be.

        It's not that I don't see evolution as a feasible explanation; I just don't think we have the tools and approaches to describe accurately how the earth came to be. And why should we know this? It's such an arrogant thing to ascertain, beyond the shadow of a doubt, how the earth's inhabitants functioned a million years ago. Frankly, if we took this research money and devoted it to medical research, it would benefit us a lot more. Fossils are awesome, but research like this just stirs up controversy and we could use the money for cancer research, etc.

        September 16, 2011 at 8:17 pm |
      • Kyle

        Evolution is challenged because it voids religious belief systems.

        September 16, 2011 at 8:54 pm |
      • Do Wah Diddy

        Gravity is a myth: The Earth sucks.

        September 16, 2011 at 8:56 pm |
      • physics

        @southern – look up Richard E Lenski. He's done a really interesting experiment with some bacteria he's had since 1986. Because of all the environmental changes he's put them through, a new species has evolved that's twice as big as the original and divides much faster. That's evolution – the environment forces adaptation – anything that doesn't adapt dies. There are others as well, but that's a good place to start. Or just use Google instead of relying on the knowledge you already have.

        September 16, 2011 at 8:56 pm |
      • Rob

        @the Real John. Gravity IS a theory. We still don't know what exactly gravity is. It doesn't mean its not there.

        September 16, 2011 at 9:02 pm |
      • humanbean

        Southern Charm, you sound like the same ignorant people who threw Galileo in prison and stripped him of all his dignity because they refused to believe that the earth was not the center of the universe. The church was responsible for this, along with many other things they did to people in the name of heresy. I love how people like you use science to drive your every day lives, yet dismiss it when it's inconvenient to your ignorance. If it was left up to you people we would still be living in dark ages.

        September 16, 2011 at 9:30 pm |
      • John

        Rob, gravity is not a theory. There are theories as to what it is, but gravity itself is not a theory.

        September 17, 2011 at 12:42 am |
      • vorn

        Southern Charm: Medical research would be nowhere it is now without fundamental research supporting it. Fundamental research is still ongoing and far from, if ever, complete.

        September 17, 2011 at 5:14 am |
    • the real john

      Evolution will never be proved. Scientists who REALLY understand whats going on know evolutions core is in spontaneous creation, an event scientists say is so unlikely that its as close to impossible as one can get. Imagine if all the atoms on your desk aligned to where you could push a pencil through it. This is possible, but highly unlikely. now imagine if you did this 3 times a second for 30 million years and everytime the pencil went through. THAT is more likely to happen than spontaneous creation. sometimes i think you guys are more religious than the religious nuts

      September 16, 2011 at 8:02 pm |
      • physics

        you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

        September 16, 2011 at 8:58 pm |
      • humanbean

        You people crack me up! Evolution was proven by Darwin and his experiences in the Galapagos Islands. There are species of animals there that managed to adapt to very harsh conditions. There are Iguanas that swim in the ocean in order to get their food and others that eat algae. The most famous example are the 13 species of Darwin's finches, all stemming from a single ancestor, and adapting to such varying diets as cactus, parasites and even blood. Check out some of the creatures that existed in Australia before modern man arrived there. Creatures that, like the Galapagos, were cut off from the rest of the world in a harsh environment.

        It cracks me up because you people will believe in something unseen and borderline mythical vs. something that exists right before your eyes. Unfortunately the world we live in today circumvents natural selection. Soon enough we're going to end up with an idiocracy. Scary scary people.

        September 16, 2011 at 9:47 pm |
      • Tex Gritter

        This is for all you doubters. Science sees what it wishes to see in any fossil. Whatever the current "concurrent" happens to be is what these men and women will see. Also, you can slam Christianity all you please by lumping all early Christian thought together and calling it the "Church". If you would like an ACCURATE picture of the early Church, read the Bible, especially the Book of the Acts of the Apostles. It will tell you the facts of life and belief, mode of Baptism of those first Christians. I would like to say also that no matter what many of you READ will make no difference at all. You are haters and skeptics largley for the sake of being hateful and skeptical: your hobby-hating has become your lifestyle.

        September 16, 2011 at 9:50 pm |
      • ZEUS

        TEX, YOU SHOULD READ THE BIBLE TOO.

        IN IT, YOU WILL FIND REFERENCES TO GREEK MYTHOLOGY.

        September 16, 2011 at 10:10 pm |
      • Andrew

        Tex. have you considered, perhaps, that your perception of how scientists treat fossils might be inherently flawed? Have you considered that palentologists searching for things like Tiktaalik aren't just digging in random spots, but are instead conducting real scientific research? Have you considered that perhaps your views on what scientists do is wrong?

        Let me propose an alternative to scientists just "seeing what they want to in fossils". Let me propose that we have a moderate understanding of branching events by looking at the rate by which conserved genes change, and then compared maybe to endogenous retroviral markers. This could give a rough estimate of the time you'd expect certain branching events to have occurred. Maybe, perhaps, paleontologists are privy to this information by reading the peer reviewed literature on the subject. Then, having an understanding of geologic time columns, plus strata likely to preserve fossils, paleontologists dig to the strata which should contain fossils from timescales predicted by genetics.

        This means, say, the common ancestor between terrestrial life and fish lived about 300 million years ago. We gather this by looking at the differences in DNA between fish, and terrestrial animals, and are able to gage a rough idea of when the split would have happened. Then maybe a paleontologist would dig at strata roughly 300 million years old for species that exhibit signs of both terrestrial life, as well as marine life. This would mean you'd expect something like gills, but also lungs, or feet with joints for walking rather than fins. Thus, they have a rough idea of what they're looking for (though certainly not exact) as well as where to look.

        Then, when they dig, lo and behold, they find a species with traits near their predictions. They might get a surprise, but overall, the morphology matches predictions. Like how we discovered Tiktaalik. This sounds a lot like science to me, you make a prediction, and you try to test that prediction against data. You might get somewhat different results from what you expected, maybe you find that lungs came about in early terrestrial life after you expected, but overall, you still find the results to conform to the overall predictions made by the theory.

        That's how I see fossil research conducted, but what do I know, I've only spoken to biologists and researched the topic myself. You say "science sees what it wishes to see in any fossil", but I invite you to consider that your view on how science approaches fossils is wrong. You seem to take a stance against skepticism, but all skepticism really requires is that you care more about if your beliefs are true than if they are held. If you're willing to abandon your beliefs in face of evidence, then you value truth above your beliefs.

        Evidently, you value your beliefs above truth. Hence your hatred for skepticism. If I'm wrong though, please, do apply the same level of skepticism to your beliefs as you do to science. You might find that science as a whole adheres to much more strict standards than you might currently believe.

        September 16, 2011 at 10:24 pm |
      • J

        "Evolution was proven by Darwin"... false :) The dude had the right general idea, but his theory of evolution was different from the one we have today. Also, the observations of Darwin, while suggestive, hardly constituted a proof. Much more evidence has been accumulated since the time of Darwin.

        September 16, 2011 at 11:51 pm |
      • John

        You guys aint pickin up what i laid down. If spontaneous creation cannot happen, then evolution cannot have happened. Adaptation and various branches of darwinism are acceptable. But the core ideas of darwins evolution are based on spontaneous creation of life from absolute nothing. The scientists you blindly follow are the ones who have said this, why be angry at me. Yes, the tatoo analogy is exaclty how evolution is supposed to work and its childish at best. When people laugh at this and call it a "fact" i become worried about the people share this planet with. You are exactly like hardcore religious zealots, blindy arguing for something that science says is impossible. And then you tell me i dont know what im talking about. You could be deaf dumb and blind and STILL see the galaxy sized problem with evoltuion... Dam

        September 17, 2011 at 12:49 am |
    • me

      Science is just figuring out how God did it.

      September 16, 2011 at 8:36 pm |
      • Kyle

        How do you come to this conclusion? First you have to prove god exists. Then you can say it "did it."

        September 16, 2011 at 8:55 pm |
      • Felipe

        Which God are you writing about? What name do you call this God?

        September 16, 2011 at 8:57 pm |
      • Pope Jon

        Me,

        you are the 7th grade science class flunky home schooled idiot I was talking about and proved my point perfectly...

        September 16, 2011 at 9:35 pm |
      • Ben

        I agree. God (as you choose to perseive him /she /them / it) has no limits including working in the relms of science. This science verses god argument is as silly as arguing which is better, soda or pop.

        The religious nuts deny that thier all powerful god is outside scientific laws (which could of been set by some diety and can not be changed by man) and the science nuts deny there, in theory, is some energy source that we have not measured and can be persieved as god may have created the physical universe.

        The whole thing is assinine.

        September 16, 2011 at 11:43 pm |
      • J

        What's all this about "7th grade science class" anyway? I hope you guys aren't equating what you learned in middle school with truth. Half your teachers didn't really understand their subjects anyway. We'd be screwed if our ideas about science depended on the edicts of 7th grade teachers!

        September 16, 2011 at 11:53 pm |
  33. hausinbauderaudisader.

    its a fake,look at all the fake things china can make, i cant believe CNN fell for this? and if brown note is out there,and soon as Jesus took his last breath and the sky turned dark and the earth quaked,and the holy temple split in twain,that was the sign that the old commandments passed away and the new law was in effect, in simple terms you had a direct link too God, you don't need the high priest, you can talk straight too God,

    September 16, 2011 at 7:13 pm |
    • Pirate Hooker

      Hahahahaha! Best post of the night!

      September 16, 2011 at 7:16 pm |
    • THE BROWN NOTE

      so what youre saying is, the chinese wrote the bible

      that really does explain a lot

      September 16, 2011 at 7:25 pm |
    • Tim

      i don't even know what to say to that. . . . . . . besides the fact that nothing in the bible is true because it was written HUNDREDS of years after JESUS DIED!!!! and stories get twisted over time. evolution has millions of evidence to be true. all religion has is books. but i mean i can totally see how wandering in a desert for 40 days and nights and one man getting two of every animal on earth and putting them on one boat is way more believable then an animal adapting to its surroundings.

      September 16, 2011 at 7:59 pm |
      • the real john

        actually, a story about a giraffes neck growing long because it cant reach leaves is about as silly as animals going two by two onto a boat. If thats the case, then i can get a tatoo of a smiley face, then my son, and his son, and sooner or later my great great great great grandson will one day just be born with a smiley face tattoo.. sounds ridiculous no?

        September 16, 2011 at 8:21 pm |
      • humanbean

        Actually it does sound ridiculous therealjohn, because ignorant fools like you just don't get it and never will. That's not how it works. Do you know why there are people with dark skin and people with light skin? Because of the environments they came from. Man came out of Africa originally and migrated to the rest of the world. Africa has dark people who are dark because of the pigmentation due to the extremely sunny, hot environment. But the people who migrated out of Africa became lighter due to the colder environments with less sun. You can also add eye color to that. This didn't happen over night. It happened after generations of adaptation.

        Do you know what color a polar bear's skin is genius? It's dark, just like the polar bear's cousins to the south. Their fur adapted to the colder conditions that have white snow on the ground for most of the year, so they have light colored fur. Keep using science to get through your every day life and then denying it when it proves to run counter to your own ignorance

        September 16, 2011 at 10:03 pm |
      • John

        Sorry bean, but my post is exactly what evolution says. You are appalled at what you think is ignorance, when what you are hearing is the truth of what evolution brings to the table. Im glad you think it sounds wring.. Because its is

        September 17, 2011 at 12:40 am |
      • Tim

        actually john what your saying is dumb. because for thousands of years tribes have been tattooing themselves and having kids and none have been born with tattoos. so your argument is dumb. Second the giraffe thing is a THEORY not a FACT one day an idea came and said hmm i wonder if maybe the giraffe kept stretching its neck over millions of years and eventually its neck grew. kinda like how some tribes put rings on there necks from the time there born and somehow GASP there necks grow longer sooooooooo by stretching there neck it makes it longer..... its like iv'e heard this somewhere before but i can't put a finger on where. . . . . so go ahead and try to prove me wrong again i dare ya

        September 17, 2011 at 5:59 am |
    • Scott Hancock

      Let's see here... Feathers found in amber that we can see with our own eyes and measure the age of with isotope breakdown methods are fake, and an invisible male being living in the sky that nobody has ever been able to prove the existence of is real... Religious people sure have some interesting logic.... How does it feel to go through life with both eyes blind, and consciously try not to use one's own brain, and instead fall in trance with pastors' jubberish, emotional nonsense?

      September 16, 2011 at 8:38 pm |
      • A hobby

        I'll tell you what, put any combination of elements on the periodic table of your choice into a jar and then repeatedly zap it with electricity until you detect some form of life in the jar. Call me when you get something.

        September 16, 2011 at 9:15 pm |
      • Kyle

        A hobby,

        Is that what jesus did? Zap elements in a jar with electricity?

        That is odd. I don't recall jars being created before the universe. Did god have jars for this purpose?

        You'd think with the almighty inspiration of religious text writing, they could have come up with something a little more reasonable, practical, logical and, lol, truthful when it came to explaining anything at all.

        Instead, we got trash written by a bunch of people who smelled rancid.

        September 16, 2011 at 9:46 pm |
      • humanbean

        LMAO@A hobby...and the ignorance continues. You have absolutely no idea what goes on outside of that jelly like substance that resides inside your skull. All the elements in a jar and zap them with electricity? That's how the bible thumpers explained to you science's explanation of how life started on this planet? I cannot stop laughing.

        September 16, 2011 at 10:10 pm |
      • A hobby

        No Kyle, that's effectively how nature did it. You know, the 'Primordial Soup' explanation which hinges on the 'Big Bang' explanation and is in and of itself a major cog in the 'Missing Link' story which follows sometime later in the story. Can't wait to find out how all of these amazing occurrences randomly aligned themselves so that I could bump along the halls of evolution from amoeba to iPad user and it all turned out to be one big accident. By the way. Why do you care what anyone thinks about all of this stuff if you know that we are just here by accident? I mean does it really matter what anyone thinks if that is the case?

        September 16, 2011 at 10:15 pm |
      • A hobby

        what did I miss humanbean? Actually that's what I've got from science. I mean how far off am I? there was once non-organic materials and through some random and unknown event, life appeared. If you want to start off with there being biological molecules and skip the part with how they got there, I call that cheating. Please enlighten me. I am all ears.

        September 16, 2011 at 10:22 pm |
      • Tim

        well a hobby you are missing the fact that it was more then two elements mixed together to create life forms :P and two its not put them in a jar and zap them its put them in the perfect conditions to EVOLVE. and all that experiment proved was that with the perfect conditions you could get amino acids. they didn't create life at all.

        September 17, 2011 at 6:40 am |
    • Greg

      "...and soon as Jesus took his last breath and the sky turned dark and the earth quaked,and the holy temple split in twain..."

      The temple didn't split. Just the veil of the temple.

      Allegedly.

      September 16, 2011 at 9:12 pm |
  34. OMG NO WAY

    Didn't Jurassic Park start off this way? Oh well when that T-rex attacks San Fransisco we can always blame Al-Qaeda

    September 16, 2011 at 7:02 pm |
    • steakbagel

      i was hoping we could blame obama

      September 16, 2011 at 7:40 pm |
    • Tim

      you can't recreate any dinosaur that existed millions of years ago. you need there DNA to clone them. not only that you need there complete DNA and they have yet to find any DNA that is complete from any species that used to exist back then

      September 16, 2011 at 8:02 pm |
  35. Orchid333

    Um, okay, it's really weird to me that the comments on this article are all about whether there is or isn't a god. Anyone care to comment on the coolness factor of this discovery? I mean, come on, these creatures existed millions of years ago and I think it's pretty darn awesome when we get to learn new things about them – such as the color of their feathers!
    God or no god, it's a fact that dinosaurs existed at one point in time, so how about you put the religious debate on the backburner and just appreciate when something interesting is discovered.

    September 16, 2011 at 6:57 pm |
    • Kyle

      Agreed. But it's pretty impossible when the bible thumping sheep pop up to interject about how we now need to prove the big bang over god's magical existence.

      Swat them down like flies.

      September 16, 2011 at 7:01 pm |
    • T-Rex

      I'm so excited I could eat a fat person from pennsylvania.

      September 16, 2011 at 7:03 pm |
    • Cocoa

      Why is that weird to you? People start a God debate out of ANYTHING, even if its unrelated.

      Its never going to go away.

      September 16, 2011 at 7:07 pm |
    • Bob

      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html
      Here it describes more interesting science findings where dinosaurus blood and tissue were found. Does it tell anything? Hello!!!!.

      September 16, 2011 at 7:19 pm |
  36. Dr.K.

    Have fun arguing about whether dinosaur feathers indicate that Jesus was the son of God or not. Ridiculous.

    September 16, 2011 at 6:52 pm |
    • secularbear

      It is indeed both tragic and hilarious that amazing scientific discoveries are hijacked by flat-earth christians in a feeble effort to defend their medieval views.

      September 16, 2011 at 7:20 pm |
  37. Argle Bargle

    God exists because I say He does.

    If you don't like that, it's your problem.

    September 16, 2011 at 6:49 pm |
    • John B

      God isn't real because Justin Beiber is allowed to be famous.

      September 16, 2011 at 6:58 pm |
    • greg

      it may be our problem, but it doesn't make your flying spaghetti monster any less fake

      September 16, 2011 at 6:59 pm |
    • Dr. Arkham

      All hail the Great Old Ones! They lie sleeping, soon to awake...

      September 16, 2011 at 7:01 pm |
      • Answer

        Which ones? Does this have anything to do with next year?

        September 16, 2011 at 7:26 pm |
      • BuffetBoy

        I'd settle for the Really Good Old Ones.

        September 16, 2011 at 8:31 pm |
  38. kso

    "www.godisimaginary.com"

    September 16, 2011 at 6:29 pm |
    • Argle Bargle

      http://www.godisreal.org

      September 16, 2011 at 6:47 pm |
      • T-Rex

        Adam and Eve were velociraptors. The Nephelim were sauropods with large teeth and insatiable appetites for proto-hominids.

        September 16, 2011 at 6:55 pm |
  39. albert

    For science to prove the "Big Bang" theory, they would have to create something from nothing. Good luck with that!

    September 16, 2011 at 6:10 pm |
    • Colin

      So Albert, where did your god come from?

      September 16, 2011 at 6:12 pm |
      • A hobby

        He didn't come from anywhere. He always has been and always will be. Faith allows for that.

        If you put your trust in science then you must come up with an answer to where the matter for the Big Bang came from.

        September 16, 2011 at 6:19 pm |
      • Colin

        A hobby, so you do believe something can come from nothing, hey? I don't. Your god is impossible. It isn't an explanation for anything. When you attribute something to god, it means you don't have an answr, so you appeal to magic to answer the question. Childish nonsense.

        September 16, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
      • Pope Jon

        A hobby

        So then you just admitted creationism is 100% pure bull-shit and one big deceitful lie.... Isn't lying against the 10 commandments?

        September 16, 2011 at 6:27 pm |
      • A hobby

        First off, you are continuing to disprove my theory as a way to prove yours. It doesn't work that way. I still want to hear your answer to where the matter came from that fueled the Big Bang.

        Second, your response misses what I said entirely. I did not say that God came from nothing. I'm saying that God didn't come from anywhere – He has always been. It's like infinity into the past. If you believe in an infinite future then there is room for an infinite past.

        September 16, 2011 at 6:32 pm |
      • A hobby

        Pope Jon you will have to explain to me how I admitted something like that. It's a pretty common belief among Christians that God has always existed. Actually, it's sort of the only belief. You know that He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end.

        And what was your theory on where the matter came from that fueled the Big Bang again?

        September 16, 2011 at 6:36 pm |
      • THE BROWN NOTE

        i can't believe people who read the bible are actually able to believe in that filth

        seriously its all screwed up from all the killing to the hate etc

        jesus himself said he wasnt here to abolish the old law-the old testament but christians time and again will say they dont have to abide by it which is funny because their jesus said that the old law is still valid until all things are finished and last i checked none of the things he said would happen have happened so that means none of it is finished

        so christians why are you pretending like you dont have to abide by the old testament laws when they are equally valid as all the funny commandments of the new testament? thats right, most christians dont read their bibles instead they listen to some preacher and do what theyre told like good little sheep instead of doing any research themselves

        glad im not a god fearing christian living day to day afraid of going to hell for farting in the wrong direction

        September 16, 2011 at 6:36 pm |
      • Observer

        A hobby,

        The hypocrisy from the believers:
        (1) To exist, something must have created it
        (2) God exists
        (3) Nothing created God

        September 16, 2011 at 6:37 pm |
      • THE BROWN NOTE

        hobby

        how is your god the beginning and the end if it has always existed

        that is contradictory

        just like the entire bible

        September 16, 2011 at 6:37 pm |
      • I_get_it

        A hobby:
        "He didn't come from anywhere. He always has been and always will be. Faith allows for that."

        Faith allows for ANYTHING. Think it and one can have faith in it. I can have faith that there is an invisible pink unicorn living in my garage.

        (sorry for repost... other one went in the wrong slot)

        September 16, 2011 at 6:46 pm |
      • A hobby

        Brown Note, beginning and end means He was around from the beginning of anything we would call time and will be here after that ceases.

        Observer,
        No, I (can only speak for myself) would say

        1) to exist, God must have created it
        2) God exists
        3) Nothing created God

        September 16, 2011 at 6:48 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        @ A hobby,

        So maybe the matter that created the Big Bang didn't come from anywhere – it has always been.

        The future is not infinite, not for earth anyway... our sun will soon (on a galactic scale) go super-nova and incinerate our planet into oblivion.

        For people to think that we were created "special" as God's favourite beings... he sure did condemn us to a grizzly future, if we even survive as a species that long.

        September 16, 2011 at 6:49 pm |
      • A hobby

        Bad argument I_GET_IT. I can prove or disprove you have a unicorn living in your garage. Once that happens faith is no longer required. We're talking about things that will not be proven or disproven and thereby require faith.

        September 16, 2011 at 6:51 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        What if it's an invisible pink unicorn?

        September 16, 2011 at 6:58 pm |
      • Ralph

        I agree with "A hobby" about the existence of God. I believe wholeheartedly that God exists and that He is the father of my spirit. I believe we lived with Him before coming to this earth. I also believe the earth is probably millions and millions of years old. I am a christian and I believe these things through (a) the scriptures and (b) personal confirmatory experiences. It matters not to me whether you believe me or not because I'm not here to convince you. I have my own personal witness and that works for me. We all must walk our own walk.

        September 16, 2011 at 6:59 pm |
      • Observer

        hobby,
        "I can prove or disprove you have a unicorn living in your garage."

        No you can't. The Bible says they exist just like God exists. You can't prove either.

        September 16, 2011 at 7:03 pm |
      • Kyle

        hobby, Why would faith be required? Your god answered the calls of proof when requested in the bible. It was asked on a few occasions to prove itself to people, and it did. So, why not now? The bible states that anything I ask for, I shall receive. If I want the mountain to move, it will. And according to the bible, these matters are all LITERAL, as so eloquently stated by others:

        "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

        Therefore, if I ask god to show itself according to the bible, it should show itself.

        Of course, your god is absolutely bipolar. In the old testament, it wants everyone dead. Then it sends it's alleged son (who claims that he'll return within the same generation of his living followers, which never happened because they all died nearly 2,000 years ago) that teaches peace and love like a drug-addicted hippie.

        You really should brush up on the bible.

        September 16, 2011 at 7:09 pm |
      • Shawn

        I find it hilarious that "God has always" existed is always within the same paragraph as "where did matter come from"?

        How can God have always existed, but not matter? If God can simply have always been there, then matter could have simply always been there. You simpleminded creationists kill your own theories.

        September 16, 2011 at 8:24 pm |
      • A hobby

        I thought about the unicorn being invisible. That throws a little complexity into the problem. I guess it would also need to have invisible and scentless droppings as well, in addition to other conveniences that would leave it undetectable to humans. Plus, how can something be pink and invisible at the same time? Isn't that the type of contradiction that most of the atheists on here are trying to pin on the believers?

        Kyle, you're angry and nothing I said implies that I need to brush up on the bible. God did reveal Himself to others. It still requires a measure of faith on my part to believe that happened as I was not present during any of those events. That being said, I have chosen to believe that there is a God out there that loves you and me very much. I can't buy into the idea that there is one and only one species of animal on this planet that is capable of ruling over all others, and is so much further advanced than any other, without there being some greater being orchestrating the whole thing. We argue in website comment boards, sipping coffee, sitting in temperature controlled homes while the next closest thing out there can use a stick to lure ants out of a tree stump.

        September 16, 2011 at 8:46 pm |
      • physics

        as there was no space or time or space/time before the big bang, it's not necessary for something to have started it, since something couldn't have existed without space/time. Or maybe it's all about the 'branes...just because we're not sure right now doesn't mean it must have some magical or divine start. The sun used to be believed to be Apollo's chariot racing across the sky, but that doesn't make it so.

        September 16, 2011 at 9:00 pm |
      • A hobby

        Shawn, I don't have a problem with you thinking that matter has always existed. If that is your answer then fine. However, I don't think any self-respecting physicist, geologist, or whatever-ist, would be satisfied with the answer that – it was always just there. They are going to want to find out where it came from. I'm curious what they might say. I have my answer. Saying that "it was always just there" and leaving it at that is just as much of an act of faith on your part as believing in God is on mine.

        September 16, 2011 at 9:03 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        @ A hobby,

        I thought (John 1:18) No man hath seen God at any time.

        So how was He revealed to others?
        As for your reply to Shawn... you're right, they probably won't accept the always been there argument... so why do you expect them to when it comes to your god?

        September 16, 2011 at 9:12 pm |
      • Kyle

        I'm not angry.

        I'm saying that it is blatantly obvious that you haven't researched your own faith.

        First and foremost, god shows itself to NO ONE. If you want to say otherwise, then prove it. The bible gives examples of people demanding god prove itself. Therefore, today, god must show itself when I demand it. Naturally, most christians will throw the old "thou shalt not tempt they lord thy god" crap in my face. To which I reply, others did it according to the contradictory bible, and they weren't punished. Their alleged god showed up and performed magic tricks.

        Another point of contention is the faith joke. The majority of christians will cram faith down your throat when you question their god. Well, if the bible states specific examples of people summoning god, then obviously those people no longer needed faith. So tell me, why is it that they were so special, but the rest of us since the novel was written are left with zero proof? Why is is that god showed itself to people thousands of years ago, but suddenly has become a deadbeat that's afraid to show off to us now? It is afraid? The irony is that ancient people were almost always willing to believe in god. Why? Because they lived primitively and thought that the stars were magical beings.

        Today, we know what's up in the sky. We know why earthquakes and floods happen. They don't happen because some imaginary being is angry.

        Today, we have logical explanations because people have taken the time to study and research these things. In ancient times, primitive people had nothing to explain anything. Hence, the birth of god.

        Just so you know, the christian religion has some roots in Greek mythology. Hell for example was derived from Greek mythology, which as we now know, is just a bunch of stories. We know this because we have ventured to Mt. Olympus and it's a pretty empty, desolate place. You know, that place where the gods lived.

        We also know that the bible references books that are supposed to be in the bible. Do you know what these books are? I bet you don't, because I know you don't know your own faith or the book that governs it. If the bible is missing books, then obviously you aren't getting the whole story. Therefore, your beloved salvation is lost.

        The jesus of the bible claimed he would return within the same generation of his living followers. He also told another group of followers that they would not make it through all of the cities of their country before he returned. There are actually more references to this in the bible, words spoken by jesus about his return. Today, christians believe he was speaking metaphorically. However, the bible states that no prophecy of the scripture is to be interpreted. This means that jesus' words are meant to be taken literally, just as every word in the bible is to be taken literally. No hidden meaning, no interpretation. Read the words in black and white and take them as they are.

        With that said, jesus will not be returning. He lied about his promise to do so. He states in the bible when he would return and that time came and went nearly 2,000 years ago.

        Before you post again, you need to know what you're talking about. It is painfully obvious you're drowning in opinion, rather than fact. And the fact is, the bible is a book of fiction.

        September 16, 2011 at 9:22 pm |
      • A hobby

        @fimeilleur Interesting how familiar you are with the bible to be quoting scripture but then turn around and plead ignorance to how God revealed himself.
        Burning bush?

        Came to earth as man, Jesus Christ (John 14:9 "If you have seen me you have seen the Father")?

        Through creation (Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.")

        September 16, 2011 at 9:28 pm |
      • Kyle

        Oooh, scripture quoting time!

        Here's jesus claiming he'll be back shortly after his own death:

        "And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." –Mark 9:1 (KJV)

        "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." –Matthew 16:28 (KJV)

        "When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes." –Matthew 10:23 (NIV)

        So tell me, why do christians still think the rapture is going to happen and jesus is going to appear in the sky on a cute little white pony? Clearly, jesus' own words claim that he was supposed to be back a LONG time ago.

        Again, do not try to say, "Well, what he REALLY meant was...." and come up with your own explanation (excuse and justification for believing in this drivel) because:

        "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

        September 16, 2011 at 9:53 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        @ A hobby;

        John 6:46: Not that any man hath seen the Father.

        So you're using the "who has seen the wind?" argument... you can feel it, see it's effects but you can't see "it" Well, the wind doesn't care if I say my prayers at night... nor does it care if I believe it exists. No one tries to impose social norms based on it's existence. We're going to need more proof than a burning bush... sorry.

        September 16, 2011 at 9:56 pm |
      • Kyle

        John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time."

        Clearly CONTRADICTS

        John 14:9 "If you have seen me you have seen the Father"

        Yet you still believe in this trash? lol

        Here are some more contradictions for you:

        http://ebonmusings.org/atheism/biblecontra.html

        September 16, 2011 at 9:56 pm |
      • A hobby

        (have to repost. this went under a different heading originally.)

        Kyle, you are angry. That's what fuels your desire to build such a case against Christianity. You can try to tear me down and play me off as some stupid believer and claim everything you say is fact while everything I say is opinion. You say it best in your last two sentences when you accuse me of drowning in opinion and then going on to state that the Bible being fictitious is factual. Your arrogance is limitless. Who are you to claim that it's fiction?
        What because the ancient Greeks had a concept of hell that's where Christianity got it from? Really? The Greeks invented the concept of hell? There were civilizations around before them that came up with that concept on there own. And yes, I'm familiar with the Apocrypha and why it is not included in the Bible.
        Your not the first person I've heard misconstrue Jesus' claims, whether intentionally or ignorantly, but the best way to give you a straight answer is for you to check out this video – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRyABwCb3pw . I'm sure you will write it off and won't be willing to change your mind but this is the correct use of the scripture you are trying to reference, but notably not referencing any actual passages. I don't think you are reading the words in black and white but instead paraphrasing.

        September 16, 2011 at 10:44 pm |
      • Kyle

        Already replied. You've got a lot to explain.

        September 16, 2011 at 10:59 pm |
    • Answer

      There are other things at work besides the 'Big Bang', which was the end result of another process. When considering everything in the universe, you have to question many things, but eventually random circumstance leads to answers. In one case, trying to solve the mystery of the division of something by zero. In math it is undefined, but it you are to substitute in everything for a number, and nothing for zero, then the answer would be infinity. Infinite nothingness can go into anything. From this, it becomes known that if something was crushed to finite particles, then it would surpass the nothingness state and cross over in polarity of the universe, across what is known as Null, or the zero barrier. If we are in one side now, then the other side is where matter that has achieved this state can go. Thinking in terms of black holes, the intense gravity crushes down until it is large enough (none are at the moment) to make this work, thus pushing things into the other side. As something crosses null, it reaches insane velocities and energy, resulting in an explosion on the other side. Or a 'Big Bang'.

      This instance explains where things come from, and where things can go, and supports the multiverse scenario.

      September 16, 2011 at 6:26 pm |
      • Andrew

        Can you please use a bit more, erm, technical notation? I can't really understand what you're talking about, especially "substitute nothing for zero". It sounds kinda like you're talking about the dirac delta, where for an infinitely small region you have "infinity" and everywhere else you have zero, which is defined to integrate to one, but I'm really not sure. I can't quite get what you're trying to argue.

        September 16, 2011 at 6:53 pm |
      • Answer

        (number/zero) is represented by (something/nothing)

        A number (like 1) divided by zero doesn't work in math. But if you have a desk, how much nothing can you put in it? Since nothing isn't a quantity, infinite amounts can go into any object you have. As for the desk, infinite nothingness can fill it.

        Most of the data on the theory is off paper, but the general idea isn't too difficult to follow. The tricky part I left out, since that would take more words than the article above.

        September 16, 2011 at 7:17 pm |
    • Sky Daddy

      You can tell you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.

      September 16, 2011 at 6:28 pm |
      • A hobby

        Whom does He hate?

        September 16, 2011 at 6:39 pm |
      • Kyle

        hobby,

        The god of the bible hates a lot of people actually. For you to actually ask this question proves that you've never actually opened a bible and read it.

        For starters, he allegedly killed off everyone on the planet with a flood. Allegedly, he killed off a lot of babies. Plagues, let's not forget about all of those... Open a bible. Read it.

        (God punishes David for ordering a census of his people.) Yahweh spoke to Gad, David's seer, saying, Go and speak to David, saying, Thus says Yahweh, I offer you three things: choose you one of them, that I may do it to you. So Gad came to David, and said to him, Thus says Yahweh, Take which you will: either three years of famine; or three months to be consumed before your foes, while the sword of your enemies overtakes you; or else three days the sword of Yahweh, even pestilence in the land, and the angel of Yahweh destroying throughout all the borders of Israel. Now therefore consider what answer I shall return to him who sent me. David said to Gad, I am in a great strait: let me fall, I pray, into the hand of Yahweh; for very great are his mercies: and let me not fall into the hand of man. So Yahweh sent a pestilence on Israel; and there fell of Israel seventy thousand men. (1 Chronicles 21:9-14 WEB)

        "Next we headed for the land of Bashan, where King Og and his army attacked us at Edrei. But the LORD told me, 'Do not be afraid of him, for I have given you victory over Og and his army, giving you his entire land. Treat him just as you treated King Sihon of the Amorites, who ruled in Heshbon.' So the LORD our God handed King Og and all his people over to us, and we killed them all. We conquered all sixty of his towns, the entire Argob region in his kingdom of Bashan. These were all fortified cities with high walls and barred gates. We also took many unwalled villages at the same time. We completely destroyed the kingdom of Bashan, just as we had destroyed King Sihon of Heshbon. We destroyed all the people in every town we conquered – men, women, and children alike. But we kept all the livestock for ourselves and took plunder from all the towns." (Deuteronomy 3:1-7 NLT)

        Then Jehoiada made a covenant between the LORD and the king and the people that they would be the LORD's people. He also made a covenant between the king and the people. And all the people of the land went over to the temple of Baal and tore it down. They demolished the altars and smashed the idols to pieces, and they killed Mattan the priest of Baal in front of the altars. Jehoiada the priest stationed guards at the Temple of the LORD. Then the commanders, the Carite mercenaries, the guards, and all the people of the land escorted the king from the Temple of the LORD. They went through the gate of the guards and into the palace, and the king took his seat on the royal throne. (2 Kings 11:17-19 NLT)

        I could go one all day long. Your god doesn't like competition. So loving and peaceful and merciful it is.

        September 16, 2011 at 6:59 pm |
      • A hobby

        You really could go on all day, especially when you take my very short question and switch out "hate" with "punish" and put it in the past tense. You seem more upset at the idea that God could be real than anything else.

        September 16, 2011 at 10:35 pm |
      • Kyle

        I'm just providing specific examples from your bible. You can't dispute it. You're the one that believes in this filth.

        Why would I think god exists? I've given this alleged god every opportunity to prove itself to me. Just as the bible states, everything I ask, I shall receive. Well, I asked for god, and I did not receive. Therefore, there is no god, well, at least not the one made up in the bible.

        As I have stated time and again, the bible makes plenty of promises but falls short on EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM.

        Wake up.

        September 16, 2011 at 10:54 pm |
    • Sky Daddy

      No one ever converted to Christianity because they lost the argument.

      September 16, 2011 at 6:29 pm |
    • Kyle

      Yeah. good luck proving your magical sky hostess exists.

      Let's see, dinosaurs existed... long before man. We are able to date the time dinosaurs existed. Yet the bible states that every day to god is equal to 1,000 years here on earth. The universe according to the bible was created in 6,000 years. This places the age of the Universe at what, based on the lifespans of people listed in the bible, something like 12,000 years?

      Before you go on to say anything about the bible being correct and that it's "not what it really means in terms of time," you should also know that the words are in black and white. And according to the bible, no scripture is open for interpretation. It is meant to be taken literally.

      Therefore, we'd all like you to prove that Mr. Magical Sky Hostess exists before you go on about your doubts about the THEORY of the big bang. That's another thing you should think about. There are multiple THEORIES about the origins of the Universe as we now know it. Science doesn't make the mistake of your precious bible. Science theorizes because despite how much more advanced it is than any of these trash religious texts are, it knows that it can be proven wrong from time to time. At least science has the ability to take being corrected. The bible on the other hand, lol. Good luck with that. So much of it has been proven wrong/contradictory that I don't know how believers can still exist. Yet your kind keep churning out more of your garbage.

      September 16, 2011 at 6:30 pm |
      • Dlogic

        Its so amazin that the creator of all matter have such patience for creatures like us who can create nothing but have a strong imagination within themselves that they know the unknowable . That which existed before all matter.

        September 16, 2011 at 7:28 pm |
      • Kyle

        It's amazing how many people are stupid enough to believe in a bible which has been time and again been proven incorrect, contradictory, and full of flat-out lies.

        September 16, 2011 at 7:47 pm |
      • Atticus

        Once again, I shall post this as it expains why the story CANNOT be true about the feathers being from God' Kingdom:

        the Lord giveth – the Lord may take away! These feathers come from the hand of man. As such they predate the existence of the animal. Earth was not yet born, so we must be careful to accept all that is put before the eyes of man as His Truth! For one thing carbon is used to get the date of these ancient artifacts and carbon was not invented until the iron age of man.

        September 17, 2011 at 1:57 am |
    • BuckeyeJim

      I thought God did that.

      September 16, 2011 at 6:32 pm |
    • I_get_it

      A hobby:
      "He didn't come from anywhere. He always has been and always will be. Faith allows for that."

      Faith allows for ANYTHING. Think it and one can have faith in it. I can have faith that there is an invisible pink unicorn living in my garage.

      September 16, 2011 at 6:44 pm |
    • Judas Priest

      Just because something is not fully understood and easily explicable (by your standards) does not mean that it does not happen or does not exist. Before Newton, did a lack of a theory of gravitation keep things from falling?

      September 16, 2011 at 6:50 pm |
    • Pirate Hooker

      Well, if you take two seconds to open a science book, or even read a science journal, you would see that physicists have already proved that something can come from nothing. The method of "how" is unknown, but just because science hasn't discovered it does not mean "God did it". Your attempt to answer an unknown question with your own philosophy is logically and ignorantly flawed. If you want to say that God did something, as the positive claimant the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that.

      I don't mean to sound condescending, but physics and cosmology are not the easiest of subjects to understand. But I can assure you that an insurmountable amount of evidence has shown the Big Bang theory to be the best possible explanation for the origins of the universe. In fact, the cosmic microwave background leftover from the Big Bang is physically observable. You need to get your source of facts and information from the original source; in this case, physicists and cosmologists–in other words, people who study that particular field of science. In the same sense, you should trust an evolutionary biologist when he and others have come across something as fantastic as evolution. When you start to trust people who aren't authorities on the issue, it is illogical to believe that they know what they're talking about. In other words, a priest who doesn't have a scientific degree cannot be a scientific authority.

      September 16, 2011 at 6:53 pm |
      • Kyle

        I <3 Pirates.

        September 16, 2011 at 7:14 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        I <3 pirate hookers even better... :-)

        September 16, 2011 at 10:00 pm |
      • J

        So I guess, 100 years ago, the right thing to do was trust all the leading physicists and astronomers when they believed in the "ether". After all, the prevailing scientific theory can't be wrong! :)

        September 16, 2011 at 11:56 pm |
    • John B

      "Pope Jon
      A hobby
      So then you just admitted creationism is 100% pure bull-shit and one big deceitful lie.... Isn't lying against the 10 commandments?"

      Please dont get into a theological discussion when you can't get your facts right. The 10 commandments mentions NOTHING about lying....you moron.

      September 16, 2011 at 7:02 pm |
      • Kyle

        There are actually two sets of ten commandments. The christian god allegedly wrote them down. Then they were destroyed. It promised to write down the same ten commandments, but instead, those that were written were different.

        Exodus 34:

        (1) Do not worship any god other than Yahweh.
        (2) Do not make molten gods.
        (3) Keep the feast of unleavened bread.
        (4) The firstborn offspring of every cow and sheep is to be sacrificed to God.
        (5) The seventh day of each week is set aside to rest.
        (6) Observe the feast of weeks.
        (7) All male children must appear before God three times per year.
        (8) The blood of a sacrifice shall not be offered together with yeast, nor shall the sacrifice of the Passover feast be left until the next morning.
        (9) The "first of the firstfruits" of the land are to be brought before God.
        (10) Do not boil a baby goat in its mother's milk.

        And the other set from Exodus 20:

        First Commandment: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." (Exodus 20:3)
        Second Commandment: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." (Exodus 20:4-6)
        Third Commandment: "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain." (Exodus 20:7)
        Fourth Commandment: "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." (Exodus 20:8-11)
        Fifth Commandment: "Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee." (Exodus 20:12)
        Sixth Commandment: "Thou shalt not kill." (Exodus 20:13)
        Seventh Commandment: "Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:14)
        Eighth Commandment: "Thou shalt not steal." (Exodus 20:15)
        Ninth Commandment: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." (Exodus 20:16)
        Tenth Commandment: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's." (Exodus 20:17)

        And of course, we can't forget the scripture about what a mighty fine god the bible is and how loving and gentle and kind he is!

        1. Exodus 22:20: He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

        2. Leviticus 24:16: And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death.

        3. Exodus 31:15: Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

        4. Exodus 21:15: He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

        5. Exodus 21:17: He that curseth his father or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

        6. Exodus 22:19: Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.

        7. Leviticus 20:13: If a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death.

        8. Leviticus 20:10: And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.

        9. Mark 16:16: He that believeth not, shall be damned.

        10. Malachi 2:1-4: And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you. If you will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart to give glory to my name, ... behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces.

        September 16, 2011 at 7:36 pm |
    • A hobby

      Kyle, you are angry. That's what fuels your desire to build such a case against Christianity. You can try to tear me down and play me off as some stupid believer and claim everything you say is fact while everything I say is opinion. You say it best in your last two sentences when you accuse me of drowning in opinion and then going on to state that the Bible being fictitious is factual. Your arrogance is limitless. Who are you to claim that it's fiction?
      What because the ancient Greeks had a concept of hell that's where Christianity got it from? Really? The Greeks invented the concept of hell? There were civilizations around before them that came up with that concept on there own. And yes, I'm familiar with the Apocrypha and why it is not included in the Bible.
      Your not the first person I've heard misconstrue Jesus' claims, whether intentionally or ignorantly, but the best way to give you a straight answer is for you to check out this video – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRyABwCb3pw . I'm sure you will write it off and won't be willing to change your mind but this is the correct use of the scripture you are trying to reference, but notably not referencing any actual passages. I don't think you are reading the words in black and white but instead paraphrasing.

      September 16, 2011 at 10:01 pm |
      • Kyle

        Seriously?

        The bible IS fiction. Period.

        Want me to watch a video? Here's something that completely tears the bible to SHREDS.

        http://ebonmusings.org/atheism/index.html

        Paraphrasing? Please. Black and white scripture is black and white scripture. I spent decades in the church believing in this garbage.

        Why is it that there are two creation account in the first two chapters of Genesis? They couldn't get that right in the first two chapters... so you think that the rest of the bible is believable? The bible contradicts itself on many occasions. The bible makes false predictions. Not only that, but jesus lied about his return. You believe in something that is blatantly FALSE and has been PROVEN to be false, and you call me arrogant?

        This may come as a shocker to you, but the Greeks wrote the new testament. The same people that previously believed in Greek mythology included Greek mythology in the bible. You don't know your history. There were specific entries in the bible referencing Greek mythology, not simple descriptive words, but SPECIFIC words.

        For example, Tartarus. It is a specific reference to a place only in Greek mythology. Why is this place referenced in the new testament? It's because christianity is not an all-original religion. Greek mythology lent a couple of other ideas to spawn christianity, such as the idea that a woman caused the fall of mankind, and both have a savior figure (just like the Matrix movies).

        In everything I have posted that is completely within context, without paraphrasing (because if you read your scripture, you'll find there is no need to), answer me this: Where is your god? Where is jesus? Why has he not return? He said he would nearly 2,000 years ago.

        Answer those questions. Specific promises and claims were made by jesus with logical time frames and those things never happened.

        Explain why the bible is full of contradictions. Explain why ANYONE should believe in any of it when the bible specifically nulls and voids itself on a number of occasions.

        Explain why anyone should believe in it when god itself says it'll do one thing and then does another, such as the rewriting of the ten commandments.

        Explain why anyone should worship a pile of garbage god that murders people by the thousands, and has a taste for killing babies. Give me a logical explanation, because according to the bible, god hates anyone who goes after innocent blood. Are babies not innocent? Then why is it ok for such a wonderful, loving being to have babies killed?

        Explain to me why anyone should believe in a book that gives specific times of creation, yet those times have been PROVEN to be grossly inaccurate.

        How about the flood that killed everyone? This one is two-fold.

        A. It never happened.

        B. Although the bible claims it happened, why would anyone in their right mind worship a being with a temper? According to the bible, god regrets creating man, so he murders all but 8 of them.

        According to the bible, men who are into other men are to be put to death. Talk about a loving god, eh? It creates man with so-called "flaws," and then it has those same people killed because it does not like flaws. Irony!

        I think god needs to start taking some anti-psychotic meds.

        How about salvation itself? Explain which is the right way to heaven, because the bible can't seem to get this right either.

        This verse says faith will get you into heaven:

        "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast." –Ephesians 2:8-9 (KJV)

        This verse states that one has to be baptized or they go to hell:

        "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." –John 3:5 (KJV)

        And then this verse claims salvation through works:

        "[God] will render to every man according to his deeds, to them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life...." –Romans 2:6,7 (KJV)

        Well, which is it? If you get the answer wrong, you won't be saved! Oh no!

        THE ALL POWERFUL GOD.... has a little difficulty with some tasks:

        Judges 1:19
        "And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."

        You have a lot of explaining to do. Get to it.

        September 16, 2011 at 10:39 pm |
      • Kyle

        Just to make sure there is no confusion... I don't paraphrase scripture at all.

        Black and white, straight from the bible for the full effect of just how screwed up, wrong, and deceitful the bible really is.

        The truth is, I think you're afraid to see that your faith is wasted on a religion that you know in your heart means nothing.

        September 16, 2011 at 10:42 pm |
      • THE BROWN NOTE

        there is no hope for people that believe int the bible after being shown the truth about how much it sucks

        they are idiots quit wasting youur time trying to help them

        i wonder what its like wasting your entire life devoting yourself to a lie

        im so glad im not a worthless christian

        instead of praying for stuff i actually work for a living

        go figure

        September 16, 2011 at 10:58 pm |
      • A hobby

        Well you proved my point on the video. Not so much that you won't watch it, you just are not open to hearing anything other than your opinion. I'm glad to see your true colors though and that you finally dropped that b.s. act of pretending that God does not exist and calling Him an 'it.' Clearly you believe there is a God. You just don't like Him. You telling me that I'm 'wasting' my faith proves my point. If you really thought we were all here as an accident you would know that you can't waste anything if our existence is an accident.
        I don't have anything to explain. I know that I am saved and will be in heaven one day as I am sure you will be too considering you most likely asked for His forgiveness for your life at some point in your church going days.

        September 16, 2011 at 11:23 pm |
      • Short Trip To Tomorrow - BRB

        Hobby,

        Constantine has you by the brain.
        Please read about the council of Nicea, and how your little book was put together.
        Also the Jesus story is a repeat, repeat, repeat.....
        they just keep changing the name.

        September 17, 2011 at 8:03 am |
  40. Colin

    Amazing that, in the 21st Century, simpletons still give credence to Bronze Age mythology, but to get a gauge of just how inane the belief in Adam and Eve is, here are some areas fundamentalists must ignore, any one of which proves beyond rational argument that, not surprisingly, the World did not start about 6,000 years ago at the behest of the Judeo-Christian god, with one man, one woman and a talking snake.

    First and most obviously is the fossil record. The fossil record is much, much more than just dinosaurs. Indeed, dinosaurs only get the press because of their size, but they make up less than 1% of the entire fossil record. Life had been evolving on Earth for over 3 thousand million years before dinosaurs evolved and has gone on evolving for 65 million years after the Chicxulub meteor wiped them out.

    The fossil record includes the Stromatolites, colonies of prokaryotic bacteria, that range in age going back to about 3 billion years, the Ediacara fossils from South Australia, widely regarded as among the earliest multi-celled organisms, the Cambrian species of the Burgess shale in Canada (circa – 450 million years) the giant scorpions of the Silurian Period, the giant, wingless insects of the Devonian period, the insects, amphibians, reptiles; fishes, clams, crustaceans of the Carboniferous Period, the many precursors to the dinosaurs, the dinosaurs themselves, the subsequent dominant mammals, including the saber tooth tiger, the mammoths of North America and Asia, the fossils of early man in Africa and the Neanderthals of Europe.

    The fossil record shows a consistent and worldwide 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 geological 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. Were they all on the ark? What happened to them when it docked?

    A Tyrannosaurus Rex ate a lot of food – meat- which means its food would itself have to have been fed, like the food of every other carnivore on the ark. A bit of “back of the envelope” math quickly shows that “Noah’s Ark” would actually have to have been an armada of ships bigger than the D Day invasion force, manned by thousands and thousands of people – and this is without including the World’s 300,000 current species of plants, none of which could walk merrily in twos onto the Ark.

    Secondly, there are those little things we call oil, natural gas and other fossil fuels. Their mere existence is another, independent and fatal blow to the creationists. Speak to any geologist who works for Exxon Mobil, Shell or any of the thousands of mining, oil or natural gas related companies that make a living finding fossil fuels. They will tell you these fossil fuels take millions of years to develop from the remains of large forests (in the case of coal) or tiny marine creatures (in the case of oil). 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 how to date the rocks to millions of years ago. Creationists have no credible explanation for this (nor for why most of it was “given to the Muslims”).

    Thirdly, most of astronomy and cosmology would be wrong if the creationists were right. In short, as Einstein 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, this is 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 galaxies whose light left home 13.7 billion years ago. Indeed, on a clear night, one can see many stars more than 6,000 light years away with the naked eye, shining down like tiny silent witnesses against the nonsense of creationism.

    Fourthly, we have not just carbon dating, but also all other methods used by scientists to date wood, rocks, fossils, and other artifacts. These comprehensively disprove the Bible’s claims. They include 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 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 independent results would rarely agree. They generally do. They regularly reveal ages much older than Genesis. Indeed, the Earth is about 750,000 times older than the Bible claims.

    Fifthly, the relatively new field 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 human DNA is identical to that of chimpanzees, about 97% of human DNA is identical to that of gorillas, and slightly less again of human DNA is identical to the DNA of monkeys. This gradual divergence in DNA can only be rationally explained by the two species diverging from a common ancestor, and coincides perfectly with the fossil record. 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 fatal blow to the “talking snake” theory.

    Sixthly, the entire field of historical linguistics would have to be rewritten to accommodate the Bible. 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 Babel, the creationists’ explanation for different languages. Indeed, American Indians, Australian Aboriginals, “true” Indians, Chinese, Mongols, Ja.panese, 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.

    Seventhly, lactose intolerance is also a clear vestige of human evolution. Most mammals only consume milk as infants. After infancy, they no longer produce the enzyme “lactase” that digests the lactose in milk and so become lactose intolerant. Humans are an exception and can drink milk as adults – but not all humans – some humans remain lactose intolerant. So which humans are no longer lactose intolerant? The answer is 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.

    I could go on and elaborate on a number of other disciplines or facts that creationists have to pretend into oblivion to retain their faith, including the Ice Ages, cavemen and early hominids, much of microbiology, 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).

    In short, and not surprisingly, the World’s most gifted evolutionary biologists, astronomers, cosmologists, geologists, archeologists, paleontologists, historians, modern medical researchers and linguists (and about 2,000 years of accu.mulated knowledge) are right and a handful of Iron Age Middle Eastern goat herders were wrong.

    September 16, 2011 at 6:07 pm |
    • *yawn*

      Besides your post was filled with ad hominems ("bronze age mythology") and fallacious arguments from authority ("the world's most intelligent scientists vs. sheep herders"), it confuses religion with the existence of a god, and pretends that the existence of a god and scientific fact are mutually exclusive.

      If you were aiming only at religion, fine.

      September 16, 2011 at 6:12 pm |
      • Pirate Hooker

        You really have NO concept of logic and how it works. Please brush up on what an argument from authority really means. It's not illogical to use an evolutionary biologist as a source of authority on evolution. It would, however, be an argument from ignorance to use a medical doctor as an authority on evolution. That's the difference. One is logical, the other is not. You can't just go around accusing people of using an argument from authority every time they quote a source.

        September 16, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
      • *yawn*

        pirate: "You really have NO concept of logic and how it works. Please brush up on what an argument from authority really means."

        Not really. An argument from authority is an argument that bases its "truthfulness" on the fact that "some authority" said it was true.

        "It's not illogical to use an evolutionary biologist as a source of authority on evolution. It would, however, be an argument from ignorance to use a medical doctor as an authority on evolution. That's the difference. One is logical, the other is not."

        See above.

        September 16, 2011 at 6:27 pm |
      • *yawn*

        pirate: "You really have NO concept of logic and how it works. Please brush up on what an argument from authority really means."

        Let me reiterate so you don't get confused:

        An argument from authority is an argument that bases its "truthfulness" on the fact that "some authority" said it was true. Why is this fallacious? Because instead of evaluating the merits of the person's positions or arguments, you merely say they're an "expert" and so "therefore they're right".

        September 16, 2011 at 6:31 pm |
      • Colin

        I'm out of here. Discussing something with a creationist is like debating quantum physics with a p.oodle. I leave it to more patient souls to pry their minds open against the deep pschological insecurities that underwrite their silly sky-fairy beliefs.

        September 16, 2011 at 6:32 pm |
      • *yawn*

        colin: "Discussing something with a creationist is like debating quantum physics with a p.oodle. I leave it to more patient souls to pry their minds open against the deep pschological insecurities that underwrite their silly sky-fairy beliefs."

        Ah, yes. When you can't answer the questions, or defend your position, merely call people names and leave.

        How intellectual of you.

        "creationist"

        Who said I'm a creationist? I pointed out the fallacies in your argument. Namely, that you're arguing from authority, rather than proving why you're right.

        September 16, 2011 at 6:35 pm |
      • Pirate Hooker

        Hey *yawn*, since everyone is so illogical, let's hear your logical response to this article. I see you pointing out flaws left and right, yet I have yet to see you demonstrate something of value. And you still need to get a clue on the whole "appeal to authority" argument, since I see once again you have failed to grasp it.

        September 16, 2011 at 7:00 pm |
      • hammertime

        LOOK AT ME, I'M AN INTERNET TOUGHT GUY!!!!!
        BTW, god created science and evolution. And god got this gig after obtaining his masters at Brown. But before all of this silliness began, God was yet just a young boy trying to make it out in the real world. In west Philadelphia where he was born and raised, on the playground was where he spent most of his days. Chillin' out maxin' relaxin' all cool, and all shootin some b-ball outside of school! When a couple of guys, who were up to no good, started making trouble in his neighborhood. He got in one little fight and his mom got scared, and she said 'You're movin' with your auntie and uncle in Bel Air'. He begged and pleaded with her day after day, but she packed his suite case and sent him on his way. She gave him a kiss and then she gave him his ticket. He put his walkman on and said, 'I might as well kick it'. He whistled for a cab and when it came near, the license plate said fresh and it had dice in the mirror!! If anything he could say is that this cab was rare, but he thought 'Man forget it' – 'Yo home to Bel Air'!!!!! He pulled up to the house about seven or eight, and he yelled to the cabbie 'Yo homes smell ya later'. He looked to his "kingdom", he was finally there.........to sit on his throne as the Prince of Bel Air!!

        September 16, 2011 at 7:18 pm |
    • Colin

      It is Bronze Age mythology, it is the juxtaposition of science against the beliefs of poor Middle Easterners from 2,000 year ago and belief in a god is religion.

      September 16, 2011 at 6:15 pm |
      • *yawn*

        colin: "It is Bronze Age mythology, it is the juxtaposition of science against the beliefs of poor Middle Easterners from 2,000 year ago and belief in a god is religion."

        Sorry to burst your bubble, but ad hominems aren't arguments.

        You may as well say that geometry and algebra are "false" because the Greeks were "primitive" people who believed in pagan mythology.

        The absurdity of some of their beliefs, or their "primitive" nature, have no bearing on the merits of their beliefs.

        Or does that logic escape you?

        September 16, 2011 at 6:21 pm |
      • Colin

        Yawn, I am not saying their beliefs are wrong simply because they are old, I am saying their beliefs are wrong because 2,000 years of later acquired knoweldge shows them to be wrong to all but the most ignorant of Bible-cuddlers who have a deep psychological need to believe in this mythology.

        September 16, 2011 at 6:27 pm |
      • *yawn*

        colin: "I am saying their beliefs are wrong because 2,000 years of later acquired knoweldge shows them to be wrong"

        Then why is your post filled with ad hominems, and why do you treat your ad hominems ("sheepherders" vs. the world's greatest scientists) as if they somehow proved something?

        If you noticed, I said explicitly that if your post was aimed at showing how and why a fundamentalist interpretation of the bible was wrong, then my criticism was misplaced.

        September 16, 2011 at 6:34 pm |
      • THE BROWN NOTE

        yawn

        why do you keep saying "ad hominems" over and over and over like a broken record

        you have thus far proven nothing other than you have nothing to offer anyone but the term "ad hominems"

        ad hominems

        enjoy your ad hominems

        and have some ad hominemsfor dinner and save some ad hominemsfor breakfast in the morning because as we all know we cant survive without ad hominems

        ad hominems

        September 16, 2011 at 6:42 pm |
      • *yawn*

        brown: "why do you keep saying "ad hominems" over and over and over like a broken record"

        Hmm..shouldn't be hard to figure out, even for a troll like you. It's because he's taking his ad hominems and arguments from authority to be proofs of fact. Except what he fails to realize (time and again) is that both are fallacies and, hence, can prove nothing.

        Good job? :)

        September 16, 2011 at 6:45 pm |
      • THE BROWN NOTE

        im the troll?

        you have yet to prove any point other than your love of the abuse of the term "ad hominems"

        thanks for showing off your superior and regal scholarship but you have yet to bring anything worthwhile to any debate here

        you should probably try your hand at ping pong

        i doubt you could succeed at much else other than calling people trolls and spouting "ad hominems" until the end of time

        ad hominems troll

        September 16, 2011 at 7:20 pm |
    • albert

      You are making the assumption that what so-called "Christians" teach is from the Bible. You are talking about people that celebrate holidays like Christmas and Easter which are nowhere to be found in the Bible. The Bible and science are very compatible. Contrary to popular belief, the Bible says that the earth is a sphere (round), the Bible also acknowledges that the Earth is perhaps billions of years old. You need to be careful with your logic. You too come across as a simpleton. The fossil record evidence is NOT conclusive. Although I admire your ability to copy and paste, I question you ability to reason in a biased manner. You have obviously not read let alone studied the Bible.

      September 16, 2011 at 6:15 pm |
      • Simon

        C'mon, don't be ridiculous. The bible has the Earth created before the sun and the moon and the stars .It has plants created before there is light. If it was the revealed word of the creator of the universe surely it would contain some information that was beyond the knowledge of the people of that time. Instead it is full of the false beliefs of ignorant pre-scientific people. God has always only ever been the explanation for "that which we do not understand". Which back then was pretty much everything. Now that we ahve explained withscience the nature of planets and tides and winds and rain and earhtquakes and lighting and thunder and earthquakes and droughts and disease etc. etc. there is no need for a god anywhere. The only place you ignorant bronze age peasants have left for your god is before the big bang and only because science hasn't got there yet. There are only 2 choices – science has explained it or we don't know yet. Your god doesn't come into it.

        September 16, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
      • Kyle

        The bible says that a day to god is a thousand years to humans. The bible says no scripture is for personal interpretation. Therefore the universe is merely a few thousand years old according to the bible.

        Christmas, Easter. Who cares. Made up holidays people celebrate. Why dd you even bother to bring those up?

        September 16, 2011 at 6:48 pm |
      • Kyle

        By the way, science is not compatible with the bible.

        You accuse people of not knowing what's in the bible, you obviously have no clue what's in it yourself or you wouldn't be arguing in favor of it. I used to be just like you, until I read the bloody thing. Do a little research. If you still actually believe in it after you actually RESEARCH what it says without interpreting it (because the bible specifically says not to do that), then you're absolutely brain dead.

        Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaah Sheep.

        September 16, 2011 at 6:51 pm |
      • BuffetBoy

        Well said!

        September 16, 2011 at 8:33 pm |
    • TheTruth72

      How long was the first 6 days? Do they have to be in our terms of a day? A talking snake doesn't necessarily have to be what we assume it to be. Maybe it was a demon that had the form of a snake or snake-like form? Have you thought of the idea of thermodynamics regarding before and after Noah's time? Maybe there was a watershield around the earth and God supplied a force to the system. Things lived quite a long time. Now after the flood in Noah's day you can see that things started dying off pretty fast. Did you know there are some lizards that continue to grow until death? If they were to have a REALLY long life, would they look like dinosaurs? Interesting stuff huh?

      September 16, 2011 at 6:16 pm |
      • Kyle

        According to the bible, one day to god is equal to 1,000 human years. It is specifically stated in the bible.

        September 16, 2011 at 7:22 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        I think I peed my pants reading your response. Thank you, I needed a good lol.

        Please name all three laws of thermodynamics if you want to claim you know anything about it... ... ...
        Ok, so I'm guessing you're implying the 2nd law of thermodynamics, seeing as it's the only one that creatards know about, and I'm going to educate you on an important fact about the 2nd law: it only applies to a CLOSED system... the earth (because it receives it's energy from the sun) is NOT a closed system... so the laws of thermodynamics DON'T apply.

        Now about them there giants... *giggle*, where are all the bones? Why aren't the Chinchorro mummies 16 feet tall? I'll save you the time to google them... they are from 5000 BCE (I think your flood is somewhere between 4000 and 3000 BCE or if you believe Answers in Genesis: 2304 BCE (+/- 9 years)... Ooops... funny what a little research can do...

        September 16, 2011 at 7:31 pm |
    • Colin

      @Albert. Please show me tha passages from the Bbile that support an Earth billions of years old or round. I bet you can't. Your Bronze Age mythology is totally imcompatible with science. It is childish and barbaric nonsense.

      September 16, 2011 at 6:19 pm |
    • Colin

      Truth72 – no, not interesting stuff. Nothing you said is either correct or interesting. It is consistent with what you talking-snake crowd always say.

      September 16, 2011 at 6:21 pm |
    • SciGuy

      A baby t.Rex would eat much less, and a hibernating one nothing at all. You ought to at least read some of the possible scenarios under which a worldwide flood and Noah's ark are conceivable. Anyone who has swallowed many of the just-so evolutionary stories shouldn't bat an eye at the suppositions of the Noah apologists.

      September 16, 2011 at 6:25 pm |
    • helpermonkey

      Cool story, Bro. Keep calm and Chive On.

      September 16, 2011 at 6:26 pm |
    • djcrystar

      dude you took the words right out of my mouth....lol

      September 16, 2011 at 6:31 pm |
    • Dlogic

      How do you know if this very moment that we are conversing that what you call reality is really exist only to cause you to react the way you are now , by trying to understand the wickedness of man. Every house is constructed by someone . The earth is your house. Be happy an promote peace an be humble until it all change or until you die. Maybe just maybe you will be remembered by the one you can never completely know but he know all about you.

      September 16, 2011 at 8:12 pm |
    • lynn boyd stites

      Please remember that people who say they believe in creation, are absolutely right, that is their belief. It is not based on logic or science, in fact arguments on science and logic only reinforce their beliefs. Beliefs are, I think, unrelated to science or factually correct conclusions following from science. I care a great deal about science, and little about creationists or their beliefs and do care to waste time discussing the issue with them - it's pointless.

      September 17, 2011 at 1:26 pm |
  41. Mateo

    To the folks picking on Tea Party members and Republicans because they believe in creationism be nice. Afterall, they believe in trickle down econimics too.

    September 16, 2011 at 6:06 pm |
    • Trystan

      Well, at least they didn't vote an incompetent muslim senator with zero experience into office that can't figure out how to do anything, at all. Democrats are known to be self-professed geniuses, but in my experience, about 99% of them are complete idiots. I guess that's what should be expected of people who submerge themselves in substance abuse. Well, that and foreigners who think we owe them our paychecks. They're classic democrats. Yay socialism. If you like it so much, move to canada.

      Of course, I'm sure you'll vote for him again come election time.

      Thanks in advance for taking part in the destruction of our country.

      September 16, 2011 at 7:58 pm |
      • physics

        You know he's not muslim, right? And even if he was...who gives a rat's boo-tay?

        September 16, 2011 at 9:08 pm |
      • Trystan

        Yes indeed.

        It always gets the liberals all angry though. And for the record, I'm not a liberal or a conservative. I have no interest in party lines.

        September 16, 2011 at 9:59 pm |
      • Short Trip To Tomorrow - BRB

        Hey Trystan,
        George W Bush may be the only man in history
        who had an oil company (arbusto energy) go belly up on him,
        and you fools voted for him TWICE !!!!!!!

        September 17, 2011 at 7:57 am |
  42. Pope Jon

    Don't you people know that if you don't have an answer as to how something happened then god created it? So really stop research of all kind because god created it.... There's no more need for science. Creationism is all the science you need to know. But wait, how can creationism be science if god is the answer to creating everything? I'm confused, is creationism science or religion?....

    September 16, 2011 at 5:59 pm |
    • HamsterDancer

      LOL! Well said!

      September 16, 2011 at 6:04 pm |
    • Realist

      christians believe in Santa Clause too! bunch of former african slave owning lazy inbred retards!!!

      September 16, 2011 at 6:05 pm |
      • TheTruth72

        Who said Christians believe in Santa Claus. Please show me the research.

        September 16, 2011 at 6:08 pm |
      • Yeah

        Your acting just as ignorant as the people you hate.

        September 16, 2011 at 6:14 pm |
      • Pope Jon

        Santa Claus a lie Christians have to tell their kids to get them excited about another fictitious event even though lying goes against their ten commandments....

        September 16, 2011 at 6:14 pm |
      • JoePub

        If the slave owners were a bunch of lazy inbred retards, then that doesn't say much about the people that managed to be imprisoned.

        September 16, 2011 at 6:16 pm |
      • JoePub

        Yeah, your house must be a bowl of laughs and cheers around the holidays. BTW, there really was a Santa Claus.

        September 16, 2011 at 7:00 pm |
      • Pope Jon

        There was a Jesus to but he didn't come down your chimney and eat your cookies....

        September 16, 2011 at 7:05 pm |
    • SciGuy

      Similarly, evolution fails, because it can explain everything, and therefore, nothing. Does a creature have bright plumage? That's because it was used to attract mates. Another has dull plumage? No problem, it needed that to avoid predators. Uh huh, I see.

      September 16, 2011 at 6:11 pm |
      • A hobby

        You hit that one on the head. Watch a Discovery show about dinosaurs and that's all that you will hear. How about this for a change – "This dinosaur was not very well evolved and the large bony mass on its back really slowed it down when trying to run away from predators. Because of this they didn't live very long."

        September 16, 2011 at 6:26 pm |
      • Simon

        It never fails: Those who attack science are those who do not understand it. You talk a lot of nonsense.

        September 16, 2011 at 6:26 pm |
      • Andrew

        Umm, being able to postulate two different answers for a rather specific question isn't "explaining everything", it's "explaining things in very narrow circumstances".

        Evolution would have a rather hard time explaining a bunny in pre-cambrian rock. Or a horse with more genetic similarities to a fly than a cow. Or endogeneous retroviral markers which show we're closer related to pigs than we are to bonobos.

        These are things that evolution would be left virtually unable to explain. Those fundamentally challenge evolutionary theory. Why colors are the way they are, however, does not. "God did it" really is a universal explanation, "god did it" could explain all of the things I mentioned, because there's no limit on what god can do. There are quite strong limits on what evolution can do or say about the diversity of life on this planet.

        September 16, 2011 at 6:39 pm |
    • kso

      what created God? and why is God to christians usually a "who?" welcome to Who-ville

      September 16, 2011 at 6:13 pm |
  43. Yeah

    It would be nice if people could ever talk about the topic on hand, instead of the 90% of the BS on here how anything posted about science there HAS to be a ridiculous argument about god vs evolution.

    September 16, 2011 at 5:49 pm |
    • cpc65

      Amen.... I mean, right on!

      September 16, 2011 at 5:50 pm |
    • BADGUY

      Hey...this is BETTER than Jurassic Park. In the movie they had only blood samples. Here we have tissues from the animals themselves. Can they be cloned?

      September 16, 2011 at 6:19 pm |
    • weallgotone

      "Like"

      September 16, 2011 at 6:26 pm |
    • Geterdone

      Do you think it is possible that Jesus actually rode one these dinosaurs to work? How cool would THAT be?

      September 16, 2011 at 6:30 pm |
  44. A hobby

    First off, I have been intrigued and fascinated, like most people, by dinosaurs ever since I was a little kid. But all of the efforts put forward by paleontologists have led to little, if anything, of value other than satisfying some curiosity of ours. What have we gained by studying dinosaurs or any fossils for that matter? Cool dino movies and toys is about all I can come up with. I know this is science, and science is important and it is human nature to be curious but half the stuff that comes out of these discoveries is purely guesswork and speculation. These scientists could come out with 100% irrefutable proof that dinosaurs listened to iPods and it wouldn't change a thing about how we live today.
    So what's my point, that we should abandon such studies? Nope. Just present that facts and stop with the theories in a science that can't the scientific process to prove anything. Do you ever watch the dinosaur specials on Discovery channel? How the dinosaurs walk, behave, look like, sound like is all a big guess but presented as fact or most-likely-true.

    September 16, 2011 at 5:48 pm |
    • T-Rex

      How about I have you for lunch?

      September 16, 2011 at 6:01 pm |
      • A hobby

        Funny T-rex. Now T-Rex do you walk with your tail off of the ground or on it? You know we used to be told by science that you dragged it along like a lizard but a while back it was 'determined' that you actually held it above the ground. Ever since that fact changed you have never ever been depicted as letting your tail touch the ground again. Seems like you would relax and put it down on the ground every once in a while, right? Oh well, we'll just go on and keep guessing. It's such an important topic anyway.

        September 16, 2011 at 6:15 pm |
      • physics

        Well, hobby, that's because scientists, unlike people such as yourself, change their opinions when evidence supports changing an opinion.

        September 16, 2011 at 9:12 pm |
    • T-Rex

      Well Mr. "A hobby", before I eat you, I should like to point out that you are confusing pseudo-scientific twaddle such as The History Channel with actual Science. Real Science operates like this: it postulates the best available theory at the time, until more facts or observations come along that disprove that theory, at which point a new theory (to fit the new facts) must be put forth to fit all the facts and observations made to date. That is, it's flexible. Science adapts. Science admits when it's wrong, and then it improves.... kind of like Mother Nature. Now, hold still while I bite you in half, mmmmmmmm

      September 16, 2011 at 6:42 pm |
      • A hobby

        Not the History channel. If you were to walk into a natural history museum anywhere in the world prior to 1960 you would find that the scientists posed the T-rex skeletons with the tails on the ground. These all had to be repositioned. Now I would respect your argument if there were signs all around these displays that said "Disclaimer: This is merely how we think these beasts roamed the earth millions of years ago." But in fact that is not how such assumptions are presented to the people. They are typically presented as fact.

        September 16, 2011 at 6:57 pm |
      • Short Trip To Tomorrow - BRB

        T-Rex

        Spit him out.......
        You will get a tummy ache.

        September 17, 2011 at 8:09 am |
    • Mark Davis

      What have we learned from the study of dinosaurs and other fossils? For one thing, we learned that Darwin was right. The diversity of life that we see in the world today arose over billions of years of ancestry and descent that can be traced through the fossil record. It's called the Tree of Life. We learned that many creatures that once walked the Earth are now extinct, an idea that was shocking 200 years ago but is now obvious to any child who has ever been to a natural history museum. This has nothing to do with whether or not God exists. Maybe it all part of a design. Maybe it's not. Science is the key understanding the world as it is, and how it came to be. If you want to know why it came to be... that's what religion is for.

      September 16, 2011 at 7:22 pm |
    • Trystan

      A HOBBY

      Let's get one thing straight:

      We have dinosaur skeletons. But we have no jesus skeleton.

      How convenient for you, christian sheep.

      September 16, 2011 at 8:05 pm |
      • A hobby

        I would like to point out the fact that my post has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of God, the existence of evolution, or God vs. evolution. Funny how everyone accuses the 'Christian sheep' of bringing religion into everything.

        My point is that way too many assumptions are made about things that we will never be able to know the whole truth about unless someone invents a time machine. Why not just say "Look at this amazing piece of amber we found! It has prehistoric feathers in it!" There's no need to go on saying that some of them may have been used to carry water back to the nest. You have no idea what animal these feathers even belonged to so why even go there? And the pigment was left on the feathers showing that they were light brown. Really? Why not leave yourself open to maybe over the course of millions of years the brownish tree sap reacted with the color in the feathers and turned what was once yellow to light brown?

        September 17, 2011 at 12:10 am |
    • fimeilleur

      What we've learned from studying fossils? How 'bout the fact that evolution is real. We see it through the fossil record, from the Pakicetidae 53 million years ago, all the way to the modern whale (Thewissen et Al.) we see how the earliest hoofed mammals with nostrils became finned mammals with a blow hole. This is one of the most complete evolutionary paths that we have discovered. Proving evolution, shows us that we (man) are indeed primates, and we share a common ancestor with the great apes. This proves that we are NOT a product of an invisible being who chose us to rape and pillage the earth as we see fit, but an animal carving it's niche within the delicate balance of the ecosystem. Once you drop the "god" complex (that we were chosen), you'll drop the "drill baby, drill" attitude of your politicians, the "us vs. them" that fuels wars. Our world population is quickly approaching 7 billion, and your "god" thinks this is a good thing... people starving in Africa, fighting for resources worldwide, and the Catholic Church tells the poorest people that condoms don't work and "god" doesn't approve. Christians fight Roe vs Wade at every opportunity, the WBC thinks the gays should be stoned to death, because of your Bible... etc. etc. etc.

      You may believe you asked an innocent question, however, your wording betrays you: the use of the word theory, instead of guess, for example... they are not interchangeable... a sure sign of someone who fights the scientific method without really understanding it. Biology confirms evolution, geology confirms evolution, cosmology confirms evolution... at least 17 different scientific fields confirm evolution... gradual change over time... this is not a guess, this is factual observation. Palaeontology confirms evolution.

      September 17, 2011 at 3:32 am |
  45. Earl

    A physical process (Evolution) must be simpler than an omniscient being (God) who can do anything. Occam's Razor (the simplest answer is the best) gives us the answer, Evolution. Some Creationists claim that there is no evidence for Evolution, an obvious Big Lie, that will drive people away from religion.

    September 16, 2011 at 5:43 pm |
    • Realist

      the Bible is a book of Folklore... Christians flooded North America with African Slaves

      This proves how dumb they are!! RIP white christains, going where the Dinosaurs went! LMAO

      September 16, 2011 at 5:45 pm |
      • Kris

        Give it a rest, eh? Christianity began in Africa, remember? And my grandkids' tribal groups in West Africa sold their actual ancestors to the Europeans. Stop venting hostilityand get to the topic, OK?

        September 16, 2011 at 7:03 pm |
      • Trystan

        christianity actually came out of GREECE.

        September 16, 2011 at 8:06 pm |
    • A hobby

      How is evolution simpler. If I claim that there is a God that claps his hands and everything in the world exists you're going to have a tough time making anything else sound simpler. Remember your not just using evolution in your argument against the idea of God. You also have to include the Big Bang theory(where did any of this come from?) and anything else that science attempts to explain in response to creationism.

      September 16, 2011 at 6:03 pm |
      • albert

        For science to prove the "Big Bang" theory, they would have to create something from nothing. Good luck with that!

        September 16, 2011 at 6:09 pm |
      • Earl

        I have heard that before, you are intentionally missing the point. I could say "Evolution did it".

        September 16, 2011 at 6:16 pm |
      • Andrew

        Albert, the Big Bang Theory describes the expansion of the universe from a much smaller state. To "prove" this, they need to do things like, oh, I don't know, show there's a universal isotropic very cold background radiation remnant from what would have by necessity happened in a "recombination period" shortly after the initial expansion. Oh wait, we've found that, and studied it in extraordinary detail. It's called the Cosmic Microwave Background. It doesn't talk about "something from nothing", in fact, big bang theory makes NO comment prior to one planck time. We don't have science to describe anything at that early a time. Big bang certainly makes no comment on it.

        We know the big bang happened, because all the big bang theory states is an expansionary model, predicted by general relativity (after we established an expanding universe per Hubble, as a static universe and contracting universe were both possible), and confirmed with rather stunning CMB measurements. I'd tell you to read the WMAP papers on the subject, but chances are, you can't comprehend a single thing said, will say "it's all lies", and continue to spread misinformation.

        September 16, 2011 at 6:44 pm |
    • albert

      What flawed logic. If you saw a clock in the middle of the desert (after never seeing one), would you conclude that it must have evolved over billions of years, or that it had a creator? Which would be the simplest reasoning? Evolution is a fantasy. How can you look at the perfect order of the universe and conclude that it "Just Happened". Science also believes in invisible things. How many times have they said that their is life somewhere else in the universe. Earth cannot be the only planet with life. Yet after billions of dollars, many years, and the "best" scientific minds, where is the proof? Science is great and has many great accomplishments. Proving evolution is not one of them. What science does great is imitate what already exists. Yet they want people to believe what they imitate just happened by chance?!?

      September 16, 2011 at 6:04 pm |
      • Andrew

        If I've never seen a clock then I clearly have no knowledge of physical processes that could form it. I would then have little choice but to say someone created it, as there's no known mechanism for it to have come by without one. Now, since I know what clocks are, I'm privileged to know that there's a very well understood mechanism for clock production, that is, humans create them to tell time.

        Life, however, is a bit different. Life reproduces with slight variations over time naturally. I understand this mechanism on a biochemical level, with no requirement for intelligent intervention, nor any knowledge how intelligent intervention would have driven the formation of life itself. Since I have a natural mechanism to explain the diversity of life, and can support it with fossils, conserved gene phylogeny trees matching independently created phylogeny trees made from Endogenous Retro-viral markers, independently matching (to a predictably slightly lesser extent) nested hierarchies created from matching morphologies, I'm able to confidently assert the "life producing" mechanism to be very different from the "clock producing" mechanism.

        I have a feeling Albert that you have a very poor understanding of how science works if you really believe the clock analogy is moderately appropriate. Why is it that the people who argue against science seldom show any knowledge of the subject?

        September 16, 2011 at 6:12 pm |
      • HamsterDancer

        Science does not say you should believe everything happens by chance. It examines the "how" of things that have, are, and could occur. By its nature it can only analyze things that can be measured/observed/experimented on.If a supernatural entity or force caused the creation and design of the world , by its very nature of being supernatural it can not be measured/observed/experimented on.
        The "why" of all these things is beyond its scope. That is left up to philosophy and religion. You will run into those commenting that will attack this part but the non-rational/feeling nature of man is just as much a part of human nature as the analyzing/measuring part.
        The science behind evolution has gone through rigorous experimentation and observation for over a century and despite propaganda from some creationist fronts it has always proved to be the correct explanation for how life began and changed. It fits the facts. It does not say a God did or didn't create the world. This is up to you to decide.

        In the words of a Cardinal that tried to defend Galileo when his scientific observations showed that the earth was not the center of the universe, "The Bible tells you how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go."

        September 16, 2011 at 6:22 pm |
      • cdc

        That's just it @albert, it didn't "Just Happen," it evolved, over time, adapting to its surroundings and environment to ensure survival of the species. Your claim that an all mighty being did it is suggesting that it "Just Happened" and reveals your apathetic approach to life as well as your lack of logical reasoning ability.

        September 16, 2011 at 6:29 pm |
      • Trystan

        ALBERT

        Flawed logic? You mean, like believing in a bible that has been proven to contradict itself and lie?

        Pot, meet kettle.

        September 16, 2011 at 8:15 pm |
  46. steve dawson

    they finally admitted that they dont know what dinosaurs looked like.how would they possibly know? cavemen didn't have cameras to take pictures of them. the dawg gone camera wasnt even discovered until the 1930s.. sheesh!!

    September 16, 2011 at 5:37 pm |
    • JesusFish

      It is called extrapolation. Look it up.

      September 16, 2011 at 5:45 pm |
      • steve dawson

        unless thats some sort of time machine i dont see in how anybody would really know what the dinosaurs looked like. they can put a bunch of bones together to make just about anything its probably a guess by some arceologists but some may look something like the pictures but still they have no way of knowing just like the article says. now they say that dinosaurs have feathers and i havent seen that in any pictures of dinosaurs eitther.

        September 16, 2011 at 5:57 pm |
    • dbla

      Seriously... cave men? Humans (or anything even close) didn't exst 80 million years ago. I actually hope you are being sarcastic. Scientists have admitted for years that they don't know the color of dinosaurs. It wasn't until a few years ago that they found evidence that some may have had plumage. That's the weird thing about science, it is totally OK to not have all the answers.

      September 16, 2011 at 5:56 pm |
    • Donna Dixon

      Yoo hoo Stevie......a mind is a terrible thing to waste...so stop it!
      "Cameras weren't invented until the 1930's"? HUH? TRY again.

      ps: If you've ever taken coursework in paleontology and anthropology, you'd have a grasp of evolution; IT'S A FACT JACK!
      As for your insights with cameras.....there is no hope for you. Hint: Google.

      September 16, 2011 at 5:57 pm |
      • steve dawson

        yoo hoo donna dixon .... or if thats your real name...paleontology doesn't only apply to dinosaurs but all life on earth. get a dictonary.... sheesh

        September 16, 2011 at 6:04 pm |
    • observer

      Remember photos from the Civil war, from the 1860's?

      September 16, 2011 at 6:05 pm |
    • Pope Jon

      The funniest part of your statement is that you think cameras weren't invented until the 1930's.... Were you home schooled?

      September 16, 2011 at 6:07 pm |
    • T-Rex

      You, sir, are a cretin.

      September 16, 2011 at 6:08 pm |
    • Simon

      IT is amazing that ignorant people who get their information from Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and FOX "news" and the bible feel able to dismiss the work of hundreds of years of the worlds brightest people following the scientific process to understand the nature of reality. And you don't even have the slightest understanding of what it is you are dismissing so flippantly. You remind be of children and not very bright children at that.

      September 16, 2011 at 6:31 pm |
      • steve dawson

        what is wrong with rush limbaugh and glenn beck? how are they in this conversation topic? your brainwashed ,, i said their were no cameras back when cavemen were arround it hadn;t even been discovered. what is so hard to understand about that my point was that we have no proof that dinosaurs looked like that. the cavemen didn't even have pictures drawn on walls of dinosaurs. shessh some people here dont have a clue!

        September 16, 2011 at 11:05 pm |
    • Simon

      You are all ragging on Steve for being off by about 100% for the date the camera was invented but no one is challenging his ridiculous statement that if Cavemen had cameras they would have taken pictures of dinosaurs.

      Also Steve – your main point seems to be that unless we can actually see something with our own eyes then we have no business inferring it by other scientific evidence. Boom goes your belief in god if you apply the same logic. You can't win. That you don't understand this is just further proof that you are a moron.

      September 16, 2011 at 6:35 pm |
      • Pope Jon

        I picked on the camera thing because it just showed how far Steve has his head up his a$$... Everything else Steve said is just comical entertainment for anyone with an education above 5th grade...

        September 16, 2011 at 7:02 pm |
    • physics

      This coming from an idiot who doesn't realize that cameras were used on Civil War battlefields...1930's...really?

      September 16, 2011 at 9:15 pm |
    • Short Trip To Tomorrow - BRB

      The camera wasnt discovered,
      it was invented.
      It wasnt just lying around and i tripped over it...
      OH LOOK.....A CAMERA !!!

      September 17, 2011 at 8:16 am |
  47. wendy5

    hahahahaha 80 million years old hahahahahahahaPROVE IT

    September 16, 2011 at 5:32 pm |
    • Will

      Prove that your Jesus exists

      September 16, 2011 at 5:36 pm |
      • albert

        That Jesus existed is a historical fact. The question is, was he the Son of God? I question the education of someone who says prove Jesus existed.

        September 16, 2011 at 6:07 pm |
      • Trystan

        Bring me the bones of your useless jesus.

        Oh, that's right, as the fairy tale goes, he was resurrected and flew to heaven magically.

        HOW CONVENIENT.

        September 16, 2011 at 8:17 pm |
      • Kyle

        Hey there Albert, your logic does not work. You state that jesus' existence is a historical fact, yet we have no evidence to prove this. As stated by Trystan, the fairy tale claims your precious took a carpet ride up to heaven. So, the existence of it can't be proven. Period. Therefore it is not a fact. The bible also makes a lot of claims that are inaccurate.

        Your sky hostess jesus for example said that he would return before his followers died.

        But, he didn't. He lied. That is, if he ever existed at all, which is not a historical fact.

        September 16, 2011 at 8:20 pm |
      • A hobby

        Oh great, the all knowing Kyle now wants to call into question the existence of every living historical figure whose bones we cannot find. You're saying that Christ never lived and there must be some other explanation for all the commotion caused back then and the subsequent ministries of the apostles. Oh wait, did they not exist either? Please tell us, when did the mythical character of "Jesus" become fabricated? Jewish, Muslim and Hindu scholars accept Jesus' existence but Kyle doesn't.

        September 17, 2011 at 1:01 am |
    • Observer

      wendy5,

      Prove you know more about astronomy, math, biology, geology, physics, etc. than they do.

      "hahahahahahaha"

      September 16, 2011 at 5:38 pm |
    • Dr.K.

      It has been "proved" through radiometric dating. I suspect that you don't understand that, though.

      September 16, 2011 at 5:41 pm |
    • JesusFish

      OK. Done. Your turn now.

      September 16, 2011 at 5:44 pm |
    • MikeinMN

      What is it that you find so funny? Do you think that they can't tell how old something is? It's called S C I E N C E. And it's R E A L. Without S C I E N C E we wouldn't be having this conversation on the I N T E R N E T much less living in anything more than a cave or mud hut.

      September 16, 2011 at 5:47 pm |
    • Andrew

      It's called "radiometric dating" and it relies on principles fairly clearly laid out in quantum mechanics concerning particle decay. Turns out that due to quantum mechanical properties of atoms, you have specific chances for a particle to spontaneously decay in a given amount of time. This then, in a large number of atoms, yields what's called the "decay rate", which is generally analogously called "half-life" (Though there might be some problems with this terminology, it's not relevant for the level of someone who believes in a young earth anyway.)

      What's better is that even if the half-lives aren't constant (which would violate quite a lot of physics), it wouldn't allow the earth to be thousands of years old. See, the problem would come from the energy released from radioactive decay. We have evidence for quite a lot of decay over the past 4 billion years of the earth's history. It doesn't really matter how half-lives behave, because if you were to compress all of the radioactive decay from the past 4 billion years into ~10k years, you'd find that the earth should be a barren molten wasteland.

      But wait, there's more! Despite the fact that we've never measured half-lives to be anything but constant, for the history of us understanding radioactive decay, (think back to Curie), despite our rather strong accuracy by which we could measure those results... despite all of that, creationists aren't just saying "well, the half-lives were different, thus earth is younger", they never seem to actually quantify their arguments. Notice, you never get a description from these people about HOW the half-lives were different. You're not just talking about a few percentage points, you're talking multiple orders of magnitude difference. It's the scientific equivalent of "oh, you measured a foot with an error of an inch, clearly you don't know how long the object is, thus it could be fifty miles long!"

      A young earth is an untenable position. You're calling multiple branches of science very wrong, with not a single lick of evidence to support your assertions.

      September 16, 2011 at 6:04 pm |
      • Dr.K.

        Word.

        September 16, 2011 at 6:51 pm |
    • T-Rex

      Which glacier did they chip you out of? Perhaps you and steve dawson should get together and talk caveman. Or maybe I should just have you for lunch.

      September 16, 2011 at 6:13 pm |
  48. Blondie

    No matter what the subject the Jesus freaks turn the conversation into a religious debate.

    September 16, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
    • Yeah

      For real it gets rather sickening doesn't it

      September 16, 2011 at 5:41 pm |
      • Blondie

        It sure does!

        September 16, 2011 at 5:54 pm |
  49. Pirate Hooker

    Please educate yourselves on evolution, the scientific method, and how empirical data works before you come on here crying about how evolution isn't real. It's time to snap out of your indoctrinated intellect and start living in reality. If you'd rather believe in creation, fine, but the burden of proof is on you to discredit it, and that starts by discrediting the mountains of evidence supporting it. What do you have, a Bible? Oh, of course! A cannon of stories put together by flat-earthed storytellers 2,000 years ago completely destroys modern discovery! Remember, the burden of proof is on YOU, and if you can't meet that burden then all you're doing is arguing from ignorance and I can only hope that others don't follow your lead. Please, for your own sake and for future generations, close your "holy" book and open up a science book instead.

    September 16, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
    • *yawn*

      You do realize that evolution and the existence of a god are not mutually exclusive, right?

      And that most Christians, Jews, etc. believe evolution is true, right?

      That you make such a broad generalization about a group of people, and turn it into an ad hominem, is telling of your intellect.

      September 16, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
      • Shiva

        Well said, I really am concerned for America (and the rest of the world too) when it seems so many people think they have to have a religion vs. science (or science vs. religion) world view. Nothing in either discipline is exclusive of the other – people need to just learn to be less confrontational and start listening for the truth in all disciplines.

        September 16, 2011 at 5:43 pm |
      • Pirate Hooker

        There's not a single ad hominem in my post. What I did was define an argument from ignorance and stated that the burden of proof is on those claiming evolution to be a hoax. It doesn't matter if religion and evolution are compatible with one another. The only reason why it could be is if a god-believer interpreted their religious scripture to make it compatible. It's subjective. Supernatural explanations are no explanations at all, and they have no place co-mingling with science. All you need to do is open your eyes to the thousands of different world religions – which one is wrong? They can't ALL be right! And if Christianity is right, which denomination slash church interpretation is right? Because they all interpret the Bible differently; there's no common understanding. Unlike evolution, which has been empirically tested and observed over and over again. So once, again, if evolution is compatible with your religion, good for you. But religion has no place in evolution.

        September 16, 2011 at 6:14 pm |
      • T-Rex

        Consider this: G*d made a changing universe – the seasons change, the continents move, and planets spin. Why would G*d populate this universe with static, un-changing beings? G*d made biological evolutionary processes in Her/His creations so that they could adapt and thrive in an ever-changing universe.

        September 16, 2011 at 6:21 pm |
      • *yawn*

        pirate: "There's not a single ad hominem in my post."

        Right. Juxtaposing 'sheepherders from 2,000 years ago' with 'modern science and rigorous methods' isn't an ad hominem, or a false dichotomy, or an absurd argument from authority.

        Much less, you made an overbroad generalization about all religious people not believing science. That's why, evidently, you told them to "put down" their holy books and join the modern era.

        Moreover, whether one particular religion is true in all its details is irrelevant to whether or not you can be both religious and a believer of science.

        Don't get mad because your fallacies were exposed.

        September 16, 2011 at 6:25 pm |
      • Big Bang

        T-Rex: Sure that could be. I mean, who knows? Maybe the big bang resulted when Satan pulled God's finger! I mean, there are huge gas clouds deep in space right? And the stars are big gas clouds right? Explains everything!... We could come up with interesting interpretations all day, but that's nothing to put your hat on. Observation and hypothesis testing are the only way to verify an idea. What you do with the evidence is up to you, but don't take it too seriously. The same thing goes for faith. If you're convinced of something, well that's fine and dandy. But why should others agree with you or teach it in school just because you believe it realllllllly hard?

        September 16, 2011 at 6:37 pm |
      • Pirate Hooker

        *Yawn* Your logic is flawed. You don't know the difference between a fallacious argument and a sound argument. A sound argument is supported by facts. Just because it doesn't agree with your own beliefs doesn't make it illogical. And if you think it does, your cognitive bias is even more flawed. Please educate yourself on a subject before arguing it. If you want to talk about logic, let's discuss that strawman fallacy and argument from ignorance you've used in every response to this article. You don't know how X words so X must have done it, and then you try to refute the argument with another. Education. It works when you have one.

        September 16, 2011 at 6:37 pm |
      • T-Rex

        Big Bang: No one's asking you to believe it. It's just a conceptual freebie for the faith-driven morsels out there who might need a simple mechanism for reconciling an inflexible worldview with the observable universe. What doesn't bend, breaks. Burp.

        September 16, 2011 at 6:49 pm |
      • *yawn*

        pirate: "You don't know the difference between a fallacious argument and a sound argument. A sound argument is supported by facts. Just because it doesn't agree with your own beliefs doesn't make it illogical."

        You're floundering.

        Your argument was illogical because it was supported by fallacies. I pointed those fallacies out to you and showed you how and why they don't prove your position. However, you've only responded with a feeble "you don't know logic", without every showing me why I'm wrong.

        "If you want to talk about logic, let's discuss that strawman fallacy and argument from ignorance you've used in every response to this article. You don't know how X words so X must have done it, and then you try to refute the argument with another. Education. It works when you have one."

        Sorry to disappoint you, but pointing out the fact that your arguments are fallacies is not a "strawman". A strawman is when you intentionally set up the weakest argument for your opposition that you can, show how it's wrong, and pretend you've proven your opposition wrong.

        "You don't know how X words so X must have done it"

        Not really. I laid a foundation for the argument (namely that an infinite regress is impossible) and deduced conclusions from it. If the argument was wrong, or the conclusions aren't necessary, it's up to you to show how and why it's so.

        Please stop embarrassing yourself.

        September 16, 2011 at 6:50 pm |
      • Pirate Hooker

        lol....ummmmm,,,,okay I guess I should stop "embarrassing" myself with all these facts while you sit there ejaculating one logical fallacy after another. Good luck! ;)

        September 16, 2011 at 7:10 pm |
      • THE BROWN NOTE

        this hero with his "ad hominem" trash again

        he's about as annoying as the sheep that believe in the bible

        September 16, 2011 at 8:22 pm |
    • JesusFish

      What a cop out, of course the are exclusive. One is based on nothing, the other is based on facts.

      September 16, 2011 at 5:46 pm |
      • *yawn*

        jesus: "What a cop out, of course the are exclusive. One is based on nothing, the other is based on facts."

        Which is just to define away the problem and create a circular argument. Why is it circular? Because you say you're right "because" you're right.

        September 16, 2011 at 5:59 pm |
  50. *yawn*

    talgrat: "We can not prove or disprove the existence of an omniscient being capable of creating the universe using science, we can only go with what the physical evidence points to."

    Sorry to burst your bubble, but proof comes from two sources: 1) data, and 2) necessity.

    Many times scientific proof mixes both of them together. That's why, for instance, we know the distance of the stars without physically measuring them. The data (parallax) leads to an equation which produces a number that "must" be true.

    The same is true for a god. It's a simple matter of logic that there can be no infinite regress of material causes. Hence, a first cause was necessary. And that cause must be the cause of itself and everything after it, and cannot be a part of the thing it created.

    Hence, your categorical statement ('we can't prove or disprove the existence of a god') is necessarily false.

    September 16, 2011 at 5:19 pm |
    • *yawn*

      correctingyawn: "Instead of proving a complex theorem on my exam, I could have saved myself the trouble by simply writing, "By necessity, this equation is true."

      Sorry to burst your bubble, but the complex theorem on your exam is true because the result is a "necessary" product of the proof.

      Just like in the examples that were given. We know the distance of a star not because we've physically measured it, but because – based on parallax – the star "must" be a certain distance away.

      That's also called "necessity".

      "What an idiot. Necessity is not proof. In fact, necessity would be something that would have to be proven in and of itself."

      Not really. It essentially proves itself. If some conclusion is necessary from the premises (e.g., "A –> B; A, therefore B") then it's true by necessity.

      It's called logic.

      'you're no Aristotle'

      Never said I was. In fact, I was merely giving an example of how or why the existence of a god could be proven or disproven. Hence, because it could be proven or disproven, the original poster's categorical assertion that you "can't" prove god was necessarily false.

      Oh dear! I used the word "necessary"!

      Don't get your panties in a bunch.

      September 16, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
      • THE BROWN NOTE

        ad hominem times hero two

        September 16, 2011 at 8:23 pm |
    • *yawn*

      rolls: "infinite regress is a classical idea. you can turn to aristotle all you want to say that god exists. but we are talking about modern naturalist science and the modern scientific mehtod. not philosophy. not logic. not thousand year old foundational ideas."

      Ah, right. It's old, therefore it's wrong.

      Much less, if the "modern scientific method" conflicts with logic, then it's wrong by default. Thankfully, however, science works with the world and because the world exists, it must be logical and coherent.

      If you'd like to prove that an infinite regress is both physically and logically possible, by all means do so.

      Until you do, however, you're just blowing hot air.

      September 16, 2011 at 5:36 pm |
      • THE BROWN NOTE

        hey look it's ad hominem boy

        September 16, 2011 at 8:24 pm |
    • *yawn*

      BLAH: "Quantum mechanics theory shows that matter / anti-matter can and is created from nothing all the time"

      Not really. There's dispute over whether the particles that come in an out of existence are the products of energy (the thing that causes particles) or whether they're truly uncaused and made of nothing.

      Since logic dictates that nothing can pop into existence of its own accord, it's better to err on the side of intellectual caution and say the particles are the products of energy. That is, until science shows otherwise.

      After all, isn't that the scientific method? Like the Popperian glowing grail, you hold onto a theory until it's disproven, not the other way around.

      September 16, 2011 at 5:38 pm |
      • *yawn*

        observer: "That means you have nothing to back up [without the bible] the concept that there is ONE GOD who created it all. Now we are back into infinite regressions again, this time about where gods came from."

        You're the worst troll ever :)

        The proof that there is (at least) one god comes from the proofs you were given before. You don't have to accept the them, but you do have to show how and why they're wrong.

        "Now we are back into infinite regressions again, this time about where gods came from."

        Not really. If you take the impossibility of an infinite regress as a given, you have to conclude that there was a first cause. But then questioning what happened "before" that first cause, or what "created" that first cause, is utterly illogical. If something happened before it, or something created it, then that previous thing is the first cause.

        I can't imagine how it could be any clearer.

        September 16, 2011 at 5:58 pm |
      • THE BROWN NOTE

        ad hominem troll

        September 16, 2011 at 8:24 pm |
    • *rolleyes*

      i would just like to simply say that confusing formal logic, classical teleological arguments, and whatever subjective definition of "proof" with the modern scientific method is doing a disservice not only to the commenters on this site but also reason. thank you.

      September 16, 2011 at 6:02 pm |
      • *yawn*

        roll: "i would just like to simply say that confusing formal logic, classical teleological arguments, and whatever subjective definition of "proof" with the modern scientific method is doing a disservice not only to the commenters on this site but also reason. thank you."

        How so?

        You can't merely say something is so and hope your assertion stands as proof of fact.

        "teleological arguments"

        Who said anything about teleology?

        "modern scientific method"

        If the modern scientific method comes up with answers that are impossible, then either our conception of logic is flawed or the answers are wrong. It's not difficult to understand.

        To that end, if logic tells us an infinite regress is impossible because an infinite amount of physical time would have to have passed before this time right now - then an infinite regress is impossible in a very real sense.

        'does a disservice to reason and this board'

        Are you frustrated because you can't disprove what I said? Or can you really prove how and why the argument put forward was wrong?

        September 16, 2011 at 6:09 pm |
      • *rolleyes*

        i will repeat again what i said. you are using formal logic and classical teleological arguments (yes infinite regression is a very, very old idea) to argue that the scientific method can prove god's existence. unfortunately for your argument, the scientific method does not deal, nor will it ever deal, with god (or anything in the supernatural) unless he reveals himself to us. i have come across this type of thinking many times before, and while i would not use the word frustration, it is sad to me as a human to see such misunderstanding flourish. thank you.

        September 16, 2011 at 6:54 pm |
    • WiserThanEwe (not a sheep)

      Your screen name says it all.

      September 16, 2011 at 6:04 pm |
    • THE BROWN NOTE

      ad hominem

      September 16, 2011 at 8:23 pm |
  51. Craig from Pa.

    Could this mean the earth is more than 6000 years old ???? As thought by some in the tea party?????

    September 16, 2011 at 5:08 pm |
    • Stephanie

      You can't join the tea party if your IQ is greater than 90 or if you believe the earth is older than 6,000yrs old. LOL.

      September 16, 2011 at 5:10 pm |
    • CT

      Is jon Stewart hosting a science show? we all know comedy central is the only place you get your sources from.

      September 16, 2011 at 5:17 pm |
      • Craig from Pa.

        Sorry I stepped on your toes there fella...

        September 16, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
  52. Kristal

    I discovered in a lump of coal the outline of a small bird everything but the claws r there and if i were 2 sand a little more there probably there 2 is this find important 2 science

    September 16, 2011 at 5:02 pm |
    • Dr.K.

      If you're serious, you should probably show it to someone at a natural history museum or a college geology or biology department. They could help you identify it and evaluate its significance.

      September 16, 2011 at 5:07 pm |
  53. Johnny Cage

    The thing is, the fact that we can see light from 1 billion light years away, means thos objects existed 1 billion years ago. If god keeps putting every single thing ont his earth as a trick to test our faith, then I say god is actually playing the game of the devil, trying to trick people into believening the wrong... or perhaps what we see is actually true (which is is by the way) and god is just a creation of man used to justify the unknown (back in the day) when science and mathematics were less evolved. Back in the day, people swore god made the earth flat, until it was proven to be a globe...

    September 16, 2011 at 5:02 pm |
    • Stephanie

      Maybe God likes to play pranks?

      September 16, 2011 at 5:05 pm |
      • onlysolutionshere

        I understand his nickname in high school was 'schecky'

        September 16, 2011 at 5:10 pm |
    • David

      What intellectually honest person believes that this piece of amber has survived for 80 million years? Did the scientists base this estimate on the rock layer within which this piece was contained? Was that same rock layer dated by the contents that it contained? haha What a joke our scientists' conjectures seem to be these days...

      September 16, 2011 at 5:19 pm |
    • EuphoriCrest

      "Don't you know there ain't no devil, it's only god when he's drunk." – Tom Waits

      September 16, 2011 at 5:26 pm |
    • falconco

      Yours is a very good post! My sentiments exactly.

      September 16, 2011 at 5:55 pm |
    • S.Bob

      The problem is that Christians (and I am one), choose what to interpret literally and what to interpret figuratively or metaphorically. Sometimes I dare say we interpret things way too literally.

      September 16, 2011 at 6:04 pm |
  54. noway husam

    You can't change a bible thumper's view. You can get them to change from one religion to another from time to time. But they absolutely must "believe" in something like that or they will self-implode/suicide because they cannot handle the truth.

    Thousands of years of brainwashing (6,000 by their count, lol) has led to this.

    September 16, 2011 at 4:56 pm |
    • Stephanie

      Their entire belief system is based on a faulty premise: The bible says God exists and it must be true because God (indirectly) wrote the bible. How can you argue against that? LOL.

      September 16, 2011 at 5:03 pm |
      • Judas Priest

        Belief in god is not the flaw. Belief in the literal inerrancy of the (usually the NIV or the King James) bible is.

        September 16, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
      • Gandalf the Gay

        Judas -1
        Stephanie – 0

        September 16, 2011 at 5:34 pm |
      • THE BROWN NOTE

        belief in the bible is a flaw period

        the bible is imperfect

        yet god is alleged to be perfect

        so if god wrote the book which is imperfect, then he is imperfect, which goes against god's alleged perfection which contradicts itself

        therefore the god of the christians most certainly does not exist

        if he does, then he'd better show up and prove he exists

        but he wont because he doesnt exist

        September 16, 2011 at 8:27 pm |
    • Pope Jon

      True, true....

      September 16, 2011 at 5:06 pm |
    • BlindedByTheLight

      It's called 'perceptual conditioning'. Everyone has a personal task of figuring out how and to what extent his/her own perceptions are conditioned. Some are distracted from this work by living around people who regularly assure them their conditioning doesn't exist, that their POV accurately depicts existence as it is. More's the pity.

      September 16, 2011 at 6:47 pm |
  55. observer

    I think it very cool that feathers were found in amber. I am not clear why they think some was from a dinosaur (though I have not problem with that), is it only because it looks like some impressions found on another fossil?

    On the other topic I think that the general purpose of science is to help describe our observations of the world, i.e. this is how the rocks of that mountain were made, this is what happens to a body when it dies. Religion I think is to explain more of the Why of things (why we are here, what is the purpose of life).

    I think the purpose or intent of the creation story in the scriptures is not to describe how the world was made, or how old it is. The how is more in the realm of science to try to interpret/explain. I think the point of the scriptural story of creation is that the world was organized by God for us (the why) & it was good.

    September 16, 2011 at 4:50 pm |
    • slupdawg

      I have no qualms with that. Let science handle physical history and let religion deal with spirituality and the afterlife, if so desired. Just keep the two apart.

      September 16, 2011 at 4:54 pm |
    • Stephanie

      Why should I believe the Judeo-Christian story versus say the Greek mythology. I understand the Greek version of things is not very popular these days but not being popular does not make it wrong. My point is the Judeo-Christian explanation for why things are the way they are looks just as made up as the Greek's explanation.

      September 16, 2011 at 5:00 pm |
      • Gandalf the Gay

        You seem upset.

        September 16, 2011 at 5:35 pm |
      • Reasongal

        Gandalf, she's not upset, she's logical. Projecting much?

        September 16, 2011 at 7:08 pm |
    • Rick

      At least you acknowledge they are stories

      September 16, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
    • lexrn

      I like this explanation of the need to believe in a man in the clouds that directs things...why, not necessarily how. Too bad this way of thinking couldn't expand as it may satisfy those who must believe in a non-tangible reason for that they cannot understand, massive time and matter (and why the sky is blue etc.)

      September 16, 2011 at 5:40 pm |
      • observer

        Talking about things that are hard to understand, try "dark energy" in astronomy/cosmology. From what I can figure out it is a fudge factor to help explain something where they can't find any other reason. There are many things we can't yet understand – either on the scientific or religious side. This from a professional scientist who also believes in God – but not all of the stuff that many people think come from Him.

        September 16, 2011 at 5:56 pm |
      • Judas Priest

        Observer, I also have some issues with dark matter and dark energy. Really, if the religious want to pick on science, dark matter is a much better target than evolution.
        I should point out in advance that disproving the existence of dark matter and dark energy will not bring down science, or even theoretical physics; it will merely invalidate a number of theories, and new theories that hopefully fit the facts better will be devised.

        September 16, 2011 at 6:24 pm |
    • Realist

      Bible = Book of Lies and Folklore

      September 16, 2011 at 5:42 pm |
  56. noway husam

    insulation, and perhaps camouflage and display.............so.........anything. just say anything.

    September 16, 2011 at 4:41 pm |
    • Dr.K.

      Well, no, there are lots of things beside insulation, camouflage and coloration. I suspect the implication is that there is no evidence they were used for flight.

      September 16, 2011 at 5:03 pm |
  57. Rob

    Great find. Most Christians believe that the earth is much older than a few million years.

    Billy, so you are saying that Homer predates Abraham, Noah? Rome was not in Jerrico.

    September 16, 2011 at 4:41 pm |
    • Phil

      Need to correct you.. Homer was Greek, thus your reference to Rome was inaccurate given the context of your statement. Carry on.

      September 16, 2011 at 5:30 pm |
  58. Anonymous

    I don't know why you people claim that the christians are trying to "shove" their faith in your faces, but if you ask me I think there is just way too much bias here. You guys talk smack about a belief while having only superficial knowledge of it. A rational debate could be made, but you guys are also being just as ignorant as you claim we are and choose to turn a blind eye. Try to overcome your bias and at least take a peek at http://www.answersingenesis.org. Don't just rant about how stupid you think are and not bother to have a more reasonable argument. As far as I know, evolution has more holes than a block of swiss cheese.

    September 16, 2011 at 4:37 pm |
    • Informed99

      There are no holes in evolution. Not believing in Evolution is like not believing in Gravity.

      September 16, 2011 at 4:39 pm |
      • Greg

        You need to do your research buddy. Evolution is complete garbage. There is plenty of scientific evidence AGAINST it by highly qualified scientists, and yet, the pro-darwin community refuses to give an inch, even with bad science, because the only alternative is intelligent design, and they refuse to even give this highly provable idea any credit.

        September 16, 2011 at 4:58 pm |
      • Benjamin

        Just to back you up: We know evolution happens, as we do gravity. It is not debated by scientists whether or not evolution happens, but *how* it happens. The theory of evolution concerns the mechanism of the process, and not the process itself. Get your facts straight, those who say 'there are holes in evolution.' There aren't! Just ones in natural selection, which has been greatly refined since Darwin's day to account for the massive influx of evidence. If you doubt evolution, then doubt the very inheritance of genes your children received, or that you received from your parents.

        September 16, 2011 at 5:11 pm |
      • SB

        Greg, thanks buddy. I needed a good laugh and that was the funniest thing I've read in a long time! Oh wait... you were serious? Yikes. Well it's still hilarious, only now I'm forced to laugh at rather than with you.

        September 16, 2011 at 5:13 pm |
      • Johnny Apple

        Jon,
        You are wrong. There is not one reputable scientist the world that refutes evolution. The literature you are reading is nonsense. Period.

        September 16, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
      • BeamMeUpScotty

        @Greg

        During the DOVER TRIAL, the ID/Creationists wanted to prove that Evolution had holes and that ID/Creationism was a *science*.

        After the Evolutionist team presented their arguments, every one of the ID/Creationism scientist witness suddenly dropped out of the case – except for 1, the guy who termed *irreducibly complexity*. The idea of iredduciby complexity was then easily debunked.

        What's even worst was that the Judge was a Bush appointed Christian conservative judge! He rejected ID/Creationism was a science. The Judge then accused the Id/Creationism of being a front for Christian extremism because their WEDGE DOCUMENT showed that the movement only wanted to move US society backwards towards a Christian fundamentalist society.

        If there are holes with Evolution, it sure is strange that no scientist has been able to debunk Evolution.

        September 16, 2011 at 5:40 pm |
    • slupdawg

      Don't even go there. The holes in evolution theory are tiny compared to the absloutely gigantic creationism holes that you could drive a Mack truck through. If you can prove the world is 6,000 years old and humans existed with dinosaurs, go for it. You have a book with stories as your proof, while every day, science makes a new discovery refining and reinforcing evolution. Get your head out, wake up, and quit believing fairy tales written by someone you don't know and that has been dead for centuries and taking it on blind faith. Good grief!

      September 16, 2011 at 4:45 pm |
      • Greg

        Same to you buddy. Evolutionists have been using the same "proof" of evolution that has been proven wrong in scientific journals for years. Why do they continue to use data that has been proven falsified or completely without merit? Is it possibly because there is no REAL proof? Yep, I think that's it.

        September 16, 2011 at 5:01 pm |
      • slupdawg

        You can't just make these statements without proff. What are your sources? Give examples of all this "bad science" of which you speak. And while you're at it, what recent disoveries can you reference that prove creationism to be factual?

        September 16, 2011 at 5:05 pm |
      • Paganguy

        One creationist told me that the bones of creatures were put in the ground by the Devil to confuse us. It looks like God could not control the Devil or the two of them had a conspiracy going on.

        September 16, 2011 at 5:07 pm |
      • Aubrie

        I can't fathom anyone claiming to be Christian, and being so arrogant as to declare that God could not have a grand plan for the universe that includes evolution. To belittle what he's done, is doing, and is capable of doing further is downright blasphemous. I would never be so disrespectful by limiting God's power or plan... or questioninig it.... He IS what he IS and DOES what he DOES without your help, comment or ignorance.....

        September 16, 2011 at 5:36 pm |
      • Andrew

        Greg, is there a reason you're not citing your sources? You're making a rather large claim there. And you really should be the one to provide the citation, considering I cannot 'prove' evolution true, but I could certainly prove it to be false.

        The reasoning is thus: Science is a constantly evolving process. Theories are shown wrong via contradictions, data which does not fit the predictions made by the theory. Now, often when contradictions arise, the theory itself is fairly solid, but the details change. This of course would be the case when we expect certain traits to have evolved at different time-periods, and find in the fossil record our original guesses were wrong. Or, in a subject I'm more well versed in, consider it akin to when our quark model failed to explain charge-parity conjugation. Turns out the fix was to add more quarks, which were later discovered (last being the top quark discovered by fermilab in 1995). The quark theory wasn't wrong, per say, but it was incomplete, and our observations didn't match up with the theory.

        This is even akin to the switch from newtonian mechanics to relativity. Newton's laws worked very, very well in most cases, but failed entirely to explain the precession of the orbit of mercury. This indicated that Newton's "Law of Universal Gravitation" was wrong... but it worked quite well in most cases. Well, what ended up happening is thanks to Einstein we moved onto "General Relativity", which better explained the precession of mercury's orbit, and in low energy-low velocity cases, relativity defaults back down to Newtonian physics we're far more used to.

        It's this vain of contradictions that is how science advances. To show evolution, the entire theory, to be wrong then, you need quite a massive contradiction. You need something akin to humans or rabbits in pre-cambrian rock. You need something like a horse which shares more DNA with a flower than it does with a cow. You need a contradiction to turn the world of evolutionary biology on its head, much like Kepler's observations made it virtually impossible to stick to a geocentric model.

        I cannot prove any model to be true, they're always improving, I can only show where they are flawed. When I show a theory to be flawed, I normally can do so over a very limited scope. What you are saying is that, for the entire theory to be flawed, you are privy to some major inherent contradiction in the theory.

        Well, cite your damn source. Cause as far as I'm aware, you're talking nonsense.

        September 16, 2011 at 5:39 pm |
      • Pope Jon

        Greg,

        you are so full-of-shit that shit-is coming out your ears.... Please do reference just one journal or scientist that backs up your bull-shit.... You cant just make stuff up and expect people to take you seriously.

        September 16, 2011 at 5:40 pm |
      • Reasongal

        Greg, evolution has been tested, applied, discussed and argued about for 150 years. There is no to dismantle it, and more data accrues every day. It is inextricably entwined with all the other sciences, like chemistry, microbiology, geology (not flood geology, which is garbage promoted by Ham), astronomy, physics, etc.

        Since 2006 ALONE 39,000 peer-edited articles on evolution have been published in reputable science journals – so much for rehashing the same evidence. Since you have to start with a foregone conclusion (it was god, goddidit) you are the one spouting off the same stuff from the same book. Easy peasy, no studying, no research, no new information, no cross-checking or attempts to falsify for you – therefore, you are not in the ring at all.

        You are either willingly lying or proudly ignorant. Spewing what you have been fed by creationist hacks without knowing what you are arguing against is ignorant and a waste of time. Find something else to do, like learn about real science.

        September 16, 2011 at 7:28 pm |
    • JamesX

      Talking rational about faith is oxymoronic. Faith by its very definition is irrational. You believe without the need for factual proof. As for evolution having holes, the theory itself has no holes. We are missing steps in the progression. It is like saying "the ideal of history has holes, because there are few periods we don't have evidence for."

      Then we have religious nuts who said modern man walked alongside dinosaurs – when their only fossil record is that of a sideways dinosaur foot print that looked like human foot print.

      September 16, 2011 at 4:52 pm |
      • *yawn*

        james: "Talking rational about faith is oxymoronic. Faith by its very definition is irrational."

        Brilliant equivocation.

        "Faith" in the religious context means only "religious". It is not antithetical to "reason" or "evidence".

        Much less, you do realize that artificial definitions are not dispositive in any inquiry, right? It's like defining all round things to also be "silver". It doesn't make it true.

        September 16, 2011 at 4:54 pm |
    • Stephanie

      There are no holes in the evolution theory as implied by most people. Researchers are constantly debating whether a driving force was more prominent than other, but for most people, these are details. There are no scientist worth their salt around the world that question the theory of evolution. Take a look at http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html for a list of arguments from evolution deniers and a response to them. You be the judge.

      September 16, 2011 at 4:54 pm |
      • Gandalf the Gay

        Are you on your period?

        September 16, 2011 at 5:39 pm |
    • David

      "as far as I know", huh? Try putting as much effort into learning about the science as you're putting forward trying to get people to listen to your religious view, and you'll probably understand it better.

      BTW, plenty of people "see the light" and switch from a creationist view to an evolutionist one, never have I heard of it happening the other way around.

      September 16, 2011 at 4:56 pm |
    • QS

      "You guys talk smack about a belief while having only superficial knowledge of it."

      LOL! Actually there are many studies that show non-believers and Atheists tend to know more about the bible than many Christians do. We read the silly story for ourselves, that's WHY we're non-believers!

      September 16, 2011 at 5:08 pm |
      • noway husam

        Religion is so insane that it's like a tragic bus accident. You know you need to continue past it to get on with life and accomplish your day, but still....you want to see if there are bodies laying around.

        September 16, 2011 at 5:17 pm |
    • A. Wolf

      I took a peek at Answers in Genesis, and about died laughing where it says, "jaguars have large jaws that are perfect for crushing skulls, but they didn't learn to do that until after the Fall...they used to be vegetarians". I guess they used those crushing jaws to open coconuts previously.

      September 16, 2011 at 5:15 pm |
    • Andrew

      Oh, I have looked at Answers in Genesis. Repeatedly. I direct anyone who has taken first year college calculus or above to also look at Answers in Genesis. Specifically, their article "A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem". It's really, REALLY funny. Their "calculations" section uses partial derivative notion just because it looks fancier than 'd'. The integral used (note* singular. Because their 'calculations' are really just 'an excuse to use another fancy looking thing'.) is likewise as trivial and silly considering it cannot be evaluated as written.

      Answers in genesis clearly relies on the ignorance of the readers. They like to dress up their nonsense as science, by using similar notation and words, while entirely omitting any real meaning. The people over there simply want to deceive you into believing they know what they're talking about, but to anyone who has had even a first year undergraduate calculus course would be able to tell you how silly the math they use really is. The less ignorant you are, the more AiG is exposed for the window dressing it really is.

      Seriously, it's the most absurd thing to try to present in any rational argument. If you're using answers in genesis as a source, you know far too little about the subject to really be capable of discussing matters on equal terms. You're swayed by a pretty story lacking entirely in content.

      September 16, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
    • Kramer

      "you guys" .. what are you, some kind of Raaabid Anti-Dentite!?

      September 16, 2011 at 8:36 pm |
  59. slupdawg

    Impossible! The world is only 6,000 years old and Alley-Oop used to ride on the back of a brontosaurus. This evolution thing has gotten way out of control. Just ask Michelle Bachman.

    September 16, 2011 at 4:34 pm |
    • Informed99

      Michelle Bachman is one of the dumbest people I have ever seen. There are goldfish smarter than she is.

      September 16, 2011 at 4:37 pm |
      • rick perrytwit ... slack jawed bible thumper

        Google ' bachmann corndog ' for a good laugh.

        September 16, 2011 at 4:42 pm |
      • Observer

        How could you leave Sarah Palin out of this discussion?

        September 16, 2011 at 4:43 pm |
      • Glen Rice

        I am meeting up with Bachman tonight. I will let TMZ know if shes anything like the picture.

        September 16, 2011 at 4:49 pm |
  60. snowdogg

    I thought Sarah Palin created the universe.

    September 16, 2011 at 4:30 pm |
    • rick perrytwit ... slack jawed bible thumper

      Yes she did. It's that big trailer park in the sky.

      September 16, 2011 at 4:33 pm |
    • Informed99

      She created god, who then created the Universe.

      September 16, 2011 at 4:36 pm |
  61. Brian C

    Looking at the feather pattern in the picture the feathers look like hummingbird feathers. Very thin. These are most likely the proto-feathers mentioned in the article. So, what would you think if the could extract some viable dna out of these. They could be matched up to living animals to see the they are related in any way.

    September 16, 2011 at 4:28 pm |
    • Informed99

      DNA is too unstable to extract any meaningful fragment from after even a few thousand years.

      September 16, 2011 at 4:38 pm |
      • Ben

        That's not true. Neanderthal DNA has been successfully extracted from fossils 50,000 years old.

        September 16, 2011 at 4:53 pm |
    • Rhonda

      That would be so cool. I really think the Jurassic park type science will be possible soon, though I hope they don't go all crazy with it. Be nice to know what some of these beasts truly looked like.

      September 16, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
    • Judas Priest

      That would be very interesting. I'd really like to see that happen at some point.

      September 16, 2011 at 5:46 pm |
  62. *yawn*

    pjax: "And Mr. Yawn, it sounds like you are the militant, going on the offensive. Humans need to just realize that we dont know what created us, but us atheists realize science is a much better way to find out then praying to a sky wizard."

    Right. Because realizing that there is no logical contradiction between two views is being "militant".

    "sky wizard"

    Great ad hominem.

    "dont know what created us"

    Many logicians and theists would disagree.

    Just like we know the composition of the center of the sun, the distance of the stars, and so on, you know a god exists by one simple method: necessity. That is, based on the facts as they are, something "must" be true. Hence, the argument for a first cause based on the logical (and physical) impossibility of an infinite regress of material causes.

    Glad I could disabuse you of your dogmatic assumptions.

    Next?

    September 16, 2011 at 4:28 pm |
    • rick perrytwit ... slack jawed bible thumper

      You are an arrogant ass.

      September 16, 2011 at 4:31 pm |
    • *yawn*

      talgrath: "We can not prove or disprove the existence of an omniscient being capable of creating the universe using science, we can only go with what the physical evidence points to."

      Sorry to burst your bubble, but proof comes from two sources: 1) data, and 2) necessity.

      Many times scientific proof mixes both of them together. That's why, for instance, we know the distance of the stars without physically measuring them. The data (parallax) leads to an equation which produces a number that "must" be true.

      The same is true for a god. It's a simple matter of logic that there can be no infinite regress of material causes. Hence, a first cause was necessary. And that cause must be the cause of itself and everything after it, and cannot be a part of the thing it created.

      Hence, your categorical statement ('we can't prove or disprove the existence of a god') is necessarily false.

      September 16, 2011 at 4:32 pm |
      • correcting yawn

        This is great. "Necessity" is a proof? That would have been great for my number theory course in grad school. Instead of proving a complex theorem on my exam, I could have saved myself the trouble by simply writing, "By necessity, this equation is true."

        What an idiot. Necessity is not proof. In fact, necessity would be something that would have to be proven in and of itself. If you are going to quote philosophical theories and present them as fact – a la Aristotle's first cause / the unmoved mover – at least give credit where it's due. You, sir, are no Aristotle.

        September 16, 2011 at 4:58 pm |
      • *yawn*

        correcting: "Instead of proving a complex theorem on my exam, I could have saved myself the trouble by simply writing, "By necessity, this equation is true."

        Sorry to burst your bubble, but the complex theorem on your exam is true because the result is a "necessary" product of the proof.

        Just like in the examples that were given. We know the distance of a star not because we've physically measured it, but because - based on parallax - the star "must" be a certain distance away.

        That's also called "necessity".

        "What an idiot. Necessity is not proof. In fact, necessity would be something that would have to be proven in and of itself."

        Not really. It essentially proves itself. If some conclusion is necessary from the premises (e.g., "A –> B; A, therefore B") then it's true by necessity.

        It's called logic.

        'you're no Aristotle'

        Never said I was. In fact, I was merely giving an example of how or why the existence of a god could be proven or disproven. Hence, because it could be proven or disproven, the original poster's categorical assertion that you "can't" prove god was necessarily false.

        Oh dear! I used the word "necessary"!

        Don't get your panties in a bunch.

        September 16, 2011 at 5:14 pm |
      • Chris R

        Yawn,

        First off your conclusion is true only if we accept that there cannot be an infinite regression of causes. People have been taking that as a given. However, no proof has been provided for that. Second, in your use of the cosmological argument, you've not addressed the fundamental question of what caused the First Cause. If the universe was instigated by some first cause (we will just call it God for shorthand) where did God come from? If God doesn't require a first cause then why, specifically, does the universe require one? Please don't use the transcendental special pleading as it's far too easy to refute. Lastly, if God created the universe, why is there any need for God to have continued involvement with the universe?

        I'm not disagreeing with your theistic evolution viewpoint – it is one I hold myself. The problem is that your argument, as strong as it may seem to you, is riddled with holes.

        September 17, 2011 at 10:13 am |
    • LMAO

      I know a necessity....a barf bag from reading the crap you post

      September 16, 2011 at 4:38 pm |
      • *yawn*

        lmao: "I know a necessity....a barf bag from reading the crap you post"

        k

        September 16, 2011 at 4:41 pm |
    • *yawn*

      pjax: "The only thing remotely close to a secular (and therefore reliable) historic account of Jesus was by historian Flavius Josephus and it was 60 years after his death and it contained one small paragraph that is so incongruous that most historians believe it was inserted in by the Christians at a later date."

      You do realize that the historical existence of Jesus doesn't hurt or help your atheist views, right?

      There's more than Josephus's account (I'm glad you can Google, though). For instance, Roman records indicate a man from Nazareth was causing trouble in Judaea, while shortly after Jesus's supposed death (during Nero's reign), graffiti appeared in Rome of a crucified man with a donkey's head with a note saying "X worships his god".

      Hence, Jesus apparently did exist and have followers in and around the time of his death.

      Just because someone was deified has no bearing on their historical existence.

      September 16, 2011 at 4:39 pm |
      • Informed99

        Pretty big jump. Someone was causing problems for the Romans, therefore is MUST be Jesus. Come on. maybe it was just some guy. Ever see the life of Brian?

        September 16, 2011 at 4:46 pm |
      • *yawn*

        informed: "Pretty big jump. Someone was causing problems for the Romans, therefore is MUST be Jesus. Come on. maybe it was just some guy. Ever see the life of Brian?"

        Which is why context is key. A man from Nazareth, in Judaea, around the time Jesus was supposed to have existed, and was causing trouble (as Jesus supposedly did). Add onto that Roman graffiti that appeared containing biblical references (crucifixion and a donkey's head, with someone worshipping him while on the cross) and you've got some pretty good contextual evidence.

        But I assume you'll ignore the evidence because it conflicts with your preconceived and dogmatic beliefs, no?

        September 16, 2011 at 4:52 pm |
      • Chris R

        Yawn, there are some more problems with this. If you knew the history of the Roman Empire at the time you'd understand that killing a rabble rouser in Jerusalem was pretty common at that time. Messiahs, prophets, and holy men were just coming out of the wood work back then. Judea was a constant source of annoyance to the Empire with the Jews always refusing to pay proper respect to the Empire and failing to settle down and be compliant subject people. So documentation regarding the crucifixion of a treasonous revolutionary around then wasn't that strange.

        Likewise, your graffiti doesn't actually prove anything that wasn't already know. By the time Nero took up the Purple at least 21 if not 25 years had passed since the purported death of Jesus. Paul's vision came about sometime in 31-36. Paul traveled extensively and essentially created the Christian church (which I personally think would have been very alien to Jesus). At some point he ended up in Rome and preached there for at least two years. So your graffiti proves that there were Christians in Rome during the reign of Nero *but* that doesn't prove that Jesus existed.

        The Josephus reference doesn't even prove anything because he's just reporting what other Christians are saying.

        So there is little to no historical evidence of Jesus – but does that really matter? Let's say Jesus *never* existed and the whole thing was a fever dream on the part of Paul and Peter and Luke... Does any of that change anything? Why does Jesus qua Jesus have to exist in order to give validity to the truth in His teaching (which is, when you get right down to brass tacks, "Don't be a jerk")?

        September 17, 2011 at 10:48 am |
    • Informed99

      Your logic is fundamentally flawed. Infinite regress is not possible and a previous cause is always required. Hence there can not be a god because there is no answer to what came before god.

      September 16, 2011 at 4:43 pm |
      • *yawn*

        informed: "Your logic is fundamentally flawed. Infinite regress is not possible and a previous cause is always required. Hence there can not be a god because there is no answer to what came before god."

        You do realize your own argument falls in on itself, right?

        If an infinite regress of material causes is not possible, then there had to be a first cause. So asking "what came before god?" is impossible.

        It's the fact that the first cause had to exist outside of the universe, be the cause of itself and everything after, etc. that lends credence to the idea that the first cause was a "god".

        Try thinking a little harder before you respond next time.

        September 16, 2011 at 4:47 pm |
      • Observer

        *yawn*,
        Your constant juvenile insults are a reflection of your maturity.

        "there can be no infinite "material" regress of causes.". So where did God get the matter to make "material"? From nothing?

        Your arguments prove nothing. No one has any proof where matter came from. Scientists have reasonable proof on a timeline that leads to the same question of where it came from and it seems to be FAR FAR more reasonable than the Bible's 6,000 year approximation. At least scientists have something concrete to work on and you have a book of morals that also contains errors, contradictions, hypocrisy and nonsense.

        September 16, 2011 at 5:30 pm |
      • *yawn*

        observer: ""there can be no infinite "material" regress of causes.". So where did God get the matter to make "material"? From nothing?"

        Evidently you're mistaking the thrust of the argument. If a god exists, he can probably do as he pleases. The problem, however, is in matter creating itself, or in believing in infinite regress of causes.

        "Scientists have reasonable proof on a timeline that leads to the same question of where it came from and it seems to be FAR FAR more reasonable than the Bible's 6,000 year approximation."

        Who said anything about the bible?

        September 16, 2011 at 5:41 pm |
      • Observer

        *yawn*,
        "Who said anything about the bible?"

        So you are saying that the universe was created by SOME god who did whatever he or she or they wanted. That means you have nothing to back up the concept that there is ONE GOD who created it all. Now we are back into infinite regressions again, this time about where gods came from. Nothing much has changed. NO ONE KNOWS.

        September 16, 2011 at 5:51 pm |
      • *yawn*

        observer: "That means you have nothing to back up [without the bible] the concept that there is ONE GOD who created it all. Now we are back into infinite regressions again, this time about where gods came from."

        You're the worst troll ever :)

        The proof that there is (at least) one god comes from the proofs you were given before. You don't have to accept the proofs, but you do have to show how and why they're wrong.

        "Now we are back into infinite regressions again, this time about where gods came from."

        Not really. If you take the impossibility of an infinite regress as a given, you have to conclude that there was a first cause. But then questioning what happened "before" that first cause, or what "created" that first cause, is utterly illogical. If something happened before it, or something created it, then that previous thing is the first cause.

        I can't imagine how it could be any clearer.

        September 16, 2011 at 5:57 pm |
      • Observer

        *yawn*,

        Nothing changes. One side could argue that everything started with the existence of matter and you argue that everything started with the existence of "God". (How about calling it Zeus, since you apparently don't believe in the God of the Bible?). Same argument advocating the existence of something forever without a creation.

        September 16, 2011 at 6:34 pm |
    • Observer

      "a first cause was necessary. And that cause must be the cause of itself and everything after it, and cannot be a part of the thing it created."

      Unless you can explain who created God, we are dealing with an infinite regression and religion has NO answer.

      September 16, 2011 at 4:47 pm |
      • *yawn*

        observer: "Unless you can explain who created God, we are dealing with an infinite regression and religion has NO answer."

        It's always wise to think before speaking.

        It's precisely because you cannot have an infinite regress that asking "who created God?" is illogical. There must be some starting point and, based on necessity, that starting point must have certain characteristics.

        September 16, 2011 at 4:58 pm |
      • *yawn*

        observer: "Unless you can explain who created God, we are dealing with an infinite regression and religion has NO answer."

        Much less, if you can explain who created god, then you'll have to explain who created that creator. And if you can explain that, then you'll have to explain who created him and so on.

        And so you're right back at the problem of an infinite regress again.

        You can't be this dense, can you?

        September 16, 2011 at 5:01 pm |
      • Observer

        *yawn*

        Your illogical argument:
        (1) atheists are wrong because for anything to exist, something must have created it
        (2) God exists
        (3) nothing created God.

        "It's always wise to think before speaking."

        September 16, 2011 at 5:01 pm |
      • *yawn*

        observer: "Your illogical argument:
        (1) atheists are wrong because for anything to exist, something must have created it
        (2) God exists
        (3) nothing created God."

        You're not a very good troll.

        The argument said, explicitly, that there can be no infinite "material" regress of causes. That means that all things that exist in the universe had to be caused by some other physical thing before it. And yet because an infinite regress is logically (and physically) impossible, the physical world had to have some beginning.

        But because it had to have some beginning, it had to have some "first cause". Dispute what the first cause looks like, by all means, but you can't deny it's there.

        September 16, 2011 at 5:16 pm |
    • Blah

      Quantum mechanics theory shows that matter / anti-matter can and is created from nothing all the time. There doesn't have to be a first something. Particles appear out of nothing and disappear into nothing. Same thing happened at the Big-Bang.

      September 16, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
      • Blah

        Explanation for how stuff at quantum level appears out of nothing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-jQUHUF1MU around 30:00.

        September 16, 2011 at 5:37 pm |
      • *yawn*

        blah: "Quantum mechanics theory shows that matter / anti-matter can and is created from nothing all the time."

        Not really. There's dispute over whether the particles that come in an out of existence are the products of energy (the thing that causes particles) or whether they're truly uncaused and made of nothing.

        Since logic dictates that nothing can pop into existence of its own accord, it's better to err on the side of intellectual caution and say the particles are the products of energy. That is, until science shows otherwise.

        After all, isn't that the scientific method? Like the Popperian glowing grail, you hold onto a theory until it's disproven, not the other way around.

        September 16, 2011 at 5:38 pm |
      • *yawn*

        blah: "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-jQUHUF1MU"

        Thanks, I'll watch it :)

        September 16, 2011 at 5:42 pm |
    • *rolleyes*

      infinite regress is a classical idea. you can turn to aristotle all you want to say that god exists. but we are talking about modern naturalist science and the modern scientific mehtod. not philosophy. not logic. not thousand year old foundational ideas. please separate the two in your mind. there will be no way the scientific method will prove or disprove the existence of god until he makes himself physically observable to all of us. thank you.

      September 16, 2011 at 5:32 pm |
    • Judas Priest

      Necessity? I must disagree with you on that.
      Science does not need god in order to operate, or to explain operation.
      Philosophy only needs god for the ever-popular 'first cause' argument. However it is not necessary to identify this first cause as god. For a broad overview of the issues with the first cause argument I suggest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_cause_argument#Objections_and_counterarguments as a jumping-off point.
      This does not mean that god is not welcome or not wanted; it simply means that in this context, god is not required.

      September 16, 2011 at 6:07 pm |
  63. Ike

    Let's see bird feathers together with "proto-feathers " maybe from a dinasoar in the same piece of amber. Something tells me that the feathers probably come from the same creature. Could it be common sense. Yeah, that's it.

    September 16, 2011 at 4:26 pm |
    • Victor

      Not necessarily. Feathers have a habit of flying through the wind. So, if there was exposed tree sap and a high wind, then who knows what could be trapped in that amber. It could be from multiple animals.

      September 16, 2011 at 4:40 pm |
    • Judas Priest

      Actually, the fact that there are different kinds of feathers in this amber is a big tip-off. There are no known species that have both feathers and proto-feathers. While it's not impossible for there to be an undiscovered new species, it's not very likely. I say the best way to be sure is genetic analysis... but, after millions of years in amber, there's not likely to be enough intact DNA to analyze.

      September 16, 2011 at 6:11 pm |
  64. sunny41

    Geez, knock it off with all the political and religous crap already. Can't people just read an interesting article anymore? You people must be really bored to be obsessed with politics all the time, how boring.

    September 16, 2011 at 4:26 pm |
    • Alan

      THIS THIS A MILLION TIMES THIS

      September 16, 2011 at 4:47 pm |
  65. ralk

    They belong to Piglosi.

    September 16, 2011 at 4:21 pm |
    • Ken

      Sir and/or madam, you are an inane piece of flesh. Not everything you read needs to be pressed into the service of the so-called Tea Party with some ham-handed attempt of character assassination. Go do something productive, or say something positive. At a minimum, just go away.

      September 16, 2011 at 4:36 pm |
  66. I'm The Best!

    So I think this is a very interesting article about a really cool find. Anyone else care to comment on the article whithout any religious nonsense?

    September 16, 2011 at 4:20 pm |
    • Polis

      Sure, next step cloning! Then, hybrids!

      Who wants a puggloraptor? Tyranodoodle?

      September 16, 2011 at 4:22 pm |
      • Roach

        I would like one Pit-Rex please!

        September 16, 2011 at 4:26 pm |
      • Scott

        I think that a Tyranodoodle may be the most frightening creature imaginable. If I have nightmares about a 30 foot tall carnivore with primped fur and a poofy tail, I'm blaming you. O.o

        September 16, 2011 at 4:27 pm |
    • jmacd

      Feathers and hair also protect from malaria-carrying mosquitos and biting flies, etc., another selective force not often mentioned.

      September 16, 2011 at 4:32 pm |
  67. Satin316

    I would like to see the fossil of god please, along with a fossil of the ark and all the animals on it. And I would like to see a fossil of all 40 people that it took to write the bible being that all those lies took about 1,500 years it should be real easy to find. Until then take your bible thumping spat somewhere else. Go T-Rex!!

    September 16, 2011 at 4:19 pm |
    • El Diablo

      Did you mean to write Satan316?

      September 16, 2011 at 4:33 pm |
    • T-Rex

      I have chunks of guys like you in my stool.

      September 16, 2011 at 6:56 pm |
  68. Polis

    If we can see an explosion in space from 13 billion light years away, how is it that existence was created only 6,000 years ago?

    http://www.space.com/6623-space-explosion-farthest.html

    September 16, 2011 at 4:17 pm |
    • garmen

      Clearly God made the Universe LOOK like it was 13 billion years old to test our faith.

      September 16, 2011 at 4:22 pm |
      • Informed99

        So god is more like Loki who likes to trick people and mislead them? I bet he's laughing like crazy watching all the 'stupid' humans trying to figure this one out. Come on. Most people give up believing in magic when they were 9.

        September 16, 2011 at 4:33 pm |
      • apostate

        god is a cosmic jokester.

        September 16, 2011 at 5:06 pm |
    • Peytonator

      http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter5.pdf

      September 16, 2011 at 4:30 pm |
  69. yahmez

    Why does every science article lead to a discussion of religion. Genesis holds no more validity than the theory the universe was created by a flying spaghetti monster. Religious trolls need to go back under their rocks lest more scientific discoveries threaten to shatter their fragile belief systems.

    September 16, 2011 at 4:17 pm |
    • garmen

      Because these people are so insecure about their own faith they have to attack science, which is just interested in facts.

      September 16, 2011 at 4:21 pm |
    • T Ciccone

      Most people are not capable of commenting on the science of the article, so they write on their favorite topic or what they think they know best (usually their personal relgious beliefs).

      September 16, 2011 at 5:17 pm |
  70. lellow

    Its just a piece of amber with some feathers in it. Why are people making this into a religious issue. Its like a marble with a grain of sand in it. Are you serious?

    September 16, 2011 at 4:13 pm |
  71. Polis

    Oh sh*t. T-rex can fly?! This is not good.

    September 16, 2011 at 4:13 pm |
  72. Barney

    Don't you people know anything? The bible clearly states that all dinosaurs went to heaven.

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

      I thought Disney stated that...

      September 16, 2011 at 4:32 pm |
  73. Jay

    What would Rick Perry and Sarah Palin think?

    September 16, 2011 at 4:11 pm |
    • Alex Gessong

      @jay: they *don't* think. That's why the Tea Party loves them!

      September 16, 2011 at 4:18 pm |
    • yahmez

      Rick Perry and Sarah Palin do not think, they are too busy "believing".

      September 16, 2011 at 4:19 pm |
    • Guest

      Palin would call it a lie, and Rick Perry would execute it.

      September 16, 2011 at 4:21 pm |
    • rick perrytwit ... slack jawed bible thumper

      Sarah and I both believe that early man rode their dinosaurs to church every Sunday as well as to the Piggly Wiggly.

      September 16, 2011 at 4:22 pm |
    • Mark

      seems to me the founding fathers of this country all followed one religion or another. Those of you who do not accept that religion is an important part of this country can leave and go somewhere else. Maybe a communist country where you don't have the choice of what to believe.

      September 16, 2011 at 4:34 pm |
      • noway husam

        They followed religion because it got them elected. Following religion is a sure way to get a group of people to follow you. Just look at our members of congress or any President. "believers" all of them, except the only thing they really believe is that they can make a sucker out of bible thumpers.

        Stop thinking the spaghetti monster can save you from the world, you are holding back the progress of all mankind....you...stupid....doosh.

        September 16, 2011 at 4:51 pm |
      • Kris

        Listen, Mark, you and yours are going to leave before me!!!The founders put a barrier between church and state so the US would not turn into Iran. They were all male, so should all women leave? They mostly all had slaves, so should we? They were all the "elite" who owned property, so if you're poor you cant be American? People with benighted medieval thinking like you need to leave, so real Americans, diverse, religious and non,male and female and inbetween, rich and poor can functions as intended, in a decent and moral society.

        September 16, 2011 at 7:10 pm |
  74. nathaniel

    The T-Rex was a large chicken that used to eat us. Now who's at the super market b***! :)

    September 16, 2011 at 4:11 pm |
    • Jay

      I say that all the time LOL

      September 16, 2011 at 4:11 pm |
    • Alex Gessong

      @nathaniel: LOL, but T-Rex never ate us. It missed us by about 65 million years.

      September 16, 2011 at 4:16 pm |
      • noway husam

        Don't tell that to a bible thumper, they used to ride these beasts to church on sunday ! But don't ask them for proof, like a dinosaur saddle or something, lol. They will get all mad and thump harder!

        September 16, 2011 at 4:52 pm |
      • Well, oh yeah?

        What was Fred Flintstone's excavator in the quarry?

        September 16, 2011 at 5:40 pm |
    • Phil

      Fred Flintstone woulda starved to death if it weren't for T-Rex-Burgers! LOL

      September 16, 2011 at 4:19 pm |
  75. Mike

    Majority of Christian denominations have no problem w/ evolution as a note. It's primarily the fundamentalist/pentacostal/charasmatics who do and they represent a minority even in the US, let alone the world. They're just really vocal here (and well funded).

    September 16, 2011 at 4:06 pm |
    • My Scripture...

      says the sun rises in the west.

      You claim a big light (apologies to Firesign Theater) appears in the east every morning?

      Sorry, but you're wrong, by definition, by my scripture, there's no other explanation.

      What you think you see is, most obviously, an illusion or a delusion on your part, but you're most definitely WRONG!

      September 16, 2011 at 4:13 pm |
  76. Lisa

    Very cool. And yes I agree with the others...take your reglious debate muck somewhere else. Those of us who do not wish to be mindlessly controlled by a religion would appreciate it.

    September 16, 2011 at 4:02 pm |
    • rick perrytwit ... slack jawed bible thumper

      *** LIKE ***

      September 16, 2011 at 4:03 pm |
    • Mark

      And those of you that don't want to talk about religion can leave. Why is it that others need to change their input to satisfy you? Freedom of speech! Get use to it. It ain't going no where.

      September 16, 2011 at 4:28 pm |
      • Lisa

        Oh honey, I know you aren't going away. I could probably have written your little response for you. I am impressed by your fabulous grammar, by the way.

        September 16, 2011 at 5:02 pm |
      • Lisa

        Ok, you are right. I'd like to apologize for fear of being a hypocrite. If I think I can type whatever I want where I want then you should be able to as well. Have a great weekend with your God.

        September 16, 2011 at 5:54 pm |
  77. lellow

    This is exactly the reason why they dont share information with us. People cannot digest or accept the results and so its better to keep the public in the dark. It doesnt matter if your christian or not to accept the fact that a few feathers were found in a substance known to be x years old. Its here, its tangible and were putting faith into a matter that isnt calling for faith. We have the amber, its got feathers in it. Thats the cool part of the story. If you keep whining like little babies, they wont share this cool stuff with us. Its a frickin piece of amber with some feathers in it. Thats it. Its cool!!! Its old... appreciate what this earth has shown us and if you want to get all religious about it, God created everything, including the feathers in the amber.

    September 16, 2011 at 4:01 pm |
    • Sith Lord

      Huh, sorry. God did not do SQUAT! This is older than the Universe when God said "Let there be light."

      regardless, this is older than anything than the bible or God speaks of. Again, it proves God does not exist.

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

        I didnt know that there was a day that was written in history to know exactly when God created light. It could have been before the feather... and it could have been after. thats not what is important here. Its about a piece of amber that has a feather in it. Thats it...it doesnt prove or disprove God in anyway.

        September 16, 2011 at 4:17 pm |
  78. Joe

    Bill Hicks quote: "God put dinosaur fossils here to test our faith!" … I think God put you here to test my faith, dude. Does that bother anybody else, the idea that God might be messing with our heads? I have trouble sleeping with that knowledge. Some prankster God runnin' around, [pantomimes digging] "We'll see who believes in me now. I am the Prankster God – I am killing me!"

    September 16, 2011 at 3:58 pm |
    • Natasha

      HA!

      September 16, 2011 at 4:21 pm |
    • dan

      Yeah, kinda makes the whole God concept look silly doesn't it?

      September 17, 2011 at 5:57 pm |
  79. Toosliq

    Bah...Horse Feathers!

    September 16, 2011 at 3:57 pm |
  80. Mark

    I consider myself a Christian and a person of faith. I believe that one can have a full faith life without taking the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, as literal word-for-word truth. There is no "the" Bible. There are many. The Old Testament is the transcription of stories told over generations. The New Testament is composed of books chosen from many books by self-appointed scholars. The Gospels are, in places, internally inconsistent.

    All that we see and all that we know come from God, but it isn't necessary to believe that the Bible is literal.

    September 16, 2011 at 3:57 pm |
    • *yawn*

      You better watch what you say. Militant atheists have tiny minds and are susceptible to extreme rage and ignorance - all while maintaining their faux intellectual superiority.

      As for the fundamentalist trolls on here: they embarrass themselves.

      September 16, 2011 at 4:01 pm |
      • Adam

        "Militant Atheist" ... Thats going on my next job application.

        September 16, 2011 at 4:08 pm |
      • Ken

        If that's what you need to think to make yourself fee better... The proof is in the pudding (or in this case, the amber).

        September 16, 2011 at 4:11 pm |
      • Nirhek

        Ooo covered all your bases there. Good for you.

        September 16, 2011 at 4:20 pm |
    • Sith Lord

      Well the New Testament is not better than the Old Testament. See the OT was written when 99.9% of people were illiterate and morons. The NT are the same things, stories written when 80% of the f people were illiterate and morons.

      BOTH are stories to explain why things happened. Its all Fairy tales. I hate to break that to you.

      September 16, 2011 at 4:15 pm |
    • JamesTN

      What happened to your faith that your words, presented above, make you an apostate? More importantly what are YOU going to do about that? What a tragedy.

      September 16, 2011 at 4:21 pm |
      • Mark

        Show me where any version of the Bible it says it's self-proving. Jesus is said to havereferred to prophecies contained in the Torah, so we can take them as "endorsed" to the extent that the Gospels are reliable restatements of Jesus's words (written hundreds of years later), but he didn't bring a scribe with him as he preached and apparently didn't tell the Apostles to "write this stuff down, you're going to need it later".

        September 16, 2011 at 5:05 pm |
  81. pikachoooo

    Jurassic Park!!!

    September 16, 2011 at 3:56 pm |
  82. I'm The Best!

    so.... is anyone else going to actually comment on the article instead of having a debate about religion? I thought this was the science blog. You know there's a while beliefe blog you can go to. People are trying to become educated here.

    September 16, 2011 at 3:55 pm |
    • Brian C

      I believe the Bible, but I also believe you are right. I prefer for us to discuss the scientific implications. I'm wondering if they might be able to remove some cells from these feathers and see if there is any link to existing animals of today. Could the bird feathers be related to, say, a parrot, or swan, etc... Imagine if the protofeathers came from something related to a raptor. Looking forward to more information on these feathers in the future. Sans any religious comments.

      September 16, 2011 at 4:21 pm |
  83. Dr.K.

    Hey, remember just yesterday when the editors/contributors of this blog suggested that religion comments and debates would more appropriately be held in the belief-net blog?

    September 16, 2011 at 3:54 pm |
  84. *yawn*

    'LOL WE SHOULD ASK RICK PERRY THE CREATIONISTS WHAT HE THINKS LOL'

    Sorry to ask a difficult question that would make you think: but is Rick Perry a "creationist" because he believes the literal word of Genesis, or is he a "creationist" insofar as he's a theist who believes a god was necessary to create the universe?

    Don't hurt yourself now.

    September 16, 2011 at 3:49 pm |
    • trigtwit palin... America's favorite tard baby

      I've got something that won't hurt... a special wet one just for you... *poot*

      September 16, 2011 at 3:57 pm |
      • *yawn*

        Hmm..good one?

        September 16, 2011 at 4:01 pm |
    • Yeesh

      You know, your question is actually a good one, but you just couldn't seem to resist throwing in that dollop of b*tch pudding on top. You'd probably open quite a bit of solid discourse if you left out the needless attitude.

      September 16, 2011 at 4:23 pm |
      • Nirhek

        ^

        September 16, 2011 at 4:24 pm |
    • Talgrath

      It doesn't matter as neither of them are valid in scientific thought. We can not prove or disprove the existence of an omniscient being capable of creating the universe using science, we can only go with what the physical evidence points to.

      September 16, 2011 at 4:23 pm |
      • *yawn*

        talgrath: "We can not prove or disprove the existence of an omniscient being capable of creating the universe using science, we can only go with what the physical evidence points to."

        Sorry to burst your bubble, but proof comes from two sources: 1) data, and 2) necessity.

        Many times scientific proof mixes both of them together. Consequently, we know the distance of the stars (without physically measuring them) because of parallax, etc. The data (parallax) leads to an equation which produces a number that "must" be true.

        The same is true for a god. It's a simple matter of logic that there can be no infinite regress of material causes. Hence, a first cause was necessary. And that cause must be the cause of itself and everything after it, and cannot be a part of the thing it created.

        Hence, your categorical statement ('we can't prove or disprove the existence of a god') is necessarily false.

        September 16, 2011 at 4:31 pm |
      • Caliban

        @*yawn*,
        I don't see how necessity fits into anything. Parallax is a physical measurement, i.e. the angle at which light from a specific source is detected when measured from opposite side of Earth's orbit.
        Also, if you're proposing that infinite regress necessitates a god or gods due to something needing to create itself then why can't the universe create itself? The appearance of a necessity for God as prime mover could just be a limitation of our knowledge/understanding/technology, could it not?

        p.s. there is no rule or axiom of necessity in logic as far as I am aware, but please correct me if I'm mistaken.

        September 17, 2011 at 6:10 pm |
  85. kso

    DEAR CHRISTIANS, CREATIONISTS, AND the like
    We can talk about what god [he, she, it, or they] did or did not do all day long, but you don’t have the luxury of denying the realities that are part of our existence. If you don’t understand the details because you were too busy reading the bible and decided to close your mind to basic information, don’t blame the rest of the world for being led astray because you decided to wear blinders.

    September 16, 2011 at 3:49 pm |
    • Brag in it

      you make absolutely no sense what so ever get educated you fool.

      September 16, 2011 at 3:58 pm |
      • beelzebubba

        Maybe you are so thoroughly brain-washed by a fundamentalist cult that you don't dare question their claims and only believe what is stated in books on their 'approved reading list'. Get yourself de-programmed before it's too late. The fact that living creatures could not possibly fit in the ark of the old testament is proof enough, even for a 10 year-old, that the bible cannot be interpreted literally. Think... don't be a robot.

        September 16, 2011 at 4:20 pm |
      • kso

        @brag in it
        awwwww poor thing, was that too profound of a statement for ya?
        get educated? in what specifically? pfffft.

        September 16, 2011 at 4:23 pm |
      • Taragon

        *shrug*
        ... made sense to me. It was unnecessarily rude but I understood what he was saying.

        September 17, 2011 at 6:13 pm |
    • kso

      @taragon, what's more rude, my statement, or catering to a section of the population that teaches every piece of culture they can touch that "you're" broken and/or lost till you've bought into their prophet, or the fact that they negate everyone else s beliefs other than their own and trade that for having an understanding of other cultures before they open their pie-holes?

      September 19, 2011 at 9:40 am |
  86. kahunaburger

    Maybe we could avoid and argument and just say....

    God created evolution!

    How is that for a statement?

    September 16, 2011 at 3:49 pm |
    • *yawn*

      kahuna: "Maybe we could avoid and argument and just say.... ... God created evolution! ... How is that for a statement?"

      That would be too difficult for simple minded atheists, and too hard for fundamentalist morons.

      Quite frankly, atheists and fundamentalists occupy the same, solitary boat.

      September 16, 2011 at 3:51 pm |
      • Tony

        How true! The debates between them are just forums for village idiots.

        September 16, 2011 at 4:03 pm |
      • *yawn*

        tony: "How true! The debates between them are just forums for village idiots."

        Yup :)

        September 16, 2011 at 4:05 pm |
      • Pjax

        Time and natural selection created evolution. And Mr. Yawn, it sounds like you are the militant, going on the offensive. Humans need to just realize that we dont know what created us, but us atheists realize science is a much better way to find out then praying to a sky wizard.

        September 16, 2011 at 4:13 pm |
      • *yawn*

        pjax: "And Mr. Yawn, it sounds like you are the militant, going on the offensive. Humans need to just realize that we dont know what created us, but us atheists realize science is a much better way to find out then praying to a sky wizard."

        Right. Because realizing that there is no logical contradiction between two views is being "militant".

        "sky wizard"

        Great ad hominem.

        "dont know what created us"

        Many logicians and theists would disagree. Just like we know the composition of the center of the sun, the distance of the stars, and so on, you know a god exists by one simple method: necessity. That is, based on the facts as they are, something "must" be true. Hence, the argument for a first cause based on the logical (and physical) impossibility of an infinite regress of material causes.

        Glad I could disabuse you of your dogmatic assumptions.

        Next?

        September 16, 2011 at 4:27 pm |
    • musings

      That God created evolution is the official position of the Vatican. I think they were so embarrassed about the Galileo thing that they didn't want to have to recant again.

      Besides, it is a story which does more credit to an all-powerful creator than the story of Genesis, but it raises new problems about man's right to lord it over nature, which clearly was not simply made for man. Otherwise, God was taking an awfully long time decorating the new baby's room.

      September 16, 2011 at 4:21 pm |
  87. Free Thinker

    Those feathers are pretty telling, you know that T-Rex was a scavenger right? Had the same nostrils as modern day Vultures. Bet he had feather too.
    Wonder what an Alien would think of Humans today were we to be visited? my guess he'd laugh his rear end off at just how stupid we are a species. Believing the religious ranting of a book of ancient poetry, we are morons.

    September 16, 2011 at 3:41 pm |
    • Alex Gessong

      @Free Thinker: speak for yourself! ;) I'd bet the alien's world would have had religion, too. Until a civilization learns to apply the disciplines of science, religion is all it has in order to try to explain the natural world. I doubt our species in unique in that respect. There will always be people (and maybe extraterrestrials) who find comfort believing in a magical world of gods and goddesses. It's why fairy tales are so popular, even in a society like ours that has the enlightenment provided by science. We're not morons, we just like to indulge in fantasy. Like Santa Claus and religion.

      September 16, 2011 at 3:57 pm |
      • *yawn*

        alex: "I'd bet the alien's world would have had religion, too. Until a civilization learns to apply the disciplines of science, religion is all it has in order to try to explain the natural world."

        Brilliantly fallacious argument. Religion is wrong because science is right.

        Let's tease apart the fallacy: If science is determined to find the truth of the universe, what if it turns out that a god must exist? But then because religion is false (as we've determined beforehand) a god must not exist. Therefore science leads to a contradiction, and science is false. But science (we've already determined beforehand) is always right.

        Good job.

        September 16, 2011 at 4:04 pm |
      • noway husam

        yawn would just accept and believe things rather than fight for a better answer. That's my theory on why the world is like it is today. Too many people just sitting around because they believe the next life is so much better anyway. So they just don't try.

        Easier-yes, but I'm sorry, there is no heaven, nobody to welcome you after death. Only nothingness.

        September 16, 2011 at 5:02 pm |
      • David

        @yawn: Nice job taking that logic class. Now you should look through your own posts and see where you are going astray. You might want to polish up on what some of the terms mean, and when they apply as well. You like to ramble on and on about "faux intellectual superiority"- but those in glass houses should not cast stones. You may have taken a logic course, but you are no expert- you can't even apply the concepts correctly. Logic, by necessity, requires you to ignore any preconceptions you may have, as well, which you are not adept at. And, yes, before you tell me it is, this post is an ad hominem attack- but it is not a fallacious one.

        September 16, 2011 at 5:58 pm |
    • noway husam

      Imagine if all the brainwashing and resources devoted to bowing before an invisible and intangible idea was used to strengthen our scientific ideas throughout history.

      We could have had it all, but we squandered it on hoping for a better run in the next life.

      September 16, 2011 at 4:59 pm |
  88. garmen

    Blasphemy! Don't you all know that dinosaurs were imagined by scientists as a way to discredit religion? Take your "facts" and "reality" somewhere else, we don't need it here!

    September 16, 2011 at 3:38 pm |
    • Justin

      I really hope you are being sarcastic, if not than you might be the most ignorant individual on Earth.

      September 16, 2011 at 3:45 pm |
    • rick perrytwit... slack jawed bible thumper

      Would you like to be a member of my campaign team ?

      September 16, 2011 at 3:45 pm |
    • Alex Gessong

      @garmen: well put! The freaky part is that there are people who actually do feel that way. The scary part is that they can vote and even hold political office!

      September 16, 2011 at 4:00 pm |
      • rick perrytwit ... slack jawed bible thumper

        I'm in office !

        September 16, 2011 at 4:02 pm |
  89. Aaron

    The article doesnt prove a thing. But it is consistent with the Bible and causes problem for evolution. How is it that we find DNA in animals and plants trapped in amber if amber is millions of years old? DNA would break down... in the best simulated lab conditions at the decay rate we measure DNA would be gone in a million years. If you are really curious about amber, read the article at ICR website titled amber-window-recent-past

    Instead of reading this article and automatically believing in evolution, try to open your mind and realize creation is the way. The Bible is clear that there will be scoffers and those who are WILLFULLY ignorant. Dont hide behind science because you think it is soo cool to try and sound intelligent and not believe in God. Science cant prove a thing about amber because the formation of it cannot and has not been seen, tested and observed... quit bolstering science up when you cant even prove the origin of amber by your own requirements. Was this observed? Is it repeatable? Is it testable?

    September 16, 2011 at 3:38 pm |
    • garmen

      I love how people that hate science suddenly become "experts" when it think it helps their cause.

      September 16, 2011 at 3:39 pm |
      • svscnn

        How "willfully ignorant" of you.

        September 16, 2011 at 3:42 pm |
    • Yawn

      Please stop trolling.

      Evolution and the existence of a god are not mutually exclusive, and it doesn't defeat religious belief. In fact, the Catholic Church has recognized the truth of evolution almost since modern evolution was first posited.

      September 16, 2011 at 3:42 pm |
      • Aaron

        Sadly, the Catholic Church is wrong in their beliefs. Not all church organizations have the right answers and the Catholic Church has compromised the foundations of the Bible... they have compromised Genesis and therefore cant stand on a solid foundation.

        September 16, 2011 at 3:48 pm |
      • *yawn*

        aaron: "they have compromised Genesis and therefore cant stand on a solid foundation."

        You're a troll, but I'll bite.

        There's no doubt a god of some sort was necessary to create the universe (based on the impossibility of an infinite regress of material causes, etc.) but if God made you, your intelligence and your ability to think, wouldn't he want you to, say, question the world and figure out how it worked?

        After all, if the people who wrote Genesis got it wrong, wouldn't you be failing your duty as a human to inquire whether or not they got it right?

        September 16, 2011 at 3:53 pm |
      • physics

        Aaron – genetics has conclusively shown that there is no way we all came from 1 couple. And guess what, the Sun didn't really stand still...even if you believe that story, it would have had to have been the earth that stopped rotating, which of course, causes some other problems, like the end of life and all of that. In other words, yep, the Bible's not infallible – any more than the views of stone age people were.

        September 16, 2011 at 3:58 pm |
      • *yawn*

        physics: "Aaron – genetics has conclusively shown that there is no way we all came from 1 couple"

        Err, not to rain on your parade, but supposedly there was a "primordial Eve". That is, all mankind is descendant of one woman because her line of children (and their children) survived, while all other families eventually died out, or had children with her children.

        That isn't to say she was the "only" woman to exist, it's to say that there's an unbroken line of human existence back to her, while all other lines died off or mixed with hers.

        Or so the History channel said.

        September 16, 2011 at 4:08 pm |
      • Michael

        Thank you, yawn. Indeed, I don't think any of the old line "mainstream" Christian denominations – Catholic, Protestant or otherwise – debate the theory of evolution. Only modern "evangelical" denominations interpret Genesis, or the bible in general, so literally (but note, despite their rigid adherence to scriptural infallibility they never seem to notice the New Testament says that a day to God is like unto a thousand years). These folks, unfortunately, are the same people that start campaigns like get the X out of Christmas, because they are so ignorant of theology that they don't realize that X is the Greek capital letter for the CH sound and was used historically as a shorthand for Christ. Ignorance, whether of science or theology, is a dangerous thing. As Abelard said, "question everything, even Holy Scripture" because, if you are a believer, you should accept that as God gave you faith, so he also gave you reason.

        September 16, 2011 at 4:12 pm |
      • noway husam

        There's no way to win the minds of a religi-nut. Anytime you point out something incorrect in the cemented beliefs, they fill that void with "well the spaghetti monster stepped in and did it so of course there's no proof", creationism here but not there, brainwashing your children is not right so please stop. If we all got to choose at age 18 if we wanted to believe or not, without any prior brainwashing, there would be no religion.

        September 16, 2011 at 5:07 pm |
      • Andrew

        *yawn*, he's quite right to say genetics has shown rather conclusively we haven't come from 1 couple. Genetics has shown the existence of a "mitochondrial eve", and "y-chromosomal adam", but they lived thousands of years apart. There's virtually no chance that they lived in the same time period, let alone happened to mate together and produce all the rest of humaity.

        Just because we use the words "adam" and "eve" doesn't mean they were actually a couple, knew each other, or were anything related to the story other than they're convenient words. You don't really believe that the charm quark is going to sweep you off your feet, do you?

        September 16, 2011 at 6:17 pm |
      • Andrew

        Better yet, the word quark is derived from Finnegan's Wake. Scientists have a habbit of making references to other non-scientific subjects.

        September 16, 2011 at 6:18 pm |
    • Sybaris

      "The Bible is clear that there will be scoffers and those who are WILLFULLY ignorant."

      Oh the irony

      September 16, 2011 at 3:45 pm |
    • physics

      The Bible is a good indicator that human nature hasn't changed in the past 4000 years – yep, we still have scoffers – and the Bible covers that. Not prophecy, just human nature. IMO, shouldn't be used as a science manual, since it's based on a bunch of observations from stone age people, but suit yourself.

      September 16, 2011 at 3:46 pm |
    • kahunaburger

      See you on Sunday!

      September 16, 2011 at 3:46 pm |
    • are you serious?

      So you saw Jesus??

      September 16, 2011 at 3:47 pm |
      • Aaron

        Come on, wise up. There are historical accounts of Jesus both secular and non-secular. WritingS in and outside of the Bible to validate his existence. These writings took place in that time frame, they are historical, and not a piece of archaelogy in the world has proven an event or person or group in the Bible to be untrue.

        September 16, 2011 at 3:52 pm |
      • Pjax

        @ aaron- name one. The only thing remotely close to a secular (and therefore reliable) historic account of Jesus was by historian Flavius Josephus and it was 60 years after his death and it contained one small paragraph that is so incongruous that most historians believe it was inserted in by the Christians at a later date. Don't you think Jesus would be a little more important than that? Fact is, Jesus is just another myth in a long line of simliar, tread out, stories involving a virgin birth and ressurection.

        About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and as a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvellous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared

        September 16, 2011 at 4:26 pm |
    • Mark

      Actually, scientists can prove quite a number of things about amber. But you're right, these samples were obviously planted by our creator as a test of faith. As long as we hold our hands over our ears and go LALALAIMNOTLISTENING, we're on a sure trip to heaven!

      September 16, 2011 at 3:49 pm |
      • noway husam

        +1, you nailed it

        September 16, 2011 at 5:08 pm |
    • Evan Muehlbauer

      Why don't you try looking up the answers to these questions (it is quite easy, you can do it online or with any evolution textbook), instead of ignorantly declaring there is no answer?

      And where in the article did you read a thing about DNA? The article is about 80 million year-old feathers that were preserved in amber. We don't need DNA to observe their physical characteristics. Yeesh...

      September 16, 2011 at 3:50 pm |
    • Brag in it

      Exactly praise God:)

      September 16, 2011 at 3:59 pm |
    • Alex Gessong

      @Aaron; in n o remote way does this discovery cause any sort of problem for evolution. The Book or Genesis says that a talking snake once tricked a human into eating a piece of magical fruit. Guess if you're willing to believe in talking snakes, it's unlikely that you'll be willing to believe in concepts that are based on actual observable objective evidence. And before you counter with, "that snake was Satan," check out Genesis "with an open mind." It never claims the snake was Satan. It only says that the snake was the smartest of all animals. A talking snake. Seriously. Science is better than folklore. Personally, I thank God that humans evolved to such a state of intelligence that we could invent science. Evolution is real and always has been. Talking snakes are not and never have been.

      September 16, 2011 at 4:08 pm |
    • Tony

      Hey Aaron, the article does not mention DNA!! That was in the movie Jurassic Park. Stop watching so many movies and read some real science woud you?

      September 16, 2011 at 4:11 pm |
    • Sith Lord

      And NOT ONE, ONE Religious persona can prove the Bible as Fact and the WROD of God, period! That is not debatable. Science is to a certain extent. Everyone admits the bible is INSPIRED by God. Not his verbatim words or conversation.

      September 16, 2011 at 4:20 pm |
    • Pirate Hooker

      Are you being serious? Do you know just how many logical fallacies you've just churned out in an attempt to rationalize your beliefs? Amber is formed as a result of the fossilization of resin that that takes millions of years and involves a progressive oxidation and polymerization of the original organic compounds, oxygenated hydrocarbons. You don't need to physically see the formation taking place to know that it DOES take place.

      The one thing that's great about amber is that there's physical evidence of it, and that physical evidence can be accurately dated using scientific means. What you do not have is a single ounce of evidence to prove creationism. If you had, it would be front page news. Creation is a mythological belief, and one in which YOU carry the burden of proof if you want the rest of society to believe in it. Everything you have churned out is an argument from ignorance; it's unsupported in the scientific community and it's the perpetuation of such drivel that misleads others from educating themselves on the natural world, and therefore, NATURAL explanations.

      September 16, 2011 at 4:20 pm |
    • musings

      "DNA would break down" (in millions of years in amber): so you believe in entropy, I guess. But on what timescale does it break down? What's making the DNA break down. That would be another scientific question about equilibrium states of molecules in the medium that is amber. Did the amber break down? Or is it recognizably dried out sap from trees? If it didn't break down, why does it follow that DNA does? This cannot be solved by talking about it. It has to be tested in a lab. That involves science. I presume the DNA was dated using scientific theories and instruments. That is the presumption I am going on.

      September 16, 2011 at 4:28 pm |
    • Answer

      'God' was created by humans, not the other way around. Therefore religion is nothing more than a control mechanism that should have gone out with the dark ages, but somehow is still accepted by those who support the ones that profit from being simple story tellers.

      September 16, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
  90. Sy2502

    Let me guess Mr/Mrs Christian, god put the transitional fossils there to test your faith?

    September 16, 2011 at 3:37 pm |
    • Aaron

      What transitional fossils? Give us yopur best documented example.

      September 16, 2011 at 3:42 pm |
      • Evan Muehlbauer

        Here you go: http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm

        September 16, 2011 at 3:53 pm |
      • kso

        look up "hominid" slow-poke!

        September 16, 2011 at 3:57 pm |
      • Alex Gessong

        @Aaron: "ambulocetus natans." It's an ancient species of whale that could both swim and walk on dry land. It's a transitional type in the evolution of the whales. You'll find this in the fossil record. You won't find it in the Bible. The path to knowledge is not in a book of folk tales handed down over thousands of years., no matter how comforting those tales may be. The path to knowledge leads through science. Sometimes the path is paved with amber.

        September 16, 2011 at 4:14 pm |
      • Pirate Hooker

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

        September 16, 2011 at 4:29 pm |
  91. Allen

    Most people reading the headline have been sucked into believing that Dinosaur Feathers have been found here but the authors have subtly woven the two words into the article to make people believe that without really saying it. Dinosaurs existed and since Creation birds have always existed. No news here folks. Feathers have been found inside amber – no real news here either. Is the amber millions of years old – Big Question!!! Carbon dating tells us nothing because in practical theory can only "date" things up to about 62,000 years (but there are big holes in even that age) because Carbon 14 can't exist any longer than that. Thousands not millions. So how do the scientists "know" the feathers in the amber are 80,000,000 years old?? They don't because they can't. This whole article is based on the faith in goo to you evolution not observational science.

    September 16, 2011 at 3:33 pm |
    • Sy2502

      LOL, the Christian ignorance is always such an endless source of entertainment...
      They don't need carbon dating, because Geology allows us to date when the rocks were formed.
      Crack open a Science book once in a while!

      September 16, 2011 at 3:39 pm |
      • Yawn

        sy: 'LOL CHRISTIAN IGNORANCE'

        Right. One person trolling on CNN speaks for millions of Christians and, what's more, provides proof about their scientific beliefs.

        Moronic much?

        September 16, 2011 at 3:44 pm |
      • cheechazteca

        Just take for example Michele Bachman. Someone trying to lecture to the world. She is suddenly spouting off anecedotes of people getting brain damage from vaccines. What the hell kind of "scientist" are you Bachman? Where is your study? Proof? data? Don't have any do you? That's what I thought!

        September 16, 2011 at 3:51 pm |
      • *yawn*

        chee: "What the hell kind of "scientist" are you Bachman? Where is your study? Proof? data? Don't have any do you? That's what I thought!"

        As opposed to Nancy Pelosi or Joe Biden "spouting off" on global warming, criminal statistics, and so on?

        Please. Trying to paint Christians, Republicans, or Democrats as morons based on the absurd beliefs or statements of one person is beyond the pale of reason.

        If this is the depth of your intelligence, please don't vote.

        September 16, 2011 at 3:56 pm |
      • Allen

        The feather specimens (no dinosaurs) were found in amber. According to an Austrialian Broadcasting Corporation article University of New South Wales palaeontologist Henk Godthelp says it is difficult to date amber directly so they try to date the original rock deposits it was found in. Well how do they know how old the rock depsits are? They look for index fossils and of course they know how old the index fossils are. How do they know how old the index fossils are? Well of course the just "know" that right????? This is a classic case of circular, unscientific reasoning.

        September 16, 2011 at 3:59 pm |
      • ThsIsNotReal22

        So they figured out the age of the rock layers based on carbon dating and then they figure out the age of the stuff in the layers based on how old they said the layers were. It still always comes back to the chemical dating methods.

        September 16, 2011 at 4:13 pm |
      • noway husam

        yawn believes in fairy tales and zombies, but tells other people they are too dumb to vote.....trying to pull the olde switcharoo eh?

        September 16, 2011 at 5:13 pm |
      • Reasongal

        How do scientists date older fossils?

        Although the half-life of carbon-14 makes it unreliable for dating fossils over about 50,000 years old, there are other isotopes scientists use to date older artifacts. These isotopes have longer half-lives and so are found in greater abundance in older fossils.

        Some of these other isotopes include:

        Potassium-40 found in your body at all times; half-life = 1.3 billion years
        Uranium-235; half-life = 704 million years
        Uranium-238; half-life = 4.5 billion years
        Thorium-232; half-life = 14 billion years
        Rubidium-87; half-life = 49 billion years

        Source: http://www.acad.carleton.edu/curricular/BIOL/classes/bio302/pages/carbondatingback.html

        September 16, 2011 at 7:57 pm |
    • Mike

      C14 is not the only isotope used for dating purposes. It pains me to see otherwise thoughtful people ignore reality of the universe in which they live..

      September 16, 2011 at 3:40 pm |
      • Chris

        Uranium-lead dating can very accurately (2% margin) date things billions of years old.

        September 16, 2011 at 3:42 pm |
      • notyep

        http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/radiometric-dating

        September 16, 2011 at 3:45 pm |
      • Greg G.

        @notyep, there ARE no answers in Genesis, or any other book of your "Bible". The website you linked to is a Christian Apologetics site, full of pseudo-science and data manipulation, not to mention complete ignorance and total lack of understanding of factual hard science. Ultimately, the authors of that site have to invoke the deity to "explain" anything.
        In other words, their ONLY "explaination" is "GOD DID IT!" (AKA, "It's MAGIC!")

        September 16, 2011 at 9:45 pm |
    • Chris

      I've decided I don't care anymore that some people just willfully choose to be ignorant. That's you're choice. I could go ahead and point out all the things you stated that are not true (can only date back 62,000 years? Really? You didn't even bother to Google that to see how wrong you are?), but I'll just leave it at that and let you go on living your happy, deluded life.

      September 16, 2011 at 3:40 pm |
    • allanhowls

      Your ignorance of science and its processes - as well as of logic, reason, and critical thinking - are all sadly lacking.

      You don't have to have faith in science...it just works, no matter how little you choose to believe in it. We have an entire UNIVERSE of evidence pointing to evolution as a fact, while you have...one book written by 3,000-year-old shepherds who thought the entire world was centered around the one body of water they could locate.

      We have more evidence to support evolution than we do for gravity, or for the theory that germs cause disease...spread out across every single discipline of science.

      Thank goodness you are not responsible for our scientific growth, or else we'd all still be rubbing sticks together. Unless, of course, you can provide some peer-reviewed evidence and credentials for your ridiculous and outlandish claims.

      September 16, 2011 at 3:43 pm |
      • I'm The Best!

        Come on man... I think you're giving him too much credit. We'd be sitting around a pile a sticks praying that they would just catch fire. Rubbing them together would displease the god....

        September 16, 2011 at 3:52 pm |
      • ThsIsNotReal22

        Oh you want peer reviewed huh? Too bad that even if there was a mountain of evidence as big as Mt. Everest to support a young earth, the "peer reviewed" journals would plug their ears and go "Lalalalalala". Peer reviewed means fair and unbiased. Right. Too bad the "peers" are are still human with their own agendas.

        September 16, 2011 at 4:19 pm |
    • I'm The Best!

      What the H#*@ are you rambling about? You're talking about how they didn't mention things in the article then you bring up carbon-dating which wasn't mentioned either...

      They know it's that old because of the state of the amber. It takes millions of years for the amber to reach the point that it is at for this fossil. So unless you think there are huge holes in NATURE that you would like to point out, then please stop talking and run back to your book which apparently has all the answers.

      Also Carbon-14 can last for a much longer time. Half life means it loses half of it's radioactivity. It takes another half life to lose half of that. So in the course of 2 half lifes it's only down to 1/4th of it's original radioactivity. So it can take a while before that level gets low enough for us not to detect with the detection method that has been tested and verified.

      September 16, 2011 at 3:45 pm |
      • ThsIsNotReal22

        You claim that scientists "know" it takes millions of years for amber to reach a certain state. I am curious how we would know that? Since humans have supposedly not even been around as long as that blob of amber, how have they been able to measure and document the complete aging process of a piece of amber? Doesn't the scientific method requires testing the hypothesis?

        September 16, 2011 at 4:21 pm |
      • I'm The Best!

        Yea, it does require that stuff. It has been verified by the fact that they have found amber in different layers of the earth which they know to be a certain age and can tell hold long it would take the amber to reach this. If a layer of earth is a certain age, they can deduce that everything they find on that layer is that age. This has been done many times and has come to the same conclusion on how long it takes amber to get to that stage. therefore it is repeatable.

        September 16, 2011 at 4:31 pm |
    • Sybaris

      Stay away from the Creation Museum and CARM. It's junk science and will rot your brain.

      September 16, 2011 at 3:47 pm |
    • physics

      aww, Allen, bless you're little heart for your faith. But don't try to cram it down anyone else's throat, please.

      September 16, 2011 at 3:48 pm |
  92. rick perrytwit... slack jawed bible thumper

    Teabaggers believe that the Flintstones is a factual documentary of early man. Sarah Palin believes that early automobiles really were foot powered.

    September 16, 2011 at 3:29 pm |
    • svscnn

      So. let me get this straight... you're saying that the Flintstones was NOT based upon actual events?

      Ludicrous.

      September 16, 2011 at 3:31 pm |
      • rick perrytwit... slack jawed bible thumper

        Also contrary to popular teabagger beliefs, early man did not park their dinosaurs in the Roman Coliseum while they were watching nascar.

        September 16, 2011 at 3:35 pm |
    • *yawn*

      Trolling fail.

      September 16, 2011 at 3:41 pm |
      • svscnn

        Apparently it didn't "fail" to illicit a response from you, sleepyhead.

        Which is what trolling is all about, after all.

        Too Cool 4 School = Fail.

        September 16, 2011 at 3:46 pm |
  93. svscnn

    Everyone knows the Earth is only 6k years old. These "feathers" were clearly planted by the debble to confuse us.

    September 16, 2011 at 3:28 pm |
  94. rick perrytwit... slag jawed bible thumper

    Perry, Palin, Bachmann... all of them believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that early man walked alongside the dinosaurs. They also believe that early man tamed the dinosaurs and rode them to church on Sundays.

    September 16, 2011 at 3:20 pm |
    • Billy Spudd

      "Kaarnnnk!" that's the sound they made.

      September 16, 2011 at 3:26 pm |
    • ChicagoRob

      of course they did..haven't you ever watched the Flintstones?

      September 16, 2011 at 3:32 pm |
    • Fly Guy in SJ

      Like all leftists, you are a liar to the core, incapable not only of telling the truth, but even of recognizing the truth: the socialist experiment has been proven an utter failure, at the cost of millions of lives. The only socialist countries that have not de facto renounced socialism remain dirt poor.

      September 16, 2011 at 3:42 pm |
      • physics

        obviously, sarcasm is lost on idiots like you. And what does socialism have to do with an article about dino-feathers?

        September 16, 2011 at 3:50 pm |
      • svscnn

        Wrong classroom. This is Fossil Follies 101.

        You're looking for "Socialism in the America: A Modern Conservative Mythology."

        Down the hall and to the far Right.

        September 16, 2011 at 3:54 pm |
      • Tom

        Fly Guy in SJ: Get help you're SICK!

        September 16, 2011 at 4:26 pm |
  95. Dandy

    Wait .. I need to call a Creationist like Rick Perry to get an explanation of this! ;-)
    Remember, the bible is a collection of stories. Those stories were written and collected by humans, then edited several times... "Cat in the Hat" is also a story.....

    September 16, 2011 at 3:20 pm |
    • *yawn*

      Sorry to ask a difficult question that would make you think, but is Rick Perry a "creationist" because he believes the literal word of Genesis, or is he a "creationist" insofar as he's a theist who believes a god was necessary to create the universe?

      Don't hurt yourself now.

      September 16, 2011 at 3:47 pm |
  96. notyep

    Carbon dating is a total farce, and always has been. It is a futile means of justifying a detestable system of unscientific dogma that is evolution. http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/radiometric-dating.

    September 16, 2011 at 3:17 pm |
    • Billy Spudd

      Right! These dinosaurs REALLY died in the Medieval times, being slain by knights! You moron!

      September 16, 2011 at 3:20 pm |
    • Dandy

      I have a bridge for sale... Interested??

      September 16, 2011 at 3:21 pm |
    • notyep

      Modern "scientists" have so prejudiced your mind, that you WILL NOT believe that radiocarbon dating is a farce, because if you do, evolution is a joke. Do yourself a favour and read this: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove ... or any one of the articles in the above link.You will soon find out that radiocarbon dating is based on 3 unverifiable assumptions, and that the half-life of radiocarbon is 5,730 years, not millions of years.

      September 16, 2011 at 3:26 pm |
      • tom

        you must be the stupiest person ever you idiot!

        September 16, 2011 at 3:39 pm |
      • garmen

        No Tom, he has the "facts" of a completely non-biased, objective website. Oh wait, check that, he has propaganda used to confuse and distort actual facts and data to further a cause. Sorry for the mixup.

        September 16, 2011 at 3:42 pm |
      • Ryan

        Do you even know what "half-life" means? It means the amount of time needed for HALF of the radioactive atoms to disappear... not ALL of them. It doesn't matter if the half-life of radiocarbon is 6,000 years... it could be 6 seconds, and you'd still find radiocarbon left from millions of years ago because there are TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS OF ATOMS IN A FOSSIL.

        September 16, 2011 at 3:44 pm |
      • notyep

        In 62,000 years, its ALL GONE.

        September 16, 2011 at 3:47 pm |
      • cheechazteca

        I checked that website and it is a lie. Melted rock that hardened a few years ago should not show that is a few years old. The ingredients for these rocks were there for millions of years. It is like saying the iron used to build my Dodge truck should date only to 2007...(the model year of my Dodge). that won't make sense because the iron was around a long time before it was melted and used in my car.

        September 16, 2011 at 3:48 pm |
      • allanhowls

        AIG is nothing but a tax scam cult. Every last one of their claims has been REPEATEDLY refuted with sound, verifiable evidence, yet they continue to move the goalpoasts and make up more lies as to why they are right, and centuries of repeatable, verifiable studies are wrong...just because a man in a cheap suit said so.

        If you choose not to believe in the best-understood scientific principle of the last 300 years, then go ahead, but don't pretend like you've gained some monopoly on truth as a result. The facts and reality are simply not on your side. It's not your fault, though...tax fraud Kent Hovind makes his riches by preying on the ignorance of his cult followers. Read up, educate yourself, and get free of that liar.

        Creationism is an insult to God.

        September 16, 2011 at 3:48 pm |
      • jesus, bible god = garbage

        You use scientific methods to "prove" your case against evolution when it fits you, and dismiss it if it doesn't. You are truly a moron.

        September 16, 2011 at 4:05 pm |
    • ButWhatIf

      So, if reading the story on that link is supposed to change my mind, then if I send you a link that tells you the opposite of what you believe, then will you change your mind?

      September 16, 2011 at 3:44 pm |
      • cheechazteca

        How about http://www.encyclopediabrittania.com

        September 16, 2011 at 3:54 pm |
    • Alex Gessong

      @notyep: you don't believe in objective scientific fact (such as the accuracy of carbon dating), but you do (I assume) believe that 6,000 years ago a talking snake tricked a human into eating a piece of magical fruit. Belief should be based on objective reality, not on tales handed down from a time before there was science. If you can accept things without any supporting evidence, you may as well believe in fairies and unicorns. Science is better. Religion uses dogma. Science uses objective evidence. Science requires questioning to confirm the truth. Religion demands that you ask no questions, just accept what you're told. That's fine for young children, but not for rational adults.

      September 16, 2011 at 3:47 pm |
      • ButWhatIf

        "you may as well believe in fairies and unicorns..." What exactly are you trying to say?!

        September 16, 2011 at 4:38 pm |
    • physics

      what does carbon dating have to do with this story?

      September 16, 2011 at 3:52 pm |
  97. Will

    Counter-point: Abrahamic religions really are B.S. and will be regarded in the same way ancient Greek religion is in another century or two.

    September 16, 2011 at 3:16 pm |
    • Sauce

      Hey Will, good facts to back up your uneducated opinion! Sadly, Abrahimic religions have historical proof of their main figures, i.e. Jesus, Mohammad, Kings of Israel...which was more proof than the Ancient Greek Religions had. And also historic proof of miracles occuring viewed by thousands of people at a time, i.e. an image of the Virgin Mary appearing in Jerusalem above a church that was visible for miles and there was no evidence of spotlights or any technology that were projecting the image there. I'm not here to force my religion on anyone or insult anyone who may not be religious, I just want others to back up their opinions.

      September 16, 2011 at 3:22 pm |
      • I_get_it

        Sauce,

        And I want you to verify your facts. Proof of the guy, Mohammad, sure, some... but not a whit for his supernatural being. Proof for Jesus and the Kings of Israel - sketchy. You have your Virgin Mary "miracle" confused... it was in an entirely different country - and has not been verified (not even by the Church).

        September 16, 2011 at 6:55 pm |
      • Dlogic

        We can all speculate on many matters concerning scripture , but the fact remains that it doesn't belong to man to dominate others, because it doesn't belong to him to direct his on steps . That is why we still exist today to prove that obvious point . We were made to regenerate ours bodys forever but without humility and obediance it is not possible but the moment one acknowledge he is finite an need infinite wisdom to give him the direction to live then the true journey begins. The wicked illusion of this system of things, which is full of foolishness, will be be done away with someday at wrath of the creator . But until then we all have the opportunity to make a good an favorable name with our Creator to remember us so at his good pleasure he may again give us life.

        September 16, 2011 at 7:57 pm |
      • physics

        say wha'?????????

        September 16, 2011 at 9:31 pm |
      • trex

        PLEASE,...look up the definition of......."faith".....

        September 16, 2011 at 9:35 pm |
    • Billy Spudd

      Actually, the Greek myths are far older than the Jewish ones. The Jewish ones were made up around 536 BC when Rome was already a city and the works of Homer were already 4 centuries old. The 'ancient history' (myths) of the Jews were simply deliberate lies and political inventions dreamed up by the returning Judean elite written to establish their 'theocratic expertise' in ruling the Judean and Samaritan peasants through the temple they (not Solomon) built at Jerusalem in the 6th century BC. It is significant that there were no synagogues in Palestine prior to the Roman occupation. Until then, all Jews and Samaritans had to tithe yearly to the temple....get the picture?

      September 16, 2011 at 3:25 pm |
      • musings

        You seem to be saying they didn't build the pyramids and Moses did not lead them out of Egypt. I'm saying this tongue in cheek because today's Jewish scholars often call Moses a "pious myth." I have to say, though, that DNA studies do not place all Jews in the Persian empire or Turkey. Some share Y-DNA with today's Egyptians.

        But the crux of the matter is that to claim historical connection with the creator of mankind, and to have been able to write down the long history of carrying monotheism in a polytheistic world, you have to be able to say your group as such goes back thousands more years than it can claim to do, based on evidence. It's distinguished enough as a group, in my non-Jewish opinion, not to need such original status. But from the time I could read about archaeology, knowing that this is a group which began after other groups, I had to deal with a greatly shaken faith. Significantly, this mental earthquake in a believing child happened about the time I turned thirteen. How clever of Jews to make a big party for their kids at that age, to seal the membership in the group. Because mere childish faith ain't gonna do it if those kids are smart like I was (as a little Catholic).

        September 16, 2011 at 4:39 pm |
  98. I'm The Best!

    This is an awesome find, especially since it even preserved the pigment of the feathers. It's awesome to actually know what colors some of these animals were.

    September 16, 2011 at 2:46 pm |
  99. Proof

    Either way. This is cool stuff. With a baby on the way I can say that it will be tough to not be bias in how I teach them about religion vs evolution. I will try my best to give them all the options and let them choose for themselves, just as my parents did.

    September 16, 2011 at 2:45 pm |
    • FifthApe

      "I will try my best to give them all the options and let them choose for themselves"

      You are a wise person. I tip my hat to you! :-)

      September 16, 2011 at 3:04 pm |
    • Andrew

      It's not really a matter of "biasing", it's just teach them to think critically. If you teach your child the value of evidence, you'll find they won't buy into bronze age myths as a substitute for proper science.

      September 16, 2011 at 3:18 pm |
    • mike

      I do the same thing with the boogie man and santaclause..

      September 16, 2011 at 3:27 pm |
    • Pirate Hooker

      This is the problem. It shouldn't be biased at all. One is a matter of scientific fact and evidence, the other is completely faith-based. The best thing you can do for that child is teach it the truth. Evolution isn't some made up story, it's an empirical, scientifically-tested, scientifically-proven fact. You may not understand how it works, or willfully choose not to educate yourself on the subject, but don't pawn that ignorance off onto your child. Please.

      September 16, 2011 at 5:10 pm |
  100. Proof

    How sure are they in the dating? I don't mean to bring religion into this, especially after last weeks comment debacle, but if it's pretty accurate then this definitely is evidence to disprove Genesis.

    September 16, 2011 at 1:02 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      Amber is fossilized tree resin, which has been appreciated for its colour and natural organic beauty since Neolithic times. The process of amber formation from tree resin takes millions of years for the resin to harden into amber. Molecular polymerization caused by pressure and heat transforms the resin first into copal and then over time through the evaporation of turpenes it is transformed into amber.

      So it either disproves the Genesis account or it proves a deceitful God... your pick. :-)

      September 16, 2011 at 1:17 pm |
      • Fran

        Or... accept that it's possible religion explains the "why" of life and science perhaps explains the "how"? I just find it strange that the stories with no apparent political/philosophical/religious message get pulled into the midst of "controversy". Pure example of nature preserving herself against the test of time here though. Nothing hateful or evil in that :)

        September 16, 2011 at 2:19 pm |
      • William

        @colin I agree, however you mean apologetic.....

        September 16, 2011 at 3:23 pm |
      • Billy Spudd

        @Fran, because people like you keep trying to impose your fantasies on others.

        September 16, 2011 at 3:30 pm |
    • sumday

      how does it disprove geneses? besides time is relative 80million yrs to us is a short time for someone moving at the speed of light or faster (the expansion of space moves faster than light). Remember the bible also says time is relative long before E=mc^2 was thought of (a 1000 yr is like a watch in the night and a watch in the night like a 100yrs in the eyes of G-d, a watch in the night being about 3-4 hrs) I interrupt G-d did this/that on this day to be more along the lines of his sequence of things, not an actual 24hr (or 1000yr) period- I mean how could you even have a day to measure before the sun and earth where created? Religion is like science the more we learn the more our understanding of it changes to reflect that new knowledge. When science finds/understands something new do they throw out everything before them or just change the way they understand things? The same is true about religion- I don't think the things claimed in the bible are wrong just that we don't have a full understanding of them. IE no where in the bible does it prohibit or say G-d didn't use evolution in his creation- and if you do follow the sequence of Geneses it seems to follow an evolutionary line. Evolution does in no way invalidate the bible or shake my faith- for the bible is only telling us what G-d did, not how he did it, it is science that tells how he did it and just bc one understands how something was done does not mean no one did it.

      September 16, 2011 at 2:28 pm |
      • Colin

        Sumday. What a pile of apologistic sh_t. Religion is no more like science than the three little pigs is a porcine documentary.

        September 16, 2011 at 2:40 pm |
      • I'm The Best!

        Interesting view... I think you're wrong but interesting view nontheless. I am posting to correct one or two of the things you said about time dilation and the speed of light though.
        80million years would be instantaneous for someone moving at the speed of light, and no one is sure what happens with time if you move faster, which givin our current view of how the universe works, is impossible anyways. So it would only be a 'short time' if someone was moving close to the speed of light but not actually reaching it, becase in the event of them reaching it, time would essentially stop for them.

        Next you said "the expansion of space moves faster than light". As a general consensus, this is not true. It is thought that there was a very fast expansion period right after the big bang when it did expand faster, but then proceeded to slow down. This is just one theory though, there are others that don't need the universe to expand that fast for it to make sense, these are relatively new compared to the other one so are less widespread knowledge.

        September 16, 2011 at 2:54 pm |
      • FifthApe

        The dance some people will do in their mind to some how square that circle. There is nothing in the bible that could not have been written by humans of that time who for them the wheelbarrow was emerging technology.

        September 16, 2011 at 3:09 pm |
      • Rayan

        I'm still waiting for science to explain how God figured out that slavery was okay, or how he got two of every living thing on Earth into the same boat for 40 days just a few thousand years ago and yet left behind no evidence or this, or.. well... there's no end to the stupid crud that religionists and other irrationalists will try to force themselves to believe in...

        September 16, 2011 at 3:15 pm |
      • FifthApe

        " When science finds/understands something new do they throw out everything before them or just change the way they understand things?"

        YES.... Some times it does. Have you *any* education in science? So many times a new theory better explains something to a degree that the older theory is completely tossed aside. Thats the power of science. Always providing a more actuate prediction of our universe and our place in it. Unlike religious texts that claim to be the perfect word of an invisible man in the sky......

        September 16, 2011 at 3:16 pm |
      • Pravda

        It does prove that Genesis is not literally true which fundamentalist Protestants believe and because of that dispute any science that shows otherwise. As you infer, a god could have put all the pieces in place and let the rest happen.

        September 16, 2011 at 3:24 pm |
      • Kelly

        You are presenting some very valid points. I think the preacher of my church would not agree with you, though. As an independent fundamental Baptist preacher, he believes in the LITERAL word...as one day being a 24-hour period. However, I believe in evolution, but have solid faith in God. Call me a hypocrite, call me what you will. If the literal word of the Bible is to be believed, wouldn't that negate dinosaurs completely?

        September 16, 2011 at 3:26 pm |
      • Dreamer96

        I'm the best and sumday

        I would even add that they are people known through history that appeared to predict tragic events coming in the future,,,And I would go so far as to say what those people are doing is picking up a shock wave traveling back in time, generated from terror, and terror at the moment of death, strong emotions.

        We have the string and rubberband theories that say mathmatically there are more dimensions to our world, ones we are not fully aware of, we have no idea what laws of physics apply there. Remember that the romans could not explain the wandering of the early 5 planets, because they did understand there true movements. We sure due not understand everything that the human mind is capable of,,,,But the pentagon has records of soldiers that can do unusual things, that were noted on the battlefield, and never really explained.

        September 16, 2011 at 3:27 pm |
      • 1CalNative

        Sumday, I can't agree more and I am hardly a religious person, more spiritiual but that's besides the point. The more we learn in science, the more I find God's hand in what we find. No not creationism, but I think that the Bible tells us our story, in the manner that the people who wrote it down could understand it.

        September 16, 2011 at 3:28 pm |
      • I'm The Best!

        @ Dreamer96
        First of all, please don't lump me in the same category as sumday. I'm an atheist and don't bellieve any of the crap that he spewed, I was just trying to correct him on a few of the science things he stated.

        secondly, your view is reaching even more than sumday's. people get bad feelings all the time, it's going to happen occasionally when someone gets one right because something really bad happens. As for the soldier thing, I'm sure none of it was supernatural, possibly a little superhuman, but that can happen at high anxiety, which is usually present during wartime. And we may not know about alternate dimensions and what the physical laws are there but we can be pretty sure they don't carry feelings back in time.

        September 16, 2011 at 3:37 pm |
      • Dreamer96

        I'm the best

        I understand, funny how the pentagon spends millions on remote viewers, and men who stare at goats, and other unusual people,,,Have you ever read up on some of Nikola Tesla's ideas,,some are probably too far out there for you too.

        September 16, 2011 at 5:32 pm |
    • Rayan

      Proof, what do you mean? Is it news to you that scientists have dug up things dated to 80 million years old? We have dated rocks on Earth to be more than 4 billion years old. Way more than 80 million years. There are a combination of techniques used to date rocks. With the Hubble telescope we have seen light from distant stars and galaxies that is in some cases over 13 billion years old. Look it up. The dates in the Bible are obviously wrong, conceived of by early men who had no concept of the age of the world or the universe. Though that's far from the only thing that disproves Genesis.

      September 16, 2011 at 3:22 pm |
    • Pirate Hooker

      Genesis was disproved WAY before this story came out. This isn't the only fossil found in history. Genesis was disproved when we empirically proved the earth was much older than 6,000 years old–4 BILLION years older.

      September 16, 2011 at 5:12 pm |
      • Judas Priest

        Genesis does not give an age to the earth.

        September 16, 2011 at 6:13 pm |
      • Ixtlan

        Whats wrong with both dates being right.

        Current Earth version 6000 years old. Actual full age of Earth some billions.

        Seems the Earths gets a terra transformation every every 6000 to 13000 years.

        Buckle up folks!

        September 18, 2011 at 6:00 pm |
1 2

Contributors

  • Elizabeth LandauElizabeth Landau
    Writer/Producer
  • Sophia DengoSophia Dengo
    Senior Designer