Ice Age giants may have evolved in Tibet
The woolly rhino may have once roamed foothills of the Himalayas in southwestern Tibet.
September 1st, 2011
03:32 PM ET

Ice Age giants may have evolved in Tibet

Researchers have found the earliest known fossil of a primitive woolly rhino in the Himalayas, in addition to many other remains of animals that no longer exist. This may mean that some giant mammals first evolved in what is now Tibet before the Ice Age began about 2.6 million years ago.

"This is the new frontier for discovery in science. We can expect to have a lot of new discoveries as we keep exploring the Tibetan plateau," said Xiaoming Wang from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, who led the team and discovered the woolly rhino skull.

The woolly rhino fossil is 3.6 million years old. When this animal was alive, the climate was generally warmer around the globe. But the woolly rhino lived in the cold of the mountains and evolved in those kinds of conditions. When the Ice Age came 1 million years later, the woolly rhinos' bodies were already prepared for that climate, so they could easily go down from the mountains and wander around northern Asia and Europe.

The woolly rhino had a horn that is flattened a little bit; more like a paddle than a stick, allowing it to more easily scoop up snow and uncover vegetation, Wang said. It was roughly the size of the modern black rhino of Africa, which may weigh 1.2 tons to 1.6 tons.

At the time the animal lived, the researchers found, the earliest human ancestors hadn't left Africa. The descendants of both of those species did meet, however, millions of years later in the late Ice Age. In fact, there are cave paintings depicting woolly rhinos.

But no one knows why the woolly rhino had gone extinct by the end of the Ice Age, which was about 10,000 years ago. There's no evidence of overhunting by humans, Wang said.

Wang's team found other fossils of curious extinct animals, including a three-toed horse, a snow leopard and a badger, among more than two dozen others.

Post by:
Filed under: Discoveries • On Earth
soundoff (346 Responses)
  1. thuแป‘c giแบฃm cรขn antifat

    I have been exploring for a little for any high quality articles or blog posts in this sort of house . Exploring in Yahoo I ultimately stumbled upon this website. Reading this info So i'm happy to express that I've an incredibly just right uncanny feeling I discovered just what I needed. I so much indubitably will make sure to do not forget this web site and provides it a look on a relentless basis.

    April 22, 2013 at 4:10 pm |
  2. nioxin recharging complex reviews

    I cherished up to you will receive carried out right here. The comic strip is attractive, your authored subject matter stylish. nonetheless, you command get got an nervousness over that you would like be turning in the following. unwell no doubt come more previously again since precisely the same nearly very ceaselessly within case you defend this hike.

    April 16, 2012 at 4:11 pm |
  3. yahmez

    This article is about wooly rhinos, not the inaccurate work of fiction known as the old testament. I wish godtards could respect the topic at hand and stop forcing their insane views on thinking people reading about science.

    September 23, 2011 at 5:04 am |
  4. StevE

    I didn't read the whole post because the comments are just crazy! It's funny how peoples imaginations work. This looks cool by the time you've read this I finished reading the article. Just to let you know ๐Ÿ™‚

    September 22, 2011 at 4:33 pm |
  5. Jon

    That's not a rhino if it has horns. Rhinos don't have horns. Those things on their noses are made of hair. (Different Jon)

    September 19, 2011 at 3:39 pm |
    • alan

      Those things on the nose of Rhinos are made of ivory, not hair.

      September 21, 2011 at 5:17 pm |
      • Delphine Dutoit

        Although they're made of the same substance as hair, they are hard, like horns, and ARE CALLED HORNS.

        September 24, 2011 at 4:46 pm |
  6. Jon

    The idea that evolutionists are some how better educated, smarter, better informed, etc. than those who disagree with them would be more likely to carry the day if its proponents did not demonstrate at nearly every opportunity that the are not so.

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

      See? I'm replying to the other Jon. ๐Ÿ™‚

      September 19, 2011 at 3:40 pm |
  7. Joxer the Mighty

    I find it amusing that many posts in the science blog turn into an argument about the existence of God, and the exact same thing happens in the belief blog. You people are wasting your breath trying to convince each other when you have both made up your minds on what you believe. I choose to believe in God but I freely admit that He may not exist. If I am talking to an atheist that doesn't want to hear about my belief in God then I won't force it on them. It has been proven many times that the fire hose technique of converting someone who is firm in their rejection of your belief does not work., so stop arguing with each other and get along. For those Christians out there, remember that love is what ultimately matters, and Jesus told the disciples to shake the dust off their sandals and leave a town that did not want to hear the gospel.

    September 14, 2011 at 6:03 am |
    • Jason

      If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people.

      -Gregory House

      September 14, 2011 at 2:51 pm |
      • Richard Dawkins

        BLASPHEMER! Your comment warrants death. Just kidding... peace

        September 15, 2011 at 6:02 pm |
    • ThomasPaine

      This is why I will happily remain a Deist. I believe in God, but none of the written garbage of man that is polluting common sense. You want proof of a higher power look at the creation that is around you for evidence not the crazy rantings of the creations mind.

      October 5, 2011 at 3:16 pm |
  8. JJJ

    I'm pretty certain the Western hemisphere was warmer back then ๐Ÿ˜‰

    September 14, 2011 at 2:00 am |
  9. Scotter Libby

    I wonder how many of these religious people actually follow their religion, or just pick and choose what's easy? If you don't follow your religion to a T then you're just a hypocrite that's a SCARED of what happens after you die.

    September 14, 2011 at 1:15 am |
  10. Elton Robb

    Abolish all religion, your posts just exude hubris. I think you want to abolish religion for the wrong reasons.

    September 8, 2011 at 9:43 pm |
    • Realist

      that has nothing to do with the article. you waste every bodies time.

      September 11, 2011 at 12:17 pm |
  11. Skeptic

    How did they know it was woolly?

    September 4, 2011 at 5:04 am |
    • Realist

      "In fact, there are cave paintings depicting woolly rhinos." rofl.

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

      They have a way of examining the fossils and chemicals existing on them to discover the type of fur or feathers and even the color of them! It's quite impressive, actually.

      September 13, 2011 at 10:18 am |
    • JJJ

      The found a receipt close to one of the females, showing she had recently bought extensions and conditioner.

      September 14, 2011 at 1:32 am |
  12. Racine

    Ancient archaeology has a lot more to reveal, sometime some of the most obvious facts are overlooked or ignored because they do not fit into what we have been taught. These can lead to the most amazing findings for a list go to
    many other intriguing topics covered!

    September 3, 2011 at 4:22 pm |
    • Judas Priest

      This is "Paleontology". "Fiction" is over in the next aisle.

      September 13, 2011 at 11:20 am |
      • Delphine Dutoit

        Yes, indeed a much better option is to do to

        September 24, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
  13. FZ

    TAX ALL Churches!

    September 3, 2011 at 9:42 am |
    • Z!P

      You mean, taxonomy is had been practiced even before ice age? You gotta be kidding!

      September 4, 2011 at 4:14 am |
    • Realist

      They do pay taxes you moron, get informed.

      September 11, 2011 at 12:18 pm |
      • W


        September 16, 2011 at 12:00 pm |
  14. Donald Black

    If you see where apes are today you will notice that they live in relativley stable environments (jungle habitat). Over to the east of africa where the horn of africa meets the mainland is where our ancient ancestors lived. It used to be jungle but it has changed dramatically over the millenium. The apes in that region evolved to meet the environmental changes taking place at the time. This lead to us. Chimps, Gorillas, Orangutans, and Gibbons lived in places that changed very little and so they changed very little. Europe used to be filled with apes but the environmental changes happened there too fast and the apes could not adapt fast enough. All those species of apes died out.

    September 3, 2011 at 8:28 am |
    • Delphine Dutoit

      or killed each other off in the competition for food and shelter.

      September 24, 2011 at 4:49 pm |
  15. Sam

    So, to all of you belieivng in evolution. If we are evolving, then why is the world in the state it is in now? Evolution is to make us smarter, right? Then how come we have so many people who do stupid stuff all the time? Why do we have people mooching off the government because they are too lazy to want to work and have someone else give them money so they can buy cigarettes or drugs. Why do people think they have a "right" to healthcare? Where is that written in the Constitution? If people are evolving then we wouldn't be in the state we are in now. If anything we are DEVOLVING. Or maybe, we are evolving in to something- a world of morons who believe that everything is owed to them.
    And how do you know there is no God? I believe, yet I haven't seen him. I nearly died a three years ago, and even doctors said I should have but I didn't. That just strengthened my faith. Maybe there was a Big Bang, but who's to say it was an accident? What if God, as the Bible tells us, spoke and made it happen? I feel sorry for all of those who don't believe, I really do. Believe in the non-existance and see where it leads. Believe in your evolution but I have yet to see it on a grand scale. If there is evolution you won't see it in your lifetime, or even your kids, kids, kids lifetime.

    September 3, 2011 at 2:44 am |
    • CCFan

      "Evolution is to make us smarter, right?" Not necessarily. We evolve to adapt to the environment. Features that we no longer need will degenerate.

      September 3, 2011 at 3:02 am |
    • Emmanuel Goldstien

      Sam, as was pointed out, you don't understand evolution. However, the world has gotten smarter: Many less people believe in the magical man in the sky now than they used to!

      September 3, 2011 at 12:07 pm |
    • Lawlz

      emman: "Sam, as was pointed out, you don't understand evolution. However, the world has gotten smarter: Many less people believe in the magical man in the sky now than they used to!"

      It's ironic that you talk about how the world has "gotten smarter" and conclude that a god doesn't exist because evolution is true.

      You do realize that evolution and the existence of a god are not mutually exclusive, right? And that, in fact, Aristotle's own logical proof for the existence of a god was based on teleology, right?

      September 3, 2011 at 9:22 pm |
      • Jim

        I think for many people who equate evolution with denying existence of God, they have a problem with what they associate with the word "God". If it is what they learned in 4th grade, that will be a problem. But, if their definition of the word "God" has matured, it's no problem at all. God exists, whether you associate "the wonder of existence" vs " a man upstairs", that's a big difference.

        September 12, 2011 at 3:07 pm |
    • Scientific Catholic

      Why can't evolution just be one of the tools God uses to craft us? That totally fits with the original definition of Intelligent Design as St. Thomas Aquinas described it. I have never had any problem believing in both a higher power creating and guiding the course of the universe, and the genesis of new species as natural selection of genetic mutations that prove useful adaptions to the environment. (Remember, Who causes both the genetic mutations and controls the environments in which they occur?)

      September 5, 2011 at 3:58 pm |
      • Judas Priest

        Aww, that's just Papist propaganda! ๐Ÿ˜›
        I kid. unfortunately there are people out there who think that way.

        September 13, 2011 at 11:24 am |
      • Chuck

        Here's the problem: the methods that have lead mankind to understand the phenomenon of evolution - that is, science - reveals absolutely no significant evidence whatsoever to support the existence of a god or gods, at least taken in the normal sense.

        In other words, if you accept evolution because of the strong evidence that supports it, why would you also accept something for which there is no evidence?

        September 13, 2011 at 3:23 pm |
      • W

        All of you antievolutionists need to seriously take a course that lays out all the current evidence of evolution. There is so much in DNA and RNA analysis, embryology, vestigial organs, the biodiversity found today, antibitic resistance in bacteria, the fosil record, etc. (But, as a college biology teacher, I know that my antievolution students refused to even consider the evidence. Then they either skipped the testing of the subject or wrote that the concept was false in answer to each question. Some turned in research papers that only referenced a single book written by a nonscientist at their religious school. (The funnier thing was that this writer had only referenced a former book he had written in the book the students cited.) Oh, they didn't believe in conservation and control of human population growth to help prevent further speeding of climate change and loss of biodiversity. And, you guessed it! They complained to my superiors when their work wasn't considered acceptable to me. (I had tried the idea that they needed to know all their "enemies" believed and why before they could discuss it well. Didn't work.)

        September 16, 2011 at 1:27 pm |
    • Amanda

      The reason humans are in a state of stasis currently is because we have removed the most important factor in evolution, survival of the fittest. In ancient times, if you were too slow, too stupid, too weak, deformed, etc., you would not survive long enough to breed, and your inferior genetics would not be transferred into the next generation. By removing this, all genes make it into the pool, and often the inferior ones more frequently than the inferior, because more intelligent people have a small number of children so they can be more engaged in their lives and upbringing. So, by having 20 kids we can't take care of, and enabling the weakest to survive, we are compromising our evolutionary track. I'm not suggesting that we should kill off the weakest amongst us, or even just to let them die, but that is, in a nut shell why evolution worked for so many millions of years, but does not work in modern times. Evolution will be slowed because of our new-found humanity.

      September 10, 2011 at 8:54 am |
      • Glenn

        Amanda, an intelligent reply, thankfully. I wonder the size of families attributed to those individuals who turn a blind eye to the science of evolution compared to those families who follow the science? Hopefully mankind realizes soon that we can't even support the people on this earth now, planned parenthood, birth control etc. should be at the forefront of politics – REGARDLESS of religious beliefs – or we won't last. Simple.

        September 16, 2011 at 12:35 pm |
      • Delphine Dutoit

        Or you could start considering evolution as being a process for the survival of the fittest GENES rather than species as Richard Dawkins suggests. In that case, we may be dumbing down as a species and losing our physical fitness to live long lives because of DNA that is very effective in replicating itself, without consideration for our species. (couch potatoes who can't add or subtract without a calculator or write a letter without a spell checker)

        September 24, 2011 at 4:55 pm |
    • Steve

      If the 'goal' of evolution was to make us smarter, you wouldn't have asked such a misinformed question.

      September 16, 2011 at 7:50 am |
    • mike c

      Your existence is proof of evolution. Evolution is a natural process, not a plan. It does not have a goal, it just happens. Continental drift/seafloor spreading is a natural process also. If it did not exist, there would not be an Atlantic Ocean. Your political statements suggest that you are not open to any view of reality but your own.

      September 16, 2011 at 11:05 am |
    • Jon

      "And how do you know there is no God?" A loving, all-knowing God would not tell his only loyal follower to prove his loyalty by sacrificing his son. An all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect God who created all things would not have created Satan. The god of Abraham was supposed to have been abd done all these things. Ergo the god of Abraham does not exist. (Other Jon again.)

      September 19, 2011 at 3:48 pm |
    • Norm - not that one

      I guess that leaves me out. I don't "believe" in evolution any more than i "believe" in gravity or "believe" in a sky pixie.
      I ACCEPT a reality that is based on facts and evidence instead of arguments out of ignorance.
      (I also accept the fact that this "reality" is not carved in stone – but changes as our discovery of facts change).

      September 20, 2011 at 2:01 pm |
  16. JJJ

    Ow Ow Ow Ow, you are hurting science with that kind of talk. Variation within the existing genome is not evolution. That's like saying miniature poodles evolved from standard poodles. Evolution requires a change to the genome, which is often called a mutation, and then selective breeding based upon the mutation. Tall people having tall kids is not based on a mutation, and is reversible. Hopefully your condition is a mutation, and will not be bred for.....

    September 3, 2011 at 2:34 am |
    • Donald Black

      Mutation causes variation. It is existing variation within a species that allows for natural selection. Take a class.

      September 3, 2011 at 8:03 am |
      • JJJ

        Not entirely, the expression of a genetic sequence can be based on non-genetic factors.

        September 14, 2011 at 1:29 am |
  17. Bible Thumper

    That's not a woolly rhino. It's a Jesus horse. That's the kahnd of horses they had back when Our Lord Jesus Chrahst woulked the earth.

    September 3, 2011 at 12:59 am |
    • Scotter Libby

      Yeah haven't any of you read the bible? Or been to Jerusalem? They have Jesus Horses all over the place. You can ride them up to the dome of the rock for a shekel and if you promise god not to rape children he'll let you see Joseph Smith's golden bible.

      September 14, 2011 at 12:35 am |
  18. Leonid Brezhnev

    There is no god. Plain and simple, just like the people who believe in this myth.

    September 3, 2011 at 12:40 am |
    • twinkle

      Has anyone found a unicorn yet?

      September 3, 2011 at 12:47 am |
    • Duce

      Spread the wise word Leon!

      September 3, 2011 at 1:36 am |
    • toddrf

      You mean like Obama?

      September 13, 2011 at 5:49 pm |
  19. cory

    you guys crack me up. both sides are so narrow-minded and resistant to hearing anything that might be considered "different". Why can't human beings just accept that we are all different and have different beliefs? The answer has to be somewhere in the middle. Evolution has happened and is happening right now, we see it all the time. Look at professional athletes. It's a high-speed evolutionary process. Your average bench warmer in the NBA today would have been a basketball legend 50 years ago. In track and field world records are constantly being broken. Why? Because these people are intentionally evolving and making themselvs physically better. But I personally don't believe that means there is no God.

    September 3, 2011 at 12:20 am |
    • Timetraveler

      You have been grossly misinformed. No scientists has ever used evolution as evidence that there is no god. There is nor can there ever be such evidence. It's the claim of god's existence that requires proof, not the refusal to accept that claim.

      September 3, 2011 at 12:29 am |
      • Nah

        time: "You have been grossly misinformed. No scientists has ever used evolution as evidence that there is no god. There is nor can there ever be such evidence. It's the claim of god's existence that requires proof, not the refusal to accept that claim."

        You were doing so well until the last sentence.

        Evolution doesn't disprove the existence of a god, because a god and evolution aren't mutually exclusive. Especially given teleological arguments.

        Except the burden of proof is on whoever makes an assertion. You cannot simply deny (say you don't believe) a god exists and then refuse to gives a reason why. In order for your belief to be coherent you must establish some logical fact. Otherwise, for instance, you could perpetually deny that 2 and 2 are 4, and no one could have recourse against your absurd belief.

        September 3, 2011 at 2:38 am |
      • Nah

        time: "It's the claim of god's existence that requires proof, not the refusal to accept that claim."

        To head off the obvious and moronic objections that should be coming this way, I'll give you an example.

        If someone says "I refuse to believe the world is round" and his opponent says "I refuse to believe the world is flat", who has the burden of proof in that situation?

        On your view, and under your standard, neither one of them do.

        Simple negations in sentences have no bearing on whether you have a burden to prove what you assert.

        September 3, 2011 at 2:41 am |
      • Chuck

        But, Nah, didn't the assertion that there IS a god come first? Atheists don't assert there is no god, just that they don't believe there is a god. Most would agree with the statement that the likelihood of a god (or gods) existing is infinitesimally small. But, since there's no way to PROVE something does NOT exist, we can't reduce that probability to zero.

        If you claim a god exists, prove it. Until then, we won't believe it.

        September 13, 2011 at 3:28 pm |
    • thedude

      evolution is not the difference between today's athlete and one from 50 years ago. it's things like a better understanding of how to train, a better diet, hi-tech training methods, steroids, hgh and the like that have made the difference. there are no fundamental physiological changes that have taken place, just a really good exercise regimen.

      September 3, 2011 at 12:44 am |
      • ElisabethinCA

        You are 100% wrong. People have evolved greatly. People are much bigger, and I am not talking about the huge (no pun intended) obesity problem we now have especially here in the U.S. People were MUCH smaller years ago, and all you have to do to see that is go look at Vintage clothes and while that seems like a simplistic answer to the question of people evolving, it is an easy way to see. AGAIN not about weight but about height and size in general. There are many studies about growth and granted a lot of that has to do with the hormones put in our food supply but there was an article published in the scientific communities that proved each generation has added a little height and size over the years. It was a few years ago when I read this and if I could point you to it I would. I was driving by the local high school one day and couldn't believe how big the kids looked in comparison to when I went to school. So I did some research to see if I was just remembering wrong or there has been a change. People will never stop evolving and adapting and neither will animals or plant matter.

        September 3, 2011 at 12:59 am |
      • M-Theory

        If 2 people athletic people were attracted to each other and mated.. their offspring would be more athletic. If the offspring followed the same pattern then you have evolution in action. This is the case in today's world, be it with athletics, or wealth, or looks.... It is all EVOLUTION in action.

        September 3, 2011 at 1:11 am |
      • West

        Elizabeth, you don't know what you're talking about. Greater growth in teenagers over the past several decades has more to do with available nutrition and health care than anything else, and the few generations between you and those kids on the playground aren't long enough for evolution to occur anyway. Please learn something before you spout.

        September 3, 2011 at 1:16 am |
      • The_Mick

        As a scientist, let me clear the air and say that evolution did NOT cause today's athletes to be better: that's nutrition, training methods,etc. But evolution IS responsible for the fact that almost all of today's humans of Northern European descent can digest cow's milk. And have light colored eyes and hair. Those are examples of evolution just over the last 15,000 years. The reason we have different versions of the flu virus is also due to evolution and it's evolution-based theories that allow the world to determine which three strains to target in next year's flu vaccine, whose manufacture must begin before we know for sure which strains will occur. That's an example of evolution right before your eyes. Finally, please note that the vast MAJORITY of Christians belong to denominations that officially believe that the method God chose to create today's world employed evolution. Those claiming the Bible must be taken literally, when there are two different creation stories, two different men are said to have killed Goliath, two different timelines of events in Jesus' last week, Philistines dressed up in outfits that did NOT exist until Greek Hoplite mercenaries came to the area hundreds of years later, etc. etc. etc. are engaging "suspension of disbelief".

        September 3, 2011 at 2:06 am |
    • JJJ

      Cory, you really don't know the difference between evolution and training? Why are you typing on a science-oriented page? Reading your words feels like having my brain stabbed with a rusty nail.

      September 3, 2011 at 12:47 am |
    • learned_one

      Evolution is the way a species changes over time in response to it's environment. There are many factors involved, including diet, genetics, sexual selection, etc. Yes, today's athletes may blow their older counterparts out of the water, but all the training in the world is not going change gross physical characteristics. If the environment favors the adaptations you have, then you have a greater likelihood of living to reproductive age and passing on those favorable adaptations. And why can't God and Evolution coexist? Isn't it possible that God created evolution so that his creations could have a better chance of surviving? Things that don't change or adapt to their environment die off and make room for creatures that can hack it.

      September 3, 2011 at 1:15 am |
  20. Concerned Parent


    September 3, 2011 at 12:19 am |
  21. krm

    The woolly rhino had a horn that is flattened a little bit; more like a paddle than a stick, allowing it to more easily scoop up snow and uncover vegetation, Wang said.

    Why didn't they tell the illustrator about this?

    September 3, 2011 at 12:18 am |
    • honest mistake

      The illustrator was HONEST. On the other hand, Wang was a MISTAKE.

      September 3, 2011 at 12:29 am |
      • Judas Priest

        What have you got against wang?

        September 13, 2011 at 11:38 am |
  22. Chris

    I don't know how this turned into an evolution debate. Maybe wooly rhinos never existed and God put fake wooly rhino skulls in Tibet just to f*** with us.. I believe that the whole notion of God is ridiculous. And all you true believers are, yes, nuts. Please go away.

    September 3, 2011 at 12:11 am |
    • Miromab

      Chris, the God you don't believe, does indeed not exist. But there is another God, one you have not heard about yet, that is real. I am sorry many people with simplistic and naitive beliefs have promoted the "myth God" you object against. There is a deeper truth though, and that one does not conflict with science at all.

      September 13, 2011 at 4:25 pm |
  23. Bill the Science Guy

    There is evidence of spiritual reality. It is human free will. Humans are not controlled solely by their genetics and environment (nature and nurture). They can freely choose to follow or not follow what their nature and nurture would have them do or think. See the book The Science of the Soul. This book contains the quotes of many prominent scientists who agree human free will cannot be explained as a natural phenomenon, including Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein, Charles Darwin, Erwin Schrodinger, William Provine, and others. Free will must be explained as a supernatural phenomenon and we give a name to its source. We call it a soul. God is needed to create souls and join them with bodies.

    September 3, 2011 at 12:10 am |
    • Abolish All Religion

      Not a single one of the scientists you list said anything of the kind. Cite a credible source. Another religious whackjob puting words in people's mouths.

      September 3, 2011 at 12:14 am |
      • Bill the Science Guy

        Reply to "Abolish All Religion". The written quotes of scientists in the book The Science of the Soul come from writings by those scientists and are well documented. Those scientists conclude that human free will cannot be explained as a natural phenomenon.

        September 3, 2011 at 12:38 am |
    • TotalBull

      Hey, Bill the Science Faker: find me some evidence of a "soul". And, how about some real quotes from the science luminaries whose names you used to pump up your b.s.? You, me, and everyone else will cease to exist as a conscious entity when we die. That statement is based on all available evidence, not the insane musings of unwashed, prescientific era peasants wandering in deserts a couple thousand years ago. Why not see if you can live without a mental pacifier?

      September 3, 2011 at 12:35 am |
      • Bill the Science Guy

        Reply to "TotalBull". Human free will is evidence of the soul. The written statements of the scientists is well documented in the book The Science of the Soul. Perhaps you believe humans are robots. But I believe I can choose at any time to hop on one foot or not (or any other frivilous act). That is not something controlled by nature and nurture.

        September 3, 2011 at 12:50 am |
      • greg

        You, me, and everyone else will cease to exist as a conscious entity when we die. So I ask. Is one's sprit the same as one's Soul? Will my spirt live on after I die?

        September 3, 2011 at 1:33 am |
      • WeedJ

        Ever seen the movie 21 grams? I don't beleive in a god, but the reality of a human soul is real and can be proven electromagneticly. Also their are forms of quantum physics that prove that the human mind has the capability of altering reality by simply observing events as they become relaty, some scientific evidence even proves that the mind can alter things that happened in the past I.E. things the computer recorded as being one way, human minds percieve things on their equipment another way and once they analyze the object or whatever their observation has changed what was.... as the computer analyzed it before human observation. Thats some trippy ass shit. The 21 grams issue goes into saying that the human body loses 21 grams of weight right upon the death of the individual... no matter wht the size of the person on the weighing table..... The idea of god is so fucking rediculously hard to even comprehend in creating an explanation scientificly that it is nearly imposible to get past the discription of the "Nothing" from which any god can derive itself.... simply as you put any description uppon nothing, you have something..... Oh and Where the hell are the pictures of the un-earth skull from this wooley rhino anyhow??? screw that lame scetch

        September 3, 2011 at 1:41 am |
      • Nah

        total: "You, me, and everyone else will cease to exist as a conscious entity when we die. That statement is based on all available evidence, not the insane musings of unwashed, prescientific era peasants wandering in deserts a couple thousand years ago. Why not see if you can live without a mental pacifier?"

        Given your obvious lack of knowledge concerning philosophy, science and logic in general, your name is pretty ironic.

        The case for an "immaterial" soul comes precisely from the fact that humans, and many other animals, are conscious. That is, your mind is an ordering of billions of atoms, and yet one single unified thing exists above them: your conscious self.

        Given also that material causation is linear, but the mind is free to think what it pleases, logic tends to dictate that the mind is, therefore, not material.

        Glad I could disabuse you of your primitive, untutored and decidedly unintelligent beliefs.


        September 3, 2011 at 2:46 am |
    • M-Theory

      Ha. Free-will is just a perspective of the perceiver and doesn't signify anything greater than a brain with options. And If free-will is somehow the manifestation of a soul then every simple animal has a soul. If every animal on the planet does indeed have a soul then it is probably derived from a singular source. Which means a single soul. Which means that you are typing this paragraph to yourself right now.

      September 3, 2011 at 12:39 am |
      • Bill the Science Guy

        Reply to "M-Theory". It sounds like you think that humans are robots. Even computers can make choices based on how they are constructed and the inputs they receive. But I believe humans can make "free" choices that are not controlled by nature or nurture. People with alcoholic tendencies raised by alcoholics can choose to stop drinking alcohol. I can choose to do frivolous actions (or not) at any time I freely choose.

        September 3, 2011 at 12:58 am |
    • JJJ

      Bill, having "science" in your name is like Sarah Palin calling herself the History Gal. You might want to learn how the scientific method works before you use the word.
      While I personally believe in free will, I also admit that I cannot prove it, as I cannot disprove that it has all been predestined since the big bang. It's quite possible that there are a near-infinite number of causal relationships that give the illusion of free will. "Science" does not allow you substitute "god" or "miracle" whenever a process or explanation is just beyond contemporary human understanding. Remember, at one point "god" was the only explanation for lighting to people like you.

      September 3, 2011 at 12:55 am |
      • Flippy1124

        good post

        September 3, 2011 at 12:57 am |
      • Bill the Science Guy

        Reply to "JJJ". If you believe humans have free will, then it is logical to conclude that humans have spiritual souls that are not controlled by nature and nurture. If humans are only controlled by nature and nurture, then they are robots. You are correct that science cannot prove anything. It is a question of evidence. I think there is ample evidence of free will. People can choose to do things that are not logically due to evolutionary forces. There are many examples in the book The Science of the Soul. Are you freely choosing the evidence you will accept as being valid for any scientific theory? Or are you a robot?

        September 3, 2011 at 1:07 am |
      • Nah

        jjj: ""Science" does not allow you substitute "god" or "miracle" whenever a process or explanation is just beyond contemporary human understanding. Remember, at one point "god" was the only explanation for lighting to people like you."

        This is a dishonest characterization of science and theism.

        No one argues that there is a "god of the gaps". In fact, most every argument for the existence of a god has nothing to do with "filling" the holes in science, they stand alone in pure logic (ontology), from causation (cosmological), or based on evolutionary principles (teleological).

        "Remember, at one point "god" was the only explanation for lighting to people like you."

        And? Just because the scope of something's explanatory powers lessens over time doesn't invalidate it as an explanation. In fact, isn't that was science is all about? Positing hypotheses, testing them, and reformulating them to fit the facts?


        September 3, 2011 at 2:51 am |
      • Scotter Libby

        Seriously Bill are you a f-ing robot? You keep repeating the same things. How does free will mean we have a soul? Or prove there is a god? Just because we're not like my dog and can decide not to eat shit, doesn't mean anything except we are smarter than most animals (and even with some people that's debatable). Dolphins and primates can decide to have sex for fun. They can decide to jump out of the water or to eat their trainer, and maybe that's because they too have relatively large brains.Or is it because god gave them free will too?

        September 14, 2011 at 12:55 am |
      • JJJ

        @Nah, I was characterizing neither science nor theism, so your comment is mute. I maintain that Bill is flawed in his reasoning to claim that Theory A must be true because Theory B requires a level of abstraction that is beyond his limitations. That is not dissimilar from saying that English is a better language because Arabic has some sounds I cannot produce, and therefore those sounds do not exist.
        As for my second statement, I will continue to remind the kind of people who cannot coexist with a knowledge vacuum, that every previous attempt by man to fill that vacuum with "god" has been generally refuted over time. Feel free to show me an observable phenomenon that was once attributed to god that is still unquestionably attributed to god, other than war, of course. ๐Ÿ˜‰

        September 14, 2011 at 1:52 am |
    • michael taylor

      hey bro i beleive you all these people posting rude commnts abount not beleiving in god is free will god gives us evert opportunity to come to him and beleive and be free from sins what evey consious decrsion we make is made of free will who ever does not understand this concept is not a very intellegent person it is all self explanitory prettymuch so all of you giving mr bill a hard time leave him be we all have our own beliefs and no where on his post was he downing yours

      September 3, 2011 at 1:27 am |
    • WeedJ

      Uhhhhh ****caugh****** ~~~~~

      Yeah Scince guy..... I think the freewill is generally derived from the inner workings of the human mind... not the soul.... The levels of conciousness are many mighty grasshopper yet the soul is a sort of electromegnetic residue of all the experiences one lives through in life physcally and mentally. Like a memry that never fades which can be infinitel accessed quantum without the need for restaints by the illusion of space time. And further more, there need not be any god for this to occur as the events are natural in the celular structures derived by all of the elements from which we are made of with also the multitude of frequencies being pushed by the sun onto us all, invigorating the ions, electrons ect. that are shared within all of us to what we understand as life.

      Religion is a TooL used to control the FuCkiNg StuPid MaSseS whom cannot think for themselves. Government is the next ste in the line of FUCK US UP HE ASS...... If you beleive in Christ walking around turning water into wine and doing Magic, you might as well get on both knees and worship Criss Angel

      September 3, 2011 at 2:00 am |
      • Bill the Science Guy

        Based on scientific experiments, electromagnetism is a well-defined natural phenomenon. There is no room in electromagnetism for explaining free will which does not follow scientific theories (otherwise, if actions and thoughts do follow scientific theories, they are not free). Are you a robot, or are you free to choose what you believe?

        September 3, 2011 at 8:17 am |
    • Pete the Logic Guy

      Hi Bill,
      Free will is an interesting subject. So is cognative dissonance. We are prone to errors in reasoning by several cognitive biases. One of the many are classified as logic errors. For example you support your argument with the statement that several scientists have stated that their belief is that science doesn't account for free will. That error is called "appeal to authority". Another point, while not a cognitive error is that the evidence is weakened by the fact that the scientists you name do not study the brain, cognition or other science that would be useful to the study of Free Will.

      There are a lot of books out there that misuse science to forward beliefs that have no actual grounding in science. It is frustrating to scientists to see this happen. As a people we seem to have lost the basic understanding of the principles of science. I see that people here have made ad hominid attacks in their counter arguments. Those are also invalid.

      Keep your interest in science and philosophy and try to find books on logic and science fundamentals. Eventually you can learn how to filter out the really ridiculous claims (like magnetic health bracelets) from claims with an actual scientific basis (like astronomy).

      Good luck!

      September 3, 2011 at 2:55 am |
      • Bill the Science Guy

        Reply to Pete the Logic Guy: You have not used any logic to refute my logic that free will will cannot be explained as a natural phenomenon. You have not read or refuted the written statements of the scientists in the book The Science of the Soul. You have not investigated any of the evidence presented in the book. You are not being logical but only are making statements that try to dismiss me without any real investigation on your part.

        September 3, 2011 at 8:37 am |
    • Aezel

      Lol. He is just a robot: "human free will is my evidence."

      This just proves you have no idea what constitutes "evidence." That leaves us several possibilities:
      A: The book you mention doesn't claim this and you were too dumb to understand it.
      B: The book you mention has an author who is a liar and is misquoting other people to try and fake it to look like they agree with him (a common creatard maneuver)
      C: You are somehow intelligent to realize you've been lied to but you continue to spew the nonsense anyway, making you a liar.

      Any of the above doesn't really bode well for you so do yourself a favor and stop making yourself look like a moron in public.

      September 3, 2011 at 9:25 am |
    • Aezel

      So lets look at your ridiculous book:

      Author: Kevin Favero. An ordained minister with a business degree and an electrical engineering degree. Based on that alone, he isn't even REMOTELY qualified to comment or reach any conclusions about research done by Einstein, Hawking, Heisenberg, or Bohr, etc. The simple fact that he is the one who wrote the book invalidates it's conclusion.

      But lets go further.....

      He did manage to get a few real scientists to bite, and make some commentary on the book:

      Two physicists, a philosopher, a theologian, and a biologist. First of all, I hate to tell you, but the majority of this debate would fall in the region of logic processing in the brain. The two physicists may have something interesting to say but by enlarge really aren't qualified either to make assertions about biological brain research issues. Anything a philosopher and theologian say when it comes to biology is just a joke automatically, and the biologist is the ONLY person who reviewed the book.

      The one peer reviewer who may have something worthwhile to say about it, the biologist, Dr. Ray Bressan, turns out to be a plant biologist, which once again makes him about as knowledgeable and credible as your local gas station attendant when it comes to talking about brain research and sub-atomic physics.

      Sorry. Your book is written by a man who has no qualifications to make any conclusions about the MUCH more accomplished scientists he writes about, and it is reviewed by exactly ZERO people who have any more qualifications than him to be talking about it.

      September 3, 2011 at 9:51 am |
      • Lawlz

        aezel: "Sorry. Your book is written by a man who has no qualifications to make any conclusions about the MUCH more accomplished scientists he writes about, and it is reviewed by exactly ZERO people who have any more qualifications than him to be talking about it."

        So your entire rejection of a book you (admittedly) haven't read is based simply, and solely, on a fallacious argument from authority?

        That's real intelligent.

        What if Plantinga had written the book? What about Leibniz or Newton?

        Please grow a brain. Quickly.

        September 4, 2011 at 12:29 am |
    • Judas Priest

      What, exactly, is free will?
      Why, exactly, is it an identifiable quantity and not simply the absence of mind control?
      If you can't define this, then you're just throwing words at someone that are wide open to interpretation.

      September 13, 2011 at 11:48 am |
  24. Name* son of Tibet

    I hope one day people of the world realize Tibet was independent nation!! Free tibet!!! China out of Tibet!!!

    September 3, 2011 at 12:09 am |
    • Donald Black

      Hawaii was a free nation once. How did that work out for them? I say Tibetan get used to Chinese rule. It's a shame but the world is not going to do anything about it. Nobody is going to war to restore the Dali Lama to his theocracy. The only was for Tibet to be free is if Tibetans kick out the Chinese on their own.

      September 3, 2011 at 8:35 am |
      • Judas Priest

        Oh bravo. "Stop trying. Just lay back and accept it. Just roll over and die."

        September 13, 2011 at 12:12 pm |
  25. Dr.K.

    Yes, exactly.

    September 3, 2011 at 12:07 am |
  26. Dr.K.

    Sure would be nice if there could just be an intelligent discussion of the details and implications of such discoveries, as opposed to the elementary school level knee-jerk rants here. Maybe there could be a separate room where the grown-ups could talk. Imagine if every single time there was a business news story all we could talk about is whether economics is real.

    September 3, 2011 at 12:04 am |
    • liberal christian

      LOL! Well put.

      September 3, 2011 at 12:08 am |
    • Abolish All Religion

      Economics is not real. It's the Lord who decides the movement of markets every second of every day and the booms and the busts. Right now god is punishing us all because of that "don't ask don't tell" repeal. Also Obamacare.

      September 3, 2011 at 12:09 am |
    • whatever

      Thanks for saying that. It just gets old....

      September 3, 2011 at 12:49 am |
  27. Abolish All Religion

    Why did Rick Perry's 200,000-moron MEGA PRAYATHON EXTRAVAGANZA fail to bring rain or one iota of economic recovery? Is it because:

    A. God hates Rick Perry?
    B. God hates Texas?
    C. God hates America?
    D. God needed more than 200,000 morons to suck his dick all at once?
    E. God is a fantasy perpetuated by idiots and fed to morons?

    September 2, 2011 at 11:58 pm |
    • liberal christian

      F. God answers prayer. Sometimes, the answer is NO.

      September 3, 2011 at 12:07 am |
      • Abolish All Religion

        I can get identical results by praying to a jug of milk.

        September 3, 2011 at 12:10 am |
      • Judas Priest

        Particularly when they are cynical grandstanding, a false display of faith. However, "the lord works in mysterious ways" is, and always will be, a cop-out.

        September 13, 2011 at 12:15 pm |
    • Rochester

      You will become the poster child for Rick Perry's Election Campaign. Every time they need votes or money a digital picture of you will flash on billboards around the country reminding people why liberals should not be in control of money, decisions or power.
      This simple reminder of how two faced, paranoid, anti christian, anti American liberals really are, will make the campaign money will flow light water and the voting booths will fill beyond capacity. The Perry camp will sing in unison.................................... Alleluia Brother............Thank You for your help..........May God Be With You.

      September 3, 2011 at 4:35 pm |
  28. rhino

    Awesome looking creature, I want one as a pet. WOOOHOOO ๐Ÿ™‚

    September 2, 2011 at 11:48 pm |
  29. I'm a Believer

    If evolution were real and we (humans) evolved from apes, then why are there still apes? Shouldn't they have evolved too?......Just sayin......

    September 2, 2011 at 11:43 pm |
    • Aezel

      Uh herp derp. I'm just sayin......

      No. You're a moron. Go read a real book, with real facts in it. Your statement is so stupid you can't even be taken seriously.

      September 2, 2011 at 11:49 pm |
    • Answer

      This is the old answer to the repeated same question: Humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor, that's why we both exist at the same time. The common ancestor is long gone, so that's why we are similar, but radically different.

      The same case can be applied to dogs and bears. They are cousin species that came from a common ancestor. You can't say that either evolved from the other and use it to explain or justify your belief. Just forget the notion that humans evolved from apes, it isn't true, and does not back your argument, because that only expresses your level of knowledge (or lack of).

      September 2, 2011 at 11:53 pm |
      • polite centrist

        wow, well put.

        September 2, 2011 at 11:57 pm |
      • bobo

        Excellent argument for that stock argument. The funny thing is, I was raised in a Christian church for 19 years of my life (until I started using my own brain) and that was actually a strong argument for Christians. Now... it just seems like such a petty response. It's sad in a way, because I'm starting to realize just how brain-washed Christians really are. I must say, it is rather effective though. Good luck in finding your own path!

        September 3, 2011 at 12:13 am |
      • Planet Earth

        Well, lack "thereof" would have been "well put".

        September 3, 2011 at 12:14 am |
      • Lawlz

        bobo: "Excellent argument for that stock argument. The funny thing is, I was raised in a Christian church for 19 years of my life (until I started using my own brain) and that was actually a strong argument for Christians."

        Evidently you didn't use your brain well enough. The existence of a god and religion are not coextensive, and the truth of evolution and the existence of a god are not mutually exclusive.

        Pretending that evolution defeats the existence of a god is childish. In fact, it tends to show more that you're a dogmatic atheist than anything else.

        September 4, 2011 at 12:33 am |
    • Planet Earth

      No, you're not "just sayin", you're "just askin"..... note the "question mark" following your statement. And the answer is no, all of the species will not evolve in the same manner as the most fit.....oh, forget it. Were you really trying to make a logical argument or were you just pulling our leg?

      September 2, 2011 at 11:59 pm |
      • cory

        wow, i like to read both sides of this never-ending argument. but what I don't agree with is the tone. Why can't non-believers just present their case in a mature fashion and not try to make themselves sound brilliant and the people they are talking too/about sound like morons. Everyone can have an opinion and just cuz it might not be the same as yours doesn't make them wrong. I personally am on the fence, not sure what to believe. My big hang-up with atheists is the unanswered question of how did we get here? And why are we here? And don't even start with the big bang theory, it answers nothing.

        September 3, 2011 at 12:10 am |
      • Planet Earth

        Who said anything about atheists?

        September 3, 2011 at 12:16 am |
    • David

      Your comment shows that you completely do not understand evolution and how it works. You need to study and go back to school. Never be afraid to learn the facts. Evolution does not mean there isn't some type of Creator or higher Consciouness in the Universe. Even though evolution is called a theory, it is actually established fact.

      September 2, 2011 at 11:59 pm |
      • Don

        Hogwash. If evolution was an established fact, then it would not be called the Theory of Evolution. The Fact of Evolution is a faith system which can not be proved. DNA is a program on how life runs, to change the DNA strand is very complex and an evolution concept in changine DNA will likely kill or harm the creature the change happened to.

        When we have children, we do not hope that they will be born with a birth defect. DNA degrades there has never been a case that it gets better or improves the species. We have run the fruit fly experiment since the 19th century and they have a generation change of 4 days. They are always fruit flies or dead and dying fruit flies.

        The case shows nothing has every Macro evoled, small changes over trillions of years would not be enough time to change dirt into the simplest bacteria.

        September 3, 2011 at 12:27 am |
      • Flippy1124

        @don – please look up the definition of a "Scientific Theory".

        September 3, 2011 at 12:42 am |
      • Flippy1124

        @don- here, let me help you out.

        Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.

        Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."

        In laymanโ€™s terms, if something is said to be โ€œjust a theory,โ€ it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.

        September 3, 2011 at 12:45 am |
      • W

        @Don: If the concept of evolution were not an established fact, it would be scientifically called the "hypothesis of evolution." The word hypothesis is used for an explanation of a concept that is in need of extensive scientific testing. Evolution has withstood the rigor of scientific study. Unfortunately most people do not understand the scientific terminology nor the scientific processes.

        September 16, 2011 at 12:34 pm |
    • Sam

      It's not that simple, sir. An ape species splitting off into different locations, let's say North, Middle, and Southern Africa, would eventually evolve into a separate species from each other because interbreeding would not occur and environmental conditions would be different.

      September 3, 2011 at 12:01 am |
    • liberal christian

      Excuse me, but evolution IS real. There is NO evidence to prove it wrong.

      p.s. JESUS WAS A LIBERAL! Read your Bible!

      September 3, 2011 at 12:02 am |
      • Dusty

        Quick science lesson: the lack of evidence is never proof. EVER. It can indicate or even point us towards a hypothesis, but absences of evidence is not grounds for the establishment of a law.

        September 3, 2011 at 12:28 am |
    • Chris

      Come on. Are you really that stupid that you think that's even a relevant question? Why are there still bacteria? Duh, it's because life evolves to fill niches, and the niches are still there. Grow a brain, and stop wasting everyone's time.

      September 3, 2011 at 12:03 am |
  30. corey

    a man walks into a church, and asks god. "god what is a second?" god replies "one million years." the man thinks about that. the man then asks god "god what is a penny?" god replies "one million dollars." the man thinks again. the man then asks god "god, may i have a penny?" god replies "in a second." if one of gods seconds is a million years, and it took 7 days to creat the earth. that makes 604 billion 800 million years for the earth to be created. thats a lot of f'ing time, for alot of sh*t to evolve and change.

    September 2, 2011 at 11:38 pm |
    • Sam

      Or maybe there is no God.

      September 3, 2011 at 12:02 am |
      • greg

        Or, maybe there is no Sam.

        September 3, 2011 at 12:29 am |
    • recipio

      so.... Did the guy ever get his penny?

      September 3, 2011 at 3:12 am |
      • Eyedoc

        Don't know... we still waiting. ๐Ÿ™‚

        September 20, 2011 at 12:36 pm |
  31. southern_gent_from_mississippi

    Science smience. Thats impossible because the christian 'conservatives' and their book tells us that the earths only a few thousand years old. Always wondered why 9 times out of 10 when repubs get caught cheating on their spouces its with someone of the same sex. Family values? The bible clearly says 'adam and eve' not steve. Youre either a bible thumper and follow the teachings or a hippocrit and claim to believe to get all th church votes.

    September 2, 2011 at 11:33 pm |
    • Aezel

      I know, barbaric goat herders 2000 years ago wrote it down so it must be true right?

      September 2, 2011 at 11:36 pm |
  32. I'm a Believer

    If evolution is real, and we (humans) evolved from apes, then why are there still apes?

    September 2, 2011 at 11:31 pm |
    • Aezel

      Uh herp derp, my paster at muh church thunk uh that one! He's so smart! The apes they shud all be gone! He dun be smarter than all dem scierntists! Herp derp.

      September 2, 2011 at 11:35 pm |
      • myklds

        Not necessarily (apes)they should be gone.

        The $M question is..why should they cease evilving, I mean evolving? Just becoz their penile skeleton opted to be encased inside their cranium? OR, they just find evolving as a tedious but boring process that they decided to stop doing it.

        Warning: Don't ever attempt to answer me that old squirrel and mice, otherwise I'll throw basically the same question.

        September 3, 2011 at 12:59 am |
    • Flippy1124

      Hey! Americans migrated from Europe; why are there still Europeans? The knowledge people have of science in this country make me weep.

      September 2, 2011 at 11:40 pm |
      • flippy must try harder to abolish religion

        Good analogy, BUT.........

        (I bet you know that Americans are still migrating to Europe UNTIL NOW right?)

        I would strongly suggest that you should start looking for a better one.

        September 3, 2011 at 1:28 am |
      • Flippy1124

        Huh? Who said I was trying to abolish religion?

        September 3, 2011 at 1:32 am |
      • flippy must try harder to abolish religion

        It was just a moniker combination. I thought you're a groupie (if not an alter-ego) of the poster goes by the name "Abolish All Relgion". Sorry if I presumed, I just find the two of like a head and a tail but (in) the same monkey.

        September 4, 2011 at 3:08 am |
    • Chris

      Um...because there's still a GOP?

      September 3, 2011 at 12:06 am |
      • greg

        I will vote for that.

        September 3, 2011 at 12:33 am |
  33. bobg

    I'm from Texas. what's all this stuff about eveolution? Don't you folks read your Bibles? Everything you need to know is in there. If you don't believe me, ask the next president, Rick Perry.

    September 2, 2011 at 11:27 pm |
  34. Mike R

    Maybe, God uses evolution as a way to create living things. Over the span of a million years to "cook" life into what it is...

    Or maybe, this is article is meant to promot the new Ice Age movie, the real purpous of these extinct

    September 2, 2011 at 11:22 pm |
    • greg

      There is a New Ice Age Movie? Good. it's been very Hot here lately.

      September 3, 2011 at 12:38 am |
  35. dick

    so they put up another artists conception. pictures and drawings are not evidence of anything except someones imagination. evolution is a fraud and the atheists bible. it takes more faith to believe the evolution religion than it does in God. evolution is a fraud and its follwers have been lied to and are deluded

    September 2, 2011 at 11:14 pm |
    • david

      You are a dick!

      September 2, 2011 at 11:17 pm |
    • Jennifer

      I guess you done learnt all that in that thar bible skool you done gone to. Right up til you dropped out at 4th grade to plow the furrows on the fambly farm, that is. I kin tell a man of letters an intellectz when I seez one. ๐Ÿ™‚

      September 2, 2011 at 11:24 pm |
    • Aezel

      "it takes more faith to believe the evolution religion than it does in God."

      Only a completely uneducated moron would say that. Evolution has ALL of the evidence on it's side, and your imaginary fairy tale God that lives in your head has nothing.


      September 2, 2011 at 11:25 pm |
      • Elton Robb

        Aezel, just agree to disagree. Your hubris isn't going to win anyhow.

        September 8, 2011 at 9:30 pm |
    • puckles

      So true. Evolution is mathematically impossible.

      September 2, 2011 at 11:30 pm |
      • L

        Evolution is not mathematically impossible, but it happening by mere coincidence with no inteligent design behind it, is mathematically impossible. Science is my favorite subject, I speak more than two languages.... am no ignoramous. I have see PLENTY of air tight evidence that there is a God.

        But, I also learned that once people have their minds set on something, it doens't matter what you show them... All you atheists would make wonderfull school teachers in Germany 1941. Or in the Soviet Union.

        September 2, 2011 at 11:39 pm |
      • Aezel

        "I have see PLENTY of air tight evidence that there is a God."

        No. That would be you either A: accepting complete nonsense as "evidence" meaning you don't even know what constitutes "evidence," or B: you are entirely lost in your delusional world.

        Walk up to one of the most intelligent people in academia and tell them you have "air tight" evidence that God exists, and then, tell them what it is. Watch the laughter ensue for hours, and hours.

        September 2, 2011 at 11:42 pm |
      • Sam

        @L If there was airtight evidence there was a God, then we'd see God.

        September 3, 2011 at 12:05 am |
      • Dusty

        Mathematically pretty much everything is both possible and impossible depending upon your assumptions. Math is pretty cool in that. Mathematically, both arguments can be justified or debunked.

        Secondly, artist concepts are flawed, but they do more for the masses than actual photos because the general population will not exert the energy needed to understand how and why scientists puzzle out the remains. To deny these remains is the equivalent of the early christian church's view of the geocentric universe. (Sorry to be condescending, but for the few that don't know, the early christians held that the earth is the center and the moon orbits it followed by all of the planets and the sun: geocentrism.)

        Thirdly, the several of the "scientific" defenders need to wake up to the fact that their beliefs and those of the religious are in fact beliefs. Any scientist must understand that every experiment is flawed by the fact that we can only use data that is observable, recordable, and repeatable. This means that science is always working with a limited sample and always, therefore, limited almost if not equally to religion. Religion uses different rules for its data, a different sense as it were. In the end, however, there is little difference.

        So, let's all play nice.

        September 3, 2011 at 12:51 am |
      • West

        OK, let's see your proof. You are a mathematician, correct?

        September 3, 2011 at 1:25 am |
    • handsome boy

      Dick, dont mind them, you dont need to waste your energy on this people. delusion has no cure. they will rather believe a fiction novel by an english man named Charles Darwin, instead of taking pain reading through the bible and book of enoch.

      September 2, 2011 at 11:51 pm |
      • West

        Funniest reply I've yet read here! Congrats!

        September 3, 2011 at 1:26 am |
  36. dick

    fairy tale nothing has ever evolved

    September 2, 2011 at 11:04 pm |
  37. Abolish All Religion

    I'm sick and tired of all the bible-thumping idiots on here who keep saying evolution is JUST A THEORY. As opposed to what? Totally baseless garbage that people from the bronze age who believed the world was flat scribbled on parchment, and somehow it's is supposed to refute science?

    The scientifically illiterate simply don't understand the meaning of the word "theory". They use the word "theory" synonymously with "fantasy", because that is all they know and are used to being fed. Evolution is a *scientific* theory. As is gravity. As is electromagnetism. Fairies, imaginary friends and sky daddies are not scientific theories.

    Proofs, in the strict sense, exist ONLY in mathematics. In science, the highest status any hypothesis can achieve is "theory". A scientific theory is a rigorous explanation or formulation of a physical phenomenon that has withstood all possible scrutiny and has been able to consistently explain every single observation of that phenomenon without fail. And no one is more critical of a scientific theory than a scientist. The instant a theory does fail to accurately explain a phenomenon it ceases to be a theory. THAT is the rigor of a scientific theory. Try that with religion – any religion.

    Fact is religions have consistently been wrong on each and every explanation they have ever offered for any physical phenomenon. Religion is not interested in explanations. It is interested in selling fantasies to the moronic masses in order to get them to fall in line.

    September 2, 2011 at 10:52 pm |
    • Gravity a Theory?

      Gravity is a Law, not a theory you moron. Before you sound off, check yourself first jack. Please do not ever post anything ever again. You are too stupid.

      September 2, 2011 at 11:01 pm |
      • Abolish All Religion

        Only people who never took an actual physics course in college refer to it as a "law". You just demonstrated your utter illiteracy. Tell me, what exactly do you think "the law of gravity is"? "What goes up must come down?" I bet that's what you think the "law" is. Sorry, it;s not. Only to a moron like you. I know you'll immediately google it because you have no f#%ing clue about the formal expression of the theory of gravitation.

        September 2, 2011 at 11:08 pm |
      • Gravity a Theory?

        You jackass – we know gravity exists, therefore it is a law – the reasons why it exists are considered theories. We use the Law for mathematical calculations but state theories on why it exists. But you being an athiest, well I wouldnt expect much from such a simple mind.

        September 2, 2011 at 11:19 pm |
      • Abolish All Religion

        Anyone who starts a supposedly scientific argument with "you jackass" is clearly an uneducated imbecile who is trying desperately to hide his inadequacies. It's obvious you never even attended college. Not a real, accredited one, anyway. Sorry, but Jim Bob's University of Jesus doesn't count as college.

        September 2, 2011 at 11:33 pm |
      • Gravity a Thoery

        Yes you think your words are strong, but they are meaningless. At least I present an arguement and state facts, while you state your beliefs, albeit wrong, but your pathetic weak beliefs. And since I didnt pull your chain, why are you speaking?

        September 2, 2011 at 11:38 pm |
      • Abolish All Religion

        You presented nothing but the garbage they fed you at Jim Bob's University of Jesus. I'm not going to sit here and teach a failed buffoon like you physics. If you have any interest at all, there are colleges where you can learn physics virtually free. Even in that backwater where you live. But obviously that is not what you're interested in. You never did state "the Law of gravity". End of discussion. Now get lost.

        September 2, 2011 at 11:46 pm |
      • Gravity a Theory?

        That building with four walls being held up by three wheels and a cement block and one shelf of books that is down your street is not a university.

        September 2, 2011 at 11:49 pm |
      • evolution does not exist

        "Tell me, what exactly do you think "the law of gravity is"? "What goes up must come down?"

        How about telling us here what exactly do you think a "Scientific Theory is? A mere Theory of Science?

        September 3, 2011 at 12:24 am |
      • Flippy1124

        FYI – The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. And, whereas a law is a postulate that forms the foundation of the scientific method, a theory is the end result of that same process.

        September 3, 2011 at 12:47 am |
      • Skeptic

        I just wonder if Darwin's groupies here know that their idol withdrew his own "THEORY" before he met his maker.

        September 11, 2011 at 7:46 am |
    • Matt

      I suppose we should all be mindless zombies who adhere to your views? What a boring world.

      September 2, 2011 at 11:02 pm |
    • dick

      evolution is a fairy tail

      September 2, 2011 at 11:03 pm |
      • Christian

        The bible is a fairy tale.

        September 2, 2011 at 11:11 pm |
      • Matt

        The "fairy tale" posts are lame.

        September 2, 2011 at 11:17 pm |
      • LB

        Learn how to spell fairytale correctly you religious bigot.

        September 2, 2011 at 11:21 pm |
      • Jennifer

        The BIble and religion, in general, are man-made fabrications. These books – Bible, Koran, Tora – are all written by fat old guys with overactive imaginations and underfed libidos seeking to control the world and get very rich while doing it. When the first witch doctor/shaman, back in the Stone Age, figured out he could get his people to do his hunting, fishing, farming, cooking and laundry AND get first dibs on th nubile virgins by threatening eternal hellfire and damnation or having the sun disappear behind the moon, he was like "hot damn!!!" and they were off and running. They've all been fleecing the feeble minded and the gullible ever since.

        September 2, 2011 at 11:36 pm |
      • nkremps

        Wow, Dick, really? The fairies REALLY have TAILS?? I thought that was only for mermaids. Thanks, Dick, I learned something new today... that an actual human being believes in fairies with tails.

        Too bad you don't lend the same credence to actual science. ๐Ÿ™

        September 2, 2011 at 11:54 pm |
      • West

        Jennifer: How do you now they were fat??

        September 3, 2011 at 1:28 am |
    • The Meaning of Evolution in Question

      What do you mean by evolution – do you mean the whole primordial soup thing and from the first cell, all of the world's living creatures came from by magically adapting to changing environments and eventually branching off to varius land, sea and air bearing creatures? Or do you mean mutations occur in species that could give them a competitive advantage? Please specify. You are being very vague and I get the feeling you are not confident and unsure of your beliefs or just plain ignorant of facts.

      September 2, 2011 at 11:32 pm |
      • Abolish All Religion

        "Magically"? No, nothing magic about evolution. You know what's magic? Noah's Ark. Now you need some really good pot to believe that crap. And I mean top shelf, high quality s#%t.

        September 2, 2011 at 11:39 pm |
    • myklds

      "I'm sick and tired of all the bible-thumping idiots on here who keep saying evolution is JUST A THEORY."

      Absolutely, it is.."JUST A THEORY". It'neither a LAW nor a SCIENTIFIC THEORY yet.

      Sadly, your great grandfather Darwin failed to present further hard irrefutable evidence out of "rigorous explanation or formulation of a physical phenomenon that has withstood all possible scrutiny and has been able to consistently explain every single observation of that phenomenon" otherwise withdrew it before he died.

      "Totally baseless garbage that people from the bronze age who believed the world was flat scribbled on parchment, and somehow it's is supposed to refute science?"

      It was only the Pope who said that the earth was flat not the bible. Try to read Isiah 40:22 so that you'll be properly guided back to your senses.

      Lastly, but not the has bee Science who was trying hard to refute religion. Religion already existed long before Science.

      In fact your great grand uncle Galileo was the one who tried to refute pope's claim but failed and spent the rest of his miserable life in an asylum. Fortunately, there were valiant explorers sent by the pope supposedly to search for the horizon to support his claim (of flat earth) but found otherwise (a circle one). That we all know that it somewhat circle before the hubble telescope was invented to tell us that it's a spehere.


      Take note: A Theory of Science doesn't necessarily make a Scientific Theory.

      September 3, 2011 at 12:14 am |
      • Judas Priest

        I can't even tell what you're trying to say in all that mess.

        September 13, 2011 at 12:26 pm |
      • W

        @mykids: 1) Are you a scientist or another of those who discount learning scientific information in our lives today? 2) You forget that Galileo was not in exile because he was wrong, but because his life was threatened by the pope. And maybe you didn't know that a more recent pope declared that Galileo's work was actually right.

        September 16, 2011 at 1:03 pm |
    • John

      So I guess you worship carbon dating.

      "A wise man knows that he knows nothing. Unlike a man who thinks he knows everything, but in reality he knows nothing at all....."

      September 3, 2011 at 12:20 am |
  38. ctstudd

    India has written documentation of the people dating back well over 100,000 years. The bible dates back around 6,000 years. So you tell me if what the church is preaching is real or much older then we are told. Im thinking that the history of the bible is a story of a culture hundreds of thousands years old and reintroduced later to help control the mass's and bring in money to Governments of the times.

    September 2, 2011 at 10:51 pm |
    • Matt

      I respect other religions but Krishna was blue.... Jesus was surrounded by history. Pontius Pilate. King Herod. Now God creating the world in 7 days... that is metaphorical and I even believe that the writers thought so. Isaiah the prophet stated that God stands above the circle of the world. Some ancient jews knew the earth was round. The ancients had the same brain capacity we did and problem solved without the internet.

      September 2, 2011 at 11:10 pm |
      • ctstudd

        The fact that he was blue is not much out of the realms of possibility. Remember what color our blood is and if our skin was thinner what color would we be? If you eat large amounts of silver it changes your skin color. We have no idea what they ate or really how they lived, thus we dig to find answers. Jesus was refereed to as the sun, and mostly depicted with a cross behind his head, as the sun looks or a star from a distance. many cultures worshiped the sun, as they new it brought life. I'm saying older cultures found the "bible" and added there twist to it. You say myth when referring to the old "Gods" of the time, but is it myth because it is out of the realms of what we understand today or we can do today. Alexander the great documented he saw flying things in the air that followed him to battle. Is that myth too? the Hopi said that there gods came from the sky and helped them along the way and told them, white man would come one day and kill them and take there land. Was that myth? Just because we dont understand it dont make it myth

        September 2, 2011 at 11:53 pm |
      • W

        There really are blue people! There are people mostly in isolated areas in the USA today that have the genes for forming a type of hemoglobin that causes them to look blue (methemoglobinemia). In this blue state, it is not as efficient as normal hemoglobin state, so the person is treated to get return the hemoglobin to a more efficient form..

        September 16, 2011 at 1:56 pm |
    • SDcanyon

      LOL, the bible doesnt date back 6000 years! more like 600 years.

      September 2, 2011 at 11:27 pm |
      • ctstudd

        I didnt say the Mormon bible

        September 3, 2011 at 12:04 am |
      • Scott

        Really? 600 years old? Someone tell those physical copies of the Bible in museums that date back to the 2nd & 3rd century (Not copies OF the documents, but the actual documents penned in the 200s and 300s) that they're defying the laws of physics!

        September 3, 2011 at 12:06 am |
    • India - oooh oooh

      OOOOHHH that smell. Cant you smell that smell. What good could ever come from that shithole.

      September 2, 2011 at 11:36 pm |
      • ctstudd

        I have no idea where your from, but people dont choose where they are born. If you have no money it makes it hard to better yourself. They do what they have too to survive. I can only assume you never been there and only comment on what you heard or seen on your computer. There are many cities in the US that stink like Gary, IN. How about the smog over LA. but i guess we are not talking about that right now.

        September 3, 2011 at 12:02 am |
      • Judas Priest

        Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar. The Kama Sutra. Ravi Shankar. Angela Devi. Tandoori chicken. This is the tip of the iceberg.
        I'd ask you to pull your head out of your ass, but you'd probably rather asphyxiate.

        September 13, 2011 at 12:31 pm |
  39. keith vanzandt

    OK answer this. If GOD knows every thing that has happened and everything that will happen in the future then this makes everything preordained and there is no choice is there.

    September 2, 2011 at 10:51 pm |
    • Matt

      Correction: He knows what decisions you will make. Does that mean he stops you from turning your light switch on or off. No but he knows the decision you will make. I like that God allows us choice even if he knows if our decision is not a good one.

      September 2, 2011 at 11:07 pm |
      • Timetraveler

        Your decision to remain scientifically illiterate was sure a bad one.

        September 2, 2011 at 11:12 pm |
    • Matt

      Timetraveler – if scientists in South Korea have now proven that a proton can not move faster then the speed of light you should perhaps consider changing your name. I guess believing in time travel isn't as absurd as believing in God. Maybe Bigfoot is reasonable to believe in too?

      September 2, 2011 at 11:16 pm |
      • Timetraveler

        Scientists in South Korea – or anywhere else – have done no such thing. If you knew anything about physics you'd know that this is not "provable". The most rigorous statement on this comes from Relativity: no particle of matter can travel at or greater than the speed of light. That was done 100 years ago, and not by South Koreans. Go learn some science before running your mouth.

        September 2, 2011 at 11:25 pm |
      • SDcanyon

        Thats where quantum mechanics comes into play. An electron moved here can theoretically move an electron light years distant.

        September 2, 2011 at 11:29 pm |
  40. Matt

    People need to get over saying Evolution proves God doesn't exist or that evolution can't be design by a creator. Further some in the science community need to get off the high horse and admit we simply don't know all the answers. Was evolution slow change over millions of years? Or was it a quick mutation. One can find theories to suggest either. Besides faith in a higher being is meaning not knowing all the answers but still believing. I do think Christians who take Genesis are a bit naive. AND scientists who try to disprove God because they have a problem with religion need to stop being biased as well.

    September 2, 2011 at 10:47 pm |
    • Matt

      "Who take Genesis as 100 percent literal and word of God are a bit naive." I mean we know the Bible has variances. In the dead sea scrolls Goliath was 6'6" but in modern ones he is almost 8 or 9' The variancies are slight but we know that the Bible was written by men. Doesn't mean Jesus didn't rise from the dead. Just means one should not take every story literal especially the creation story.

      September 2, 2011 at 10:49 pm |
      • Johnn

        You can't have it both ways. Either the Bible is the word of God or it's the word of man – now which is it? And if it's the word of man, stop trying to convert everyone ( although that's better than killing non-believers). And if it's the word of God, why so many discrepancies? The main difference, the important distinction between science and religion, is that science is adaptable and learns form it's mistakes where religion is hardwired and cannot.

        September 2, 2011 at 11:02 pm |
      • Matt

        Richard Dawkins claims he knows there is no God. That's an un-scientific statement for one who claims to be a scientist.

        September 2, 2011 at 11:05 pm |
    • Abolish All Religion

      Name *ONE* scientists who has ever claimed "we know all the answers". Stop making up crap.

      September 2, 2011 at 11:02 pm |
      • Matt

        Richard Dawkins claims he knows there is no God. That's an un-scientific statement for one who claims to be a scientist.

        September 2, 2011 at 11:06 pm |
      • Abolish All Religion

        No, he most certainly does not. Cite your reference. People like you make crap up all day long without a thought. Dawkins has consistently said he doesn't know with certainty that there is no god, for the same reason no one knows with certainty that there is no teapot hiding behind the moon.

        September 2, 2011 at 11:18 pm |
    • Matt

      Believing in God isn't a religion.

      September 2, 2011 at 11:04 pm |
    • Aezel

      "scientists who try to disprove God because they have a problem with religion"

      There is no need for scientists to "disprove" God. There isn't a single shred of real evidence that he exists. Do you go around trying to "disprove" the tooth fairy?

      September 2, 2011 at 11:31 pm |
  41. sqeptiq

    Evolution cannot be proved to someone who is willfully blind. Closed eyes will never see.

    September 2, 2011 at 10:35 pm |
    • Matt

      And some to eager to accept whole heartedly because of disdain for religion. I concede evolution is a reasonable enough theory but we don't know if it was gradual over time or a quick mutation. People who get a "hard on" for Darwin because they have such disdain for organized religion have as much capacity to oppress freedom of beliefs as the over zealous religious in the middle ages.

      September 2, 2011 at 11:14 pm |
      • JMH

        Matt, you are wasting your time. You are arguing with people who wish to deny God's existance because they do not want to be held accountable by someone or something that is greater than they are. But in the deepest part of themselves, they do believe in a higher being and substitute that by worshiping science, which by the way, is compatible to biblical writings, if they would ever bother to truly and carefully study it.

        September 2, 2011 at 11:26 pm |
  42. Herk

    If God created all that is, did'n God create Satin too??????

    September 2, 2011 at 10:34 pm |
    • gdaym8

      Satin......? as in sheets? Don't you mean Satan? BIG DIFFERENCE there, spelling champ!

      September 2, 2011 at 10:39 pm |
    • Abolish All Religion

      God did create satin. He's kinky that way.

      September 2, 2011 at 10:41 pm |
    • Matt

      Haha. Satin. Ummm no interior decorators created satin.

      September 2, 2011 at 10:43 pm |
    • West

      Of course he created satin. Cornflakes, too. He also created pedophiles, rapists and mass murderers, which seem to me like a pretty good reason to abandon him altogether.

      September 3, 2011 at 1:37 am |
  43. factory worker

    the spirit of a story isnt enough to rekindle my belief in god. The whole bible is simply that. If i should burn for requiring evidence (some, any!), fine.

    September 2, 2011 at 10:32 pm |
  44. Herk

    OH Me!

    September 2, 2011 at 10:31 pm |
  45. Herk

    Oooooooooh! After reading all this my head is bursting with knowledge. Yeah! that's the ticket, "knowledge."

    September 2, 2011 at 10:30 pm |
  46. Canadian Jim

    Did anyone pause to consider this wooly mammoth wasn't on the ark because it was the Unicorn in the Irish Rover song? Hmmm, seems like we neeed a Gospel according to 5 drunk Irishmen!

    September 2, 2011 at 10:24 pm |
  47. factory worker

    i was on god's side... And before that santa's

    September 2, 2011 at 10:20 pm |
  48. factory worker

    guess the furry rhino missed the boat, or it must have been a demon targeted by the flood!

    September 2, 2011 at 10:14 pm |
  49. Donald Black

    We sit here and argue because you will not accept truth. If I set the specific evidence in front of you, you will only deny it and state that it is a Satan based lie even without any evidence on your side to back it up.

    September 2, 2011 at 10:10 pm |
  50. Canadian Jim

    What needs to be asked of creationists is: "What will you accept as proof of evolution?" Then provide it. Otherwise there is no point in discussing anything with them. Facts and logic cannot inform faith or ignorance.

    September 2, 2011 at 10:10 pm |
    • Paganguy

      No proof will be accepted by creationists. They have all the proof of creation: the bible and that is good for them. I am fine with their stupidity because in the end it doesn't matter. They are a nuisance to be ignored. 100, 1000, or 10,000 years from now nobody will remember them or us. Cheers.

      September 2, 2011 at 10:56 pm |
  51. factory worker

    yes, a senior citizen built a floating zoo with 2 of every animal. That seems more plausable than today's purely theoretical science of which there is no tangible data to suggest otherwise.

    September 2, 2011 at 10:09 pm |
    • Herman

      I hope you are kidding, right?

      September 2, 2011 at 10:20 pm |
  52. Andre

    Awww, when I clicked the news story, I thought they had found a woolly rhino ALIVE in Tibet. Your misleading headlines have fooled me again, CNN!

    September 2, 2011 at 10:07 pm |
  53. factory worker

    evolution isnt proveable? Its a better explanation than blind irrational faith. Gods word was written by men, from the desert to the roman empire, popes to monarchs, etc.

    September 2, 2011 at 10:01 pm |
    • Tom in ATL

      "better explanation"? at least evaluate the other position before you make your decision. You'll learn that GOD's Word is consistent in predicting hundreds of events despite more than 40 authors writing over a period of 2000 years.

      September 2, 2011 at 10:12 pm |
      • jnkekoa

        His word in English? Translated from the Latin? or vulgar Italian vernacular of, say, middle age Rome? I have no problem with people of faith – I married one, and I am at time envious. However, when you say word of god, I say actual transcription by monks over centuries and a multitude of languages, including only selected and likely misinterpreted texts written decades to centuries after the appearance of your "god."
        And that is taking the orthodoxy of the One True Faith (TM) at its word.
        Wait, maybe now I understand why I live in a country of vacuous incompetents, and why my (that's right, MY, not your) Founding Fathers would not have let most of them vote.

        September 2, 2011 at 10:29 pm |
      • sqeptiq

        Please name a few of these predictions.

        September 2, 2011 at 10:31 pm |
  54. Donald Black

    Evolution is provable. I can show you transitional whale fossils, I can demonstrate it on a molecular level with flies. What I can't make you do is believe it if you are not of a mind to accept it.

    September 2, 2011 at 9:56 pm |
    • Tom in ATL

      Provable???? Then why are we here debating? If EITHER side were provable, we'd all be done discussing. That's the point... Neither THEORY is provable. It's what we call "having faith" in one theory or the other. I'll say it again. My bet is on GOD's Word and not a bunch of atheists who will spend eternity in a very hot place.

      September 2, 2011 at 10:05 pm |
      • Lol

        Tom has a primitive mind.

        September 2, 2011 at 10:07 pm |
      • Jesse

        Our side has been provable for over 100 years, man. You _lost_ this one 100 years ago and you _still_ aren't over it.

        I direct you to the Flat Earth Society–I suggest you get used to sharing a bed with them–this is how silly you are. Just like them, you'll be poking imaginary holes in accepted scientific fact and claiming that it proves a theory that you _always) conveniently neglect to remember that there is _zero_ evidence for 100 years from now.

        You're putting your money on a "God". That's great, I'm happy for ya. You're gonna look pretty silly though if it turns out Scientology or Hinduism was the "right one", though

        September 2, 2011 at 10:19 pm |
      • sqeptiq

        That's pretty close to the most scientifically ignorant statement ever made, on a par with the vatican's insistence on the Earth as the center of the universe.

        September 2, 2011 at 10:33 pm |
      • Abolish All Religion

        Evolution is a *scientific* theory. As is gravity. As is electromagnetism. Fairies, imaginary friends and sky daddies are not scientific theories. The scientifically illiterate simply don't understand the meaning of the word "theory". They use the word "theory" synonymously with "fantasy", because that is all they know and are used to being fed.

        Proofs, in the strict sense, exist ONLY in mathematics. In science, the highest status any hypothesis can achieve is "theory". A scientific theory is a rigorous explanation or formulation of a physical phenomenon that has withstood all possible scrutiny and has been able to consistently explain every single observation of that phenomenon without fail. And no one is more critical of a scientific theory than a scientist. The instant a theory does fail to accurately explain a phenomenon it ceases to be a theory. THAT is the rigor of a scientific theory. Try that with religion – any religion.

        Fact is religions have consistently been wrong on each and every explanation they have ever offered for any physical phenomenon. Religion is not interested in explanations. It is interested in selling fantasies to the moronic masses in order to get them to fall in line.

        September 2, 2011 at 10:39 pm |
    • Evolution doesnt make sense

      Here is how you prove evolution does not exist – slight mutations, yes, but not species transformations. Throw billions and billions of spiders in water and let's see if one turns into a fish like creature that uses gills to breathe. Wont happen, doesnt happen. Once a creature dies, it does not have the chance to pass on knowledge or know hows or mutations to the next generation – impossible. Everyone should stop pretending or try to figure out where we came from because in truth, nobody really knows, and nobody will ever know. We could only think in three dimensions and trying to figure out the mysteries of the universe, origins of matter and the beginning of life is not possible.

      September 2, 2011 at 11:13 pm |
      • Donald Black

        Your information is dated and I suggest you do a google on speciation. Wikipedia actually has a fairly well informed article on it.

        September 2, 2011 at 11:28 pm |
  55. secularbear

    It's really depressing that an interesting scientific discovery brings out the religious idiots. It's almost the very quest for knowledge is viewed as heresy by these nuts.

    September 2, 2011 at 9:50 pm |
    • Tom in ATL

      The reason for the "religious" response is because evolution is your religion, GOD's Word is mine. No form of science can PROVE evolution. It's your faith vs. mine. So we're debating who's faith is better. Anyone who says "Evolution is a fact" cannot prove it... period. If you could, this debate would be over. Unfortunately, it won't be over until you breathe your last breath. And like it or not, your decision will already be made. I'd really like you to consider both sides before you make that fateful decision. GOD wants you in His side of eternity, not the alternative.

      September 2, 2011 at 10:09 pm |
      • Jesse

        Gravity is also a religion, then, by your definition.... both are "just theories" after all.

        I encourage you to jump off a cliff when it's next convenient. You _will_ feel my "God's" wrath for doubting him, I promise!

        September 2, 2011 at 10:21 pm |
      • Canadian Jim

        @Tom in ATL – As a pastor I feel a need to let you know that evolution does not in anyway take away from your faith. The story in Genesis 1 is not meant to tell us HOW God created the worls, but THAT God created the world. This story was created by a people that needed to differentiate their religious beliefs from those around them that had other Creation stories that did not involve a God of histroy, a God in relationship with Humanity. Genesis is not a science book, it's a faith book. Let's be real, there are too many inconsistencies in the story to make it a factual document. But that does not take away from the Spirit of the story that God was at the beginning, is now and will be to the end. That is a belief, not a fact. Becasue it is my belief I live my life as if it is so. But I am always concious that I may be wrong. (That's what belief is.) The other guy may be right that there is no God. I can only live my life as best I can. Regardless of what I choose to believe, 2+2 will always equal 4, and the fossil archeological and geological records clearly show us a world millions of years old and an evolutionary process that has been at play through all that time. For me it shows I will never understand all the mysteries of the world, so why pretend?

        September 2, 2011 at 10:21 pm |
  56. Ruspanic

    That picture is so awesome.

    September 2, 2011 at 9:45 pm |
    • FirstResponder

      Yeah, isn't it?! I had no idea they had such good quality cameras back then!

      September 2, 2011 at 10:37 pm |
  57. theTRUTH

    Uhhh, actually this is called a unicorn.

    September 2, 2011 at 9:43 pm |
  58. pn

    God is pretty clever creating all these fossils that make the earth appear much older than the actual age of 6500 years.

    September 2, 2011 at 9:23 pm |
    • Ruspanic


      September 2, 2011 at 9:35 pm |
    • sqeptiq

      Uh, that's 6015 years; Earth was created in 4004 BC on a Thursday at 9:00 AM. Oh, ye of little gullibility!

      September 2, 2011 at 10:43 pm |
  59. Dave

    With a face like Palosi and a bottom like Michele Obama, one can see why it died off, no other horney animal would even consider it to mate with.

    September 2, 2011 at 8:53 pm |
    • Stlouisjake

      .......says the man with the 3โ€ penis.....

      September 2, 2011 at 8:59 pm |
    • Fullbag

      You are trying way too hard to be that unfunny.

      September 2, 2011 at 9:00 pm |
    • Vern

      Yea Cletus, you tell em. herp derp derp derp.

      September 2, 2011 at 9:04 pm |
    • HurtfulTruth

      I thought you idiot neocons believe that the planet is only 6000 years old? THAT'S even more rediculous that the silly comment you just made.

      September 2, 2011 at 9:08 pm |
    • Nick

      You must the a classless, tasteless, stupid Republican moron with tie to the Tea Bagger bigots.

      September 2, 2011 at 9:27 pm |
  60. blake

    Evolved in TIbet or created by God?

    September 2, 2011 at 8:49 pm |
    • Bee

      Don't you understand that evolution can be understood as a form of creation? Evolution is going on around us all the time. Haven't you heard about bacteria evolving to become resistant to drugs? Earthquakes and hurricanes are other forms or methods of creation, which continues to this day and will continue into the indefinite future. Do you know that humans are evolving and will one day be extinct? If not, you have some reading to do.

      September 2, 2011 at 8:56 pm |
      • feartighter

        love it...wish more people in the world could look further than their own two feet..but most people on this planet unfortunately will not challenge their thought process and cling to ignorance like a moth to flame..a paradigm shift of thought about are place in the world must happen soon...

        September 2, 2011 at 9:28 pm |
      • myklds

        "Haven't you heard about bacteria evolving to become resistant to drugs?"

        Actually, the right word is mutating, NOT, evilving I mean.."evolving". Biology is definitely NOT your strong suit. Try dress making or cosmetology.

        September 2, 2011 at 11:13 pm |
    • Moose

      Created by God specifically to evolve! ๐Ÿ˜€ Best of both worlds. Funny how the creationists never considered that possibility. How come it can't be "God created evolution, and He saw it was good"?

      September 2, 2011 at 10:10 pm |
  61. Johnny 5

    The devil planted it there to fool us. He went out there with a shovel, dug a hole, threw in the bones and said "well maybe these seeds of Adam will find these one day" Oh and the devil also created the bones in the hell factory that China now owns.

    September 2, 2011 at 8:47 pm |
  62. Kurtis the vikeing.

    The wooly rhino evolved into a republican.
    Then became extinct upon compromiseing its values and voteing democrate. He never would give a straight anserw about evolution or creation. Not even when the tea party cavemen asked for his birth certificate. This eventualy led to his exile into Tibet to seek illumination. Where he was no doubt killed in a Chinese communist pogrom.

    September 2, 2011 at 8:46 pm |
    • Dave

      Of course Obama and the Democrats all believe that and profess that it is the fault of the Republicans and Bush that the Woolly Rhino disappeared.

      September 2, 2011 at 8:52 pm |
    • Katelyn

      Wow. Learn to spell.

      September 2, 2011 at 8:55 pm |
    • And...

      He should learn how to write in complete sentences while working on that elementary level remedial spelling.

      September 2, 2011 at 9:56 pm |
  63. jddh1

    nice bush

    September 2, 2011 at 8:35 pm |
  64. derek

    I knew Susan Boyle would turn up sooner or later.

    September 2, 2011 at 8:31 pm |
  65. Lisa

    Somebody better tell Bachmann and Perry about this since they think the earth is 6000 years old. And whoever keeps referring to Noah's Ark as an "arc", you are stupid.

    September 2, 2011 at 8:30 pm |
    • Tom in ATL

      And you are that smart???? Evolution is not 'proveable' folks. It's your belief vs. GOD's Word. Eternity is at stake here and you're betting on the wrong side. Eternal pain and burning is not my choice.

      September 2, 2011 at 9:48 pm |
      • Amunaka

        Who told you that ...

        September 2, 2011 at 10:18 pm |
      • FirstResponder

        "Eternity is at stake here" – Please explain what that means.

        September 2, 2011 at 10:43 pm |
      • liberal christian

        Have you ever heard of 'animal husbandry'? Breeding for desired traits? That's proof.

        September 3, 2011 at 12:28 am |
      • Scotter Libby

        How do you know you picked the right god?

        September 14, 2011 at 12:57 am |
  66. Merecat

    Actually there was a water canopy that originally enveloped the earth... Giving the earth a Greenhouse Condition universally. When the Flood occurred, that is where much of the water came from ... instantly the water would have frozen in the arctic regions... as soon as the water fell..that accounts for the thousands of animals they have found with green food still in their mouths quick frozen.. Many different types of animals that don't "hang out" together are found in a common grave.. washed there by the flood waters and quick frozen.. Go ahead and poke your criticism and fun.. That is how it happened and no one can disprove it.. As far as animals on the Ark.. they had no fear of man till after the flood.. which is found in the Bible.. Gods' Word.. even if you don't understand it.. it can and does make very logical and scientific sense if only one really wants to see it..

    September 2, 2011 at 8:18 pm |
    • Koga


      September 2, 2011 at 8:25 pm |
      • grow up

        And you think that's a valid argument? Really! How typical.

        September 2, 2011 at 10:03 pm |
    • Bobby

      Get your religious mumbo jumbo out of an interesting science article. God told me you should be reading the Bible, not sh*tting up a good read with your OPINION with no substantial facts and/or data.

      September 2, 2011 at 8:27 pm |
    • Patrick

      Wow - it takes a lot of self-delusion and hubris to start a post like that with the word "actually". How about "Actually, what I'm about to say is completely contradicted by science, but I believe it because an old book tells me to, and I'm ignoring every discovery since that book was written". That might be a better use of the word.

      September 2, 2011 at 8:32 pm |
      • Tom in ATL

        @Patrick... your "science" isn't science at all. Your description of "origins" is a belief system based on presuppositions that cannot be proved. Therefore, your definition of origins (i.e. your religion) is no more provable than GOD's Word. But I'm putting my money on GOD and not a bunch of atheist scientists who plan to spend eternity in a very hot place.

        September 2, 2011 at 10:00 pm |
    • yeasayer

      Sounds like ice-nine in Cat's Cradle, another work of fiction.

      September 2, 2011 at 8:34 pm |
    • XO

      Merecat: Go back and read the account. That water canopy makes up the outer edge of the Universe, not the Earth.

      September 2, 2011 at 9:20 pm |
    • pn

      I hope you are trying to be funny.

      September 2, 2011 at 9:39 pm |
    • Tom in ATL

      Amen. Well said.

      September 2, 2011 at 9:49 pm |
    • hmmmm

      honesty is not strong in you. may yourwissdom see clearly the fear in your heart that makes you beleive that you lnow. If you want something it will make sense to you. you do not want to feel alone and are lying on a deep level. be host wake up humanity needs you to do this more than ever before... please wake up.. why are so many people crazy.. i know yourr afraid you cant lie.. we all see you.. but you cant see yourself... yet.. please wake up!!

      September 2, 2011 at 9:52 pm |
    • Amunaka

      Well they are teaching this stuff to kids in bible just sounds so funny when creationists try to explain science

      You can find this stuff from bible study teaching tools Google.. dinosaurs on Noahโ€™s Ark...

      Did Noah take dinosaurs on the Ark?

      Remember there are really only a few very large animals, such as the dinosaur or the elephant, and these could be represented by young ones. Assuming the average animal to be about the size of a sheep and using a railroad car for comparison, we note that the average double-deck stock car can accommodate 240 sheep. Thus, three trains hauling 69 cars each would have ample space to carry the 50,000 animals, filling only 37% of the ark. This would leave an additional 361 cars or enough to make 5 trains of 72 cars each to carry all of the food and baggage plus Noah's family of eight people. The Ark had plenty of space.

      According to Genesis 6:15, the Ark measured 300 x 50 x 30 cubits, which is about 460 x 75 x 44 feet, with a volume of about 1.52 million cubic feet. Researchers have shown that this is the equivalent volume of 522 standard railroad stock cars (US), each of which can hold 240 sheep. By the way, only 11% of all land animals are larger than a sheep.
      Without getting into all the math, the 16,000-plus animals would have occupied much less than half the space in the Ark (even allowing them some moving-around space).


      The Bible is reliable in all areas, including its account of the Ark (and the worldwide catastrophic Flood). A Christian doesnโ€™t have to have a blind faith to believe that there really was an Ark. What the Bible says about the Ark can even be measured and tested today.

      For more information on dinosaurs, read the online version of our Dinosaurs and the Bible booklet

      September 2, 2011 at 9:55 pm |
      • hmmmm

        youre like a child who will beleive in anta until death. santa is not real... wake up the sleeping child in your heart. your science to prove santa is laughable to mature minded adults. you will find out that growing up is worth because you suffer less frome ignorance . our world needs adults not kids who couldnt let go of their childhood dreams that were beaten into them by deluded parents. this place will get very ugly if people like you dont fy frome their cacoon of lies and propaganda. im sorry to put it so harshly but i really aspire that you become more honest and wie.

        September 2, 2011 at 10:18 pm |
      • Amunaka


        You talking to me ..? if you are ..try reading the two first sentences of my post

        September 2, 2011 at 10:25 pm |
      • hmmmm

        lolooh im on a kindle and missed the tone and wording due to this difficult browser. sorry i didnt realize you were inta thinker. im just tryin to wrestle with ignorance because it is such an oddcreepy yet prevalent phenomenah.

        September 2, 2011 at 10:38 pm |
      • Amunaka


        No problem...I gotta start adding a disclaimer "No these are not my views but their teaching this stuff to kids " ..this happens everywhere I 've posted about this .. and .I just learned I can post comments with my Kindle haven't tried it yet ..

        September 2, 2011 at 10:55 pm |
      • Donald Black

        You cant build a wooden boat that large and maintain structural integrity. there isn't any trees large enough to make the kind of keel and crossribbing to keep the ship together.

        September 3, 2011 at 8:17 am |
    • And...

      You write so horrendously it is difficult to understand what you mean.
      "Gods' Word.." โ€” You believe there is more than one God?
      "That is how it happened and no one can disprove it.. " โ€” Aliens came to Earth inside of Jelly Belly candies and taught primates how to create hybrids with the Greys that live in the dark craters of the Moon. Disprove that.

      September 2, 2011 at 10:03 pm |
  67. jellylee2020

    Gee....from the title I thought they found one alive. Though the story is still pretty interesting.

    September 2, 2011 at 8:14 pm |
    • yeasayer

      Me, too! I was excited for a minute.

      September 2, 2011 at 8:35 pm |
      • To see is to believe

        It's ok to get excited, it's just a story anyway.

        September 2, 2011 at 9:57 pm |
  68. ---------------------------------------------?

    "wooly rhino"

    Does the skull has a wool,insect hair or plant hair when they found it?

    September 2, 2011 at 8:01 pm |
  69. NewLine

    test your knowledge, which came first chicken or the egg, Bodies theses are all theories the facts are what we see and touch and feel.

    September 2, 2011 at 7:51 pm |
    • mike hunt

      The chicken came first because an egg cant hatch unless there is a chicken to sit on it. heck, it cant even be laid unless there is a chicken to lay it.

      September 2, 2011 at 8:00 pm |
      • Donald Black

        Egg came first as it was laid by a "chicken like creature" (guinea fowl) who was the proginator of the chicken as we know it.

        September 2, 2011 at 8:06 pm |
      • W

        The egg came first. Reptiles developed the "land egg" (amniotic egg) long before birds appeared. And chickens are recent additions to the reptilian world. Yes, our Avian creatures are now considered to have evolved from reptilian stock.

        September 16, 2011 at 2:21 pm |
    • Wzrd1

      The egg, where else would the chicken come from? One can have any type of mutation in the egg to produce a different sub-species.

      September 2, 2011 at 8:07 pm |
    • Tessa

      A circle has no end.

      September 2, 2011 at 8:15 pm |
    • Ruspanic

      Eggs (though not chicken eggs) existed long before chickens. The actual point at which modern chickens came into existence is impossible to pinpoint, and the answer to the question depends on whether the species of the egg depends upon its parent or its inhabitant.

      September 2, 2011 at 9:38 pm |
  70. dzerres

    How does this fit in with creationism? If God created EVERYTHING way back when – you know Noah's Ark and all that stuff – where did this thing come from? It didn't get on the Ark and neither did a pair of T-Rex but who cares when you can just believe in a fairy tale.

    September 2, 2011 at 7:33 pm |
    • Cj

      I think the wolly rino was left behind to guard the castle of make-believe.

      September 2, 2011 at 7:44 pm |
    • Ceri

      dzerres, maybe before deciding to comment on a concept, you should try to get at least a rudimentary grasp of the subject.

      September 2, 2011 at 7:47 pm |
      • 1000rtodd

        right, because you obviously do. also, if the bible is be taken literally, then you must take the Bible's depiction of time to be true as well. So, if Noah actually built the arc and fit 2 of every land creature on it, then by your own rational -not yours but u know what I mean – the earth could be no more than 6000 years old, because hey, that what the bible says. so how could a fossil of a t-rex be millions of years old? hmmmm, im confused. not at what Ive proposed, but as to why people are stupid enough to believe that book of fairy tales

        September 2, 2011 at 8:07 pm |
    • somebody

      They found a skull with no hair on it and no horn... so the "fact" that it was woolly and had a flat horn is pure extrapolation.

      September 2, 2011 at 7:51 pm |
      • Donald Black

        This would not be the FIRST whooly Rhino just the earliest. Other specimens would have had the hair and horns.

        September 2, 2011 at 7:57 pm |
    • David

      The woolly rhino would have been on the arc as well. There were two of every species on the arc, many of which we don't know about today. That is how these animals traveled to other continents.

      September 2, 2011 at 7:54 pm |
      • sqeptq

        So, how many continents did the ark visit?

        September 2, 2011 at 10:29 pm |
    • Robert

      When God created the earth, he organized it from materials leftover from prior planets and creations. Thus, the abundance of fossils dating back over millions of years. But man today, and the animals on it today, were all placed here about 6000 years ago in a new creation, where death was introduced anew in the fall of Adam.

      September 2, 2011 at 8:33 pm |
      • Bee

        Yeah, and if you believe that old hokum, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn!

        September 2, 2011 at 9:02 pm |
      • Jennifer

        Wow. Where do these people come from and how do they manage to get through life's daily demands? We are actually going to be going back to "the earth is flat" school of mouth-breathing if they continue to breed. God help us.

        September 2, 2011 at 11:29 pm |
    • fireballva

      This species was extinct before Noah and the great flood that covered the earth.

      September 2, 2011 at 8:38 pm |
    • Aezel

      This thread is amazing. It has almost every single dumbs**t response you can think of from the creatards about how to make this work with Noah's Ark.

      September 2, 2011 at 11:47 pm |
  71. Jennifer R

    The headline for this on CNN read "Ancient Woolly Rhino Found in Tibet". It made me wonder if he was just sitting around, reading a magazine and smoking a cigarette, or being kept as a pet or something. Lo and behold, they meant the remains of a woolly rhino!

    September 2, 2011 at 7:30 pm |
  72. DinoChris

    I've always wondered if evolution comes from within the body or within the environment. For example, if weather conditions change does the animal itself adapt by growing more hair or thicker skin and then passes it down to its offspring, or do only those animals who are innately hardier survive, creating a new breed of hardier aimals?

    September 2, 2011 at 7:23 pm |
    • dzerres

      Darwanism says the later is true. Mutations – thicker or longer hair – allowed some to survive and then procreate. Evolution doesn't come from within an existing individual, it comes through their progeny.

      September 2, 2011 at 7:30 pm |
    • Donald Black

      DinoChris: Natural selection (evolution) comes from the variability that exist within each species. Rhino's had individuals that had shorter hair and longer hair, if longer hair allowed the Rhino to survive better than over time more long haired rhinos survived to pass on their long hair to the next generation. Pretty soon all the Rhinos would have long hair. It is impossible for an individual to change, they have to just be born that way.

      September 2, 2011 at 7:39 pm |
    • cmthornl

      I believe the latter is true. Species with mutations are sometimes better adapted for new climates or environmental changes. For example, the giraffe most likely did not stretch its neck a lot in order to reach tall trees, and then pass that on to its progeny. Today's giraffe could still be in existence because its long neck enabled it to reach vegetation in tall trees, which allowed it to survive, while other giraffes had short necks, meaning they were more likely to become extinct. (Or giraffes could always have had long necks, I'm not familiar with the ancestral patterns of giraffes). Anyway, the former would be acquired characteristics, an idea touted by Jean Baptiste Lamarck in the nineteenth century.
      We could also argue that we were created just the way we are now in 7 days 5000 years ago, but that would just be silly.

      September 2, 2011 at 7:39 pm |
    • Cj

      You are talking minute changes too. With gradual climate changes adaptaions are seen in offspring through time as the species gradually adapts to the changing environment. Additionally, with drastic climate or environmental shifts where you see massive extinctions only the hardiest are left to procreate and continue on. This drastic environmental change can kill off entire species or only populations within a species due to distinct coloration, feeding habits, etc. (peppered moth in industrial England for example).

      September 2, 2011 at 7:41 pm |
    • Wzrd1

      It's a combination of the two. Hell, WE cause animals to evolve all the time, with our guiding which ones survive to breed and reproduce the characteristics desired.
      Hence, all of those breeds of dogs, cattle, turkeys, chickens, sheep, etc.
      Nature is a harsher breeder than humans are.

      September 2, 2011 at 8:10 pm |
    • Ruspanic

      The latter – that's the idea behind natural selection. Mutations and changes (including those advantageous ones that are responsible for evolution) only occur between generations, not during the life of the animal. Otherwise the trait would never get passed on, unless the DNA of the animal somehow changed also.

      September 2, 2011 at 9:42 pm |
  73. PeriSoft

    You're turning this into a flame war about the Tea Party and global warming?! Really?

    Ferchrissakes, people, there are more than enough venues in which to vomit your self-righteous partisan hate.

    Please, please, just for once, can an article on CNN inspire on-topic comments rather than having everyone grasping at the most tenuous possible link that enables a dive into the day's vitriolic talking points?

    OK guys, here it is: This thing is a wicked-cool rhinoceros. Talk about that for a minute. We can get back to fulminating about how much we hate eachother in, say, and article about a new kind of fishtank pebbles.


    September 2, 2011 at 7:18 pm |
    • polite centrist

      lol. well put. thank you.

      September 2, 2011 at 11:54 pm |
    • Bluemoondrop

      It is pretty wicked-cool.

      September 3, 2011 at 12:13 am |
    • Alex Gessong

      @PeriSoft: stop sounding so damned rational! Many who post here aren't interested in staying on topic or making sensible arguments! ๐Ÿ™‚ Your post is wicked cool, just like this woolly rhino!

      September 14, 2011 at 3:11 pm |
  74. augustghost

    outawork...woolly rhino farts

    September 2, 2011 at 7:07 pm |
  75. outawork

    I think the headline would have read better if it said Ancient woolly rhino fossel found in Tibet.

    September 2, 2011 at 6:58 pm |
    • rhubarbmuncher

      I agree, but it might have been better still if it had read "Anshent wouly fossel fownd in Thebed",
      or even "Kardashian s.x tapes linked to ancient horned creature"

      September 2, 2011 at 7:20 pm |
    • Alex Gessong

      @outawork: but "Ice Age giants..." makes people want to read the article! Some of us came here looking for Paul Bunyan and Babe the blue ox, but all we got was a big furry dead thing! ๐Ÿ˜‰

      September 14, 2011 at 3:14 pm |

    "The woolly rhino fossil is 3.6 million years old. When this animal was alive, the climate was generally warmer around the globe."


    September 2, 2011 at 6:50 pm |
    • outawork

      Who caused global warming back then?

      September 2, 2011 at 6:59 pm |
      • Grizzly



        Who caused global warming back th

        September 2, 2011 at 7:26 pm |
      • Tom

        Most likely it was caused by volcanic activity which most scientist agree was alot more common in the past than it is now. You see asside from sulfer and ash volcanos produce alot of CO2 which is a green house gas.

        September 2, 2011 at 8:03 pm |
    • Wzrd1

      The Himalayan mountains were a bit above sea level back then. They became mountains when India rammed into the Asian plate.

      September 2, 2011 at 8:15 pm |
    • Scotter Libby

      umm, what are you talking about? even if the himalayas were in new jersey back then, that wouldn't change the statement that the "globe" was "generally" warmer at that time. No matter what hemisphere Tibet was in back then it was still on earth.

      September 14, 2011 at 1:12 am |
  77. jm

    Not according to President wanna-be, Rick Perry. But if you wanna go teach this in schools, you go right ahead.

    September 2, 2011 at 6:48 pm |


  • Elizabeth Landau
  • Sophia Dengo
    Senior Designer