September 8th, 2011
10:00 AM ET

Ancient fossils question human family tree

At a family reunion of the direct evolutionary predecessors of our species, there would be a lot of arguing over whether Australopithecus sediba gets in the door.

Australopithecus sediba is the name of an ancient species discovered in South Africa in 2008. Researchers now have substantial evidence, published in this week's edition of the journal Science, that Australopithecus sediba could be a direct ancestor of the Homo genus, of which humans are a part (we are Homo sapiens). If that's true, it means our family tree may have to be redrawn, with Australopithecus sediba at the stem of the Homo line.

But that's just one possibility, and a controversial one at that.

Researchers studied two partial skeletons, a young male named Karabo and an adult female who has not yet been named, which were found in the remains of a collapsed cave. "Australopithecus" means "southern ape," and "sediba" is "natural spring" or "fountain" in the Sotho language. The team announced the discovery of the previously unknown species in 2010.

'Lucy' discoverer: Why I study human evolution

Scientists have several theories about what these skeletons might mean for human evolution.

The earliest undisputed Homo genus member is Homo erectus, which researchers estimate to be about 200,000 years younger than Australopithecus sediba, so Homo erectus could theoretically be the direct evolutionary descendant. Alternatively, Australopithecus sediba could be the direct ancestor of Homo habilis, considered to be a toolmaker because its hand bones were found next to stone tools, or of Homo rudolfensis, a contemporary of Homo habilis of disputed evolutionary origin. Australopithecus sediba could be related to both of them, and perhaps their current labels are inaccurate. Or, of course, it could be a dead end, although researchers say the skeletons' human-like features suggest otherwise.

Species as experiments in evolution

It makes sense that there seem to have been many variations in anatomical form evolving around 2 million years ago, said Lee Berger, paleoanthropologist at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa, who led the discovery of the fossils.

"As you’re beginning to have the stresses and stressors of environmental change and the things going on in Africa around 2 million years (ago), you would think that many experiments would emerge, Sediba just being one of those," he said.

There can be only one species that gave rise to Homo erectus, which is our direct ancestor, however. To demonstrate stronger evidence, Berger said, archaeologists would have to find fossils that come before and after Australopithecus sediba in the evolutionary lineage.

Based on the variety of Australopithecus forms that have been found, Ian Tattersall, paleoanthropologist and curator at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, who wasn't involved in the study, said he believes Australopithecus sediba probably did not give rise to Homo. Instead, it represents the context in which our true ancestor, in whatever form it was, did arise: during a time when there were many different forms of upright creatures. About 2.6 million years ago there was a huge change in the African fauna, with more grasslands arising; these kinds of environmental factors probably shaped the evolution of different species.

"In some population, some genetic novelty became established which basically set the patent for the genus Homo in a short period of time," Tattersall said. "What we’re not going to see, I think, is the gradual modification over millions of years of an Australopith into Homo."

Exploring the skeletons

Based on the two skeletons studied so far, Australopithecus sediba represents a curious, unique combination of human-like and primitive features.

For instance, consider the brain: Australopithecus sediba's skull shows a cranial capacity of 420 cubic centimeters, whereas a chimpanzee's is about 380 cubic centimeters. Homo erectus is about 200,000 years younger than Australopithecus sediba, and its cranial capacity would be a whopping 900 cubic centimeters. If Australopithecus sediba is the direct evolutionary ancestor of Homo erectus, it suggests a more rapid expansion of brain size over the course of evolutionary history than previously believed. Also, the overall shape of the brain appears to resemble a human's more than a chimp's.

Then there's the matter of feet. Australopithecus sediba has a mostly human-like ankle joint, but the heel bone is mostly ape-like. That's surprising because the species of Lucy, the famous 3-million-year-old skeleton classified as Australopithecus afarensis, has a more advanced heel than Australopithecus sediba. If Berger's skeletons descend evolutionarily from Lucy's species, that would mean that heel anatomy would have evolved from advanced to primitive to advanced again - which is unlikely. Alternatively, Lucy's species may be more of a cousin to Australopithecus sediba, and to our genus, on the evolutionary tree, rather than an immediate relative.

"If that's the case, then there may very well be a ghost lineage," Berger said. In other words, there are probably more fossils out there to explain where these species came from.

At the same time, Australopithecus sediba's pelvis is the most human-like of any found in the Australopithecus genus, Berger said. While females of Lucy's species have wide, stable platforms with a birth outlet, the human pelvis is more bowl-like and curves around the body, and Australopithecus sediba's pelvis is closer to that.

Researchers have good evidence from the hands and feet that Australopithecus sediba was spending a decent amount of time climbing in trees. And the hands, which have grasping capabilities, are more advanced than those of Homo habilis, suggesting it, too, was an early tool-user.

"Sediba and the other early bipedal apes were creatures of relatively small stature that retained a lot of climbing features, particularly in their upper body skeleton, so they spent a lot of time in the trees even though, when they came to the ground, they walked on two legs," Tattersall said.

What led to the deaths of these possible proto-humans that Berger's team studied? They appear to have fallen, perhaps while looking for water, Berger said. But further investigation will reveal more precise details.

From the other evidence that hasn't yet been unearthed or examined, Berger promised his team will also likely discover the dietary habits of Australopithecus sediba and whether they were hairy. Researchers may already have found evidence of soft tissue. And they've got more skeletons to explore from the same area.

"What makes this really exciting is that this is opening this whole question of where the genus Homo came from to re-examination. What they have is a wonderful sample of individuals, of a kind that we don’t really expect to find in the human fossil record. Just one complete skeleton is rare, let alone a whole bunch of individuals," Tattersall said.

Post by:
Filed under: Human ancestors • On Earth
soundoff (2,014 Responses)
  1. Dave R

    Did you run this article by Bachmann?

    September 10, 2011 at 7:28 pm |
  2. Biochemical Engineer

    Many rational people making generally good arguements keep saying evolution takes millions of years. This is false. Evolution is a change in gene frequency that occurs with every mutation and every premature death of a noncompetitive gene carrying organism. As such it is testable in the lab. Antibiotic resistance and animal breeding are evolution just not natural. Natural evolution can theoretically be nearly as fast under strong selective pressure. We just typically find evidence in the fossil record over millions of years because evolution is generally slow and takes a lot of small evolutionary changes to result in one big enough to see in fossils. Genetic evidence suggests human evolution is accelerating yet it isn't obvious in our skeletons. The rapid increase in brain size of homo erectus (< 200,00 years) compared to millions of years of two legged ancestors with small brains, woolly mammals, and the rapid rise of whales show evolution can be rapid under times of environmental change.

    I don't believe in Christianity because: 1) I don't believe in human sacrifice (Jesus or Muslim's Jihad). 2) I believe in personal responsibility, no one magically removes your responsibility for your own actions no matter how great their sacrifice. 3) I don't believe in torture (hell) just because you don't bow down in reverence to some self appointed authority figure. 4) I can't believe liars who preach against science with evidence to support beliefs that have none. 5) My experience teaches me that humans tend to believe what makes them happy and science has advanced humanity by giving them an objective process for finding truth and pointing a way forward. 6) As a kid after reading much mythology and several versions of the bible I couldn't see any reason why the magic of the bible was any more believable than the magic labeled myth and legend. 6) Good people believe in doing good because it makes them feel good not because they fear going to hell if they don't. I believe this feeling that most people have is a result of evolution that favors groups who work together and care for each other. Christianity has been a powerful cultural evolutionary force by reinforcing that evolutionary trend just like Santa Clause and the Easter bunny are for kids. It's time for humanity to grow up and stop ignoring real dangers revealed by science that conflict with old superstitions.

    September 10, 2011 at 6:52 pm |
    • kyle

      You are talking about phenotypical changes not genetic change. Yes dog breeding is unnatural evolution, but dogs can still breed and in a natural setting interbreeding will stabilize gene frequency requiring a very long time to see major change. Brain size over 200k years is not nearly as surprising as brain complexity, just like dog size is not nearly as significant as something like sabre teeth which is a much more complex system.

      September 11, 2011 at 2:34 am |
      • Biochemical Engineer

        Phenotype refers to how genes are expressed. That is not what I'm talking about. Evolution is a change in genotype frequency which is why our reliance on looking at large scale phenotypical expressions as evidence of evolution paints a misleadingly slow picture of it.

        September 11, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
  3. Major Tom

    I think all these posts shows that the Austrolopithicene strain is alive and kicking! The primitive just never dies.

    September 10, 2011 at 5:54 pm |
  4. Katie says "Athiests tend to be an angry bunch"

    Fact: Athiests tend to be angrier than Xtians
    Fact: Athiests tend to be more selfish to the feelings of others in general
    Fact: Athiests tend to use illegal drugs more than Xtians
    Fact: Athiests tend to be more anti-social than Xtians
    Fact: Athiests tend to be more depressed than Xtians (GEE I WONDER WHY LOL)

    September 10, 2011 at 5:41 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      Wow, you must have a lot of references to back up all these "facts"

      How about this one:
      Fact: US prison population has less than 3% of people incarcerated who declare themselves atheist, agnostic or pagan...
      Fact: US population has more than 10% of people who declare themselves atheist, agnostic or pagan...
      Fact: Doctors without Borders is a secular charitable organization, as is UNICEF...

      Hmmmmm wonder why...

      September 10, 2011 at 5:46 pm |
    • Biochemical Engineer

      While I think you have been justly chastised for a lack of objective support for your stance, I must say as an athiest I wouldn't be shocked if your personal experience supports this. Based on a similarly limited sample I believe athiests like me who believe in the useful parts of Christian morality tend to keep a low profile out of respect for the comfort Christianity gives to it's believers. The most difficult part of a rational journey from Christian to Athiest for me was coming to terms with never seeing departed loved ones again and knowing that this life is all there is. I'd guess the people you list often have little concern for others, or enjoy making others uncomfortable and love making fun of people trying to take a moral high ground with them so they may be much more vocal in their disbelief in normal social situations.

      September 10, 2011 at 7:07 pm |
    • Dave R

      Katie don't need no stinkin' references. Bachmann told her it was so.

      September 10, 2011 at 7:30 pm |
    • CvG

      Fact: Xtains tend to make up FACTS more than athiests
      Fact: Xtians tend to be more judgmental than athiests, even though the Founder of the sect asked his followers not to judge
      Fact: Some Xtians seem to have a greater problem with standard English than athiests while they are busy judging and over-generalizing – i.e., "Fact: Athiests tend to be more selfish to the feelings of others in general" Did you mean less sensitive? Where is your sensitivity to the feelings of athiests?

      September 12, 2011 at 9:34 am |
  5. john frum

    these scientist are lying. their trying to trick us and trying to discredit christianity.

    September 10, 2011 at 5:35 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      Christianity has an easy enough time discrediting itself, no help required from scientists. (i.e. Westburrow Baptist Church, KKK, Pope Benedict... etc)

      September 10, 2011 at 5:42 pm |
  6. It Must REALLY SUCK... be someone that doesn't have faith, doesn't have any belief in God. To lie in their deathbed , to realize that very soon that they will have no more existence. What a dismal black hole that must be to fall in. Really don't understand it, if you are so sure there is nothing after death, then why not give God a chance. What do you have to lose right? A soul? Well you don't believe that you have one. So, nothing to lose.

    September 10, 2011 at 5:19 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      So you suggest we "fake it"? Talk about hypocrisy.

      No, life is for living. We have no fear of death, although we prefer to live, death is but a formality. We return to the same state of non-living as we did before we were born. No hellfire and brimstone, no angle harps grovelling at some imagined deity's feet... In my last moments, I will cherish every breath I took in life, and know that I did what I could to make my children's and grandchildren's life better. I know that I have freed them of the oppression of religious thinking, that they will never fall victim of some pastor's delusion.

      No it doesn't suck.
      Pascal's wager is flawed beyond recognition... even if I did believe in a god... which one? Vishnu? Baal? Allah? Thor? Odin? They all have equal proof to their existence... what makes yours so special?

      September 10, 2011 at 5:32 pm |
    • Biochemical Engineer

      Yeah it sucks. Somewhat like finding out that Santa Clause wasn't real except that you don't have to fear torture if you forgot one of his rules. What sucks more is putting up with people who refuse to deal with real issues because it's easy to claim it's God's will and they can expect a better after life just by grinning and bearing it. It's much more comforting to know that real problems can be solved by reason rather than relying on prayer which is obviously unreliable to those who rely on it.

      September 10, 2011 at 7:16 pm |
    • Dave R

      It will suck even worse to find out all of this religious stuff is nonsense. Of course you never will since dead is done. But live in your fantasy world anyway.

      September 10, 2011 at 7:32 pm |
    • xlion

      @!fimeilleur---yes, FAKE IT. Live a life a righteousness. Live like Jesus supposedly did. All you have to lose is your pride, your selfishness, your desire, all of your vices, everything you desire more than Gods love.. ect. ect. ect. Then I'm willing to bet you see things differently. I'm even willing to bet you see God, when you are no longer blinded by sin. It's the proof of Gods existence you atheists are always demanding but you are unwilling to see it. You want it given to you. You don't want to have to give anything back. There is the Flaw in your logic and reason. It's you.

      September 11, 2011 at 3:42 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        No, the flaw in logic is yours. If I were faking it, and your god was real, omniscient and all... do you not think that he'd be wise to my false belief? So it wouldn't benefit me anyway. No, I think I'd have to TRUELY believe... I'd have to MAKE myself believe... or MAKE BELIEVE... hmmmm... pretend. Nope. Sorry, more proof is required.

        September 12, 2011 at 1:12 am |
  7. nytw

    Evolution is a lie! Rick Perry created the earth.

    September 10, 2011 at 3:42 pm |
  8. Sagebrush Shorty

    Only Professional Wrestling is real. Everything else is fixed.

    September 10, 2011 at 3:01 pm |
  9. SciGuy

    Evolution is not science. It is a a proposed model of how the human race, among others, came to be. When all data that is collected is *assumed* to fit in this model, then we should not be surprised that it is made to seem to fit. Unfortunately, if the model is wrong, then it is doomed to fail. And fail it does, and will. For the model is wrong.

    September 10, 2011 at 2:56 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      Nah, too easy... it's obvious you're not educated in this field. Come back when you've graduated high school.

      September 10, 2011 at 5:15 pm |
      • SciGuy

        Typical. Congratulations, you win the ad hominem award.

        September 11, 2011 at 1:04 am |
      • fimeilleur

        See, you still don't get it... your claims against evolution have all been demonstrated to be false... DNA confirms evolution, biology confirms evolution, geology confirms evolution... a minimum of 17 different scientific fields confirm evolution... I'm not going to go any further into the details of this, I'm sure if you just do the research, you will see that I'm right.

        September 11, 2011 at 1:53 am |
    • Biochemical Engineer

      Accepted "models" of human evolution have been over turned many times since I started studying this many years ago. What does not change is that new fossils keep turning up intermeduate between humans and apelike ancestors while religion keeps failing to find evidence for it's claims and it's leaders continually exposed to scandals empowered by their followers blind faith. Christianity's stance says we shouldn't be finding any of these fossils. Science is about a search for truth with any accepeted theory subject to revision based on new contradictory evidence. This is the exact opposite of religion and why they so often conflict despite most participants in both being interested in bettering humanity's condition.

      September 10, 2011 at 7:27 pm |
  10. DivideByZero

    Science is the only true religion as it can be witnessed by all generations.

    September 10, 2011 at 2:15 pm |
  11. satanbug

    is this thread stll on after death like jesus and Elvis?

    September 10, 2011 at 1:21 pm |
  12. satanbug

    is this thread stll on after death like christ and elvis?

    September 10, 2011 at 1:19 pm |
  13. adam

    God is about love. Jesus died for us. What other religion is sacrificing. The bible never says people cannot evolve over time. Logic still says someone engineered intelligent life. Does even a monkey have the full functioning of our human capacity? No. I believe Jesus was correct in all he said. Historically they say the bible is correct. They being people looking at pure historical authenticity. If that is truth then one must be at the least open to the possibility that a creator designed us and that if one part of the bible was correct then possibly more descriptions are as well. Do your homework people, if you doubt look at other factors before making a decision, be informed, prophecy, historical accuracy, intelligent design, and the truth that most historians believe a large flood did happen and at that point in time it would have wiped out what was known as the world, as well as the area that was inhabited at the time. Look up ancient mesopotamia flood, the evidence is there, bible code if you are a tech geek, just be informed before you doubt if you are informed you should sleep well- God bless CRISTOS PHILIA

    September 10, 2011 at 1:19 pm |
    • satanbug

      Adam..that's a lovely little tale you tell...hey, what did the tigers eat on their way back from the ark? maybe you are the one that needs to be informed...just about any SCIENCE you can think of be it biology, geology, zooloigy, etc negates the possiblity of god...the same way an understanding of weather and climate negates the need to sacrifice goats for a good harvest...grow up

      September 10, 2011 at 1:27 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      So you have your slaves? you believe people should be killed for working on the Sabbath? Unruly teenagers should be killed? It's all there in your Bible... written as LAWS.

      Jesus said the old laws should be observed... sorry slavery is still immoral, murder (even sanctioned by your God) is still immoral...

      Sacrifice? God, had himself born on earth, so that he could sacrifice himself to himself for a sin that he himself imposed on man. Right....

      September 10, 2011 at 1:32 pm |
  14. A Like-Minded Madman

    CNN really should lock the comments sections of potentially controversial articles like these; they degenerate into complete shitstorms.

    September 10, 2011 at 12:49 pm |
  15. Dr Hovind

    Do you know everything? Do you know half of everything? Lets pretend you know half of everything...Ask yourself "could god exist in the half I dont know?"

    September 10, 2011 at 12:44 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      As likely as the existence of Unicorns, leprechauns, fairies, pixies, and smurfs.

      September 10, 2011 at 1:07 pm |
      • satanbug

        man I love to see people use the same logic and arguments I use to snap these children out of their delusions...rock on brother...keep speading the logic virus

        September 10, 2011 at 1:16 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      only difference is that no one is trying to impose fairy laws or Unicorn protection acts or the Leprechaun Bank of Rainbow Gold for the entire nation to be subject to.

      September 10, 2011 at 1:11 pm |
  16. satanbug

    it is really pathetic that so many people are desperate to believe their piddly conscience is going to go on forever...time to join the world of adults...death is a bummer but it is a fact of existence....what, we going to float around in night shirts with wings playing harps...please...get a grip...the study of human evolution is fascinating...I'll take it over the big book of nonsense any day

    September 10, 2011 at 10:41 am |
  17. Rob Wassem

    For those that support the theory that we are related to animals, you are wrong according to scripture. God said that he created animals and then Adam named the animals and never suggested that we were of the same blood line. God did not need millions of years to create a says in scripture that he spoke and it happened. Why are you so doubtful on this issue? Deny Him and He will deny you on the day of judgement.

    September 10, 2011 at 9:48 am |
    • satanbug

      yeah I'm terrified your made up silliness, your ghost is gonna deny me. Then what i got to hell??? ohhh scary fire and brimstone and demons...ooooohhhhhh....I mean how hot could it can used to almost anything...people live in Ft Lauderdale in August

      September 10, 2011 at 10:45 am |
  18. Ken

    All you people truly suck, bunch of unbelieving fools Jesus is lord get over it!

    September 10, 2011 at 7:39 am |
    • satanbug

      Hey Kenny boy...your Jesus is dead get over it...Elvis, Tupac, Jerry Garcia and Jesus are all checked out just like your dear old, its time 2 s u c k it up and be a big boy...remember when your dog got run over and your mom told you it went to doggy heaven, well that wasn't true either

      September 10, 2011 at 10:50 am |
  19. LoveandTolerance

    This article spawned a really wonderful intellectual debate that went way beyond the partisan bickering that most CNN articles generate. It also seems to me that many of the participants in this discussion (i.e. evolutionists vs creationists) presented some very well thought out and passionate arguments on both sides.

    I was 11 years old when I began thinking about all of the issues that have been raised in this discussion, I am 54 years old now. When I was 11, I was wrestling with three fundamental questions:

    1) If there was a big Bang, what came before it?
    2) How can the spark of existence come from nothing?
    3) If there is an omnipotent, omniscient creator, why would he/she/it bother to create anything?

    I spent many years of study and spiritual work trying to figure out the answer to these questions, and here's what I came up with:

    1) If there was a big Bang, what came before it?
    Reverse the Big Bang, and you come to a singularity. You can call it God, if you wish.

    2) How can the spark of existence come from nothing?
    It may be possible for something to come from nothing (check out the latest work of Stephen Hawking), but I'm not so sure. It is also possible that there was never true 'nothing', which is what I suspect.

    3) If there is an omnipotent, omniscient creator, why would he/she/it bother to create anything?
    Another way to ask this question is, what was the motivator for the Big Bang? I have some very interesting theories, but I'm still working on this. In any case, whatever, or whomever, motivated the Big Bang to occur set the whole process in motion, and from there came all of the physical and evolutionary phenomena that we experience today.

    Science may someday be able to answer all of these questions much better than my weak attempt above, but here is the real bottom line. Life is precious, humanity is precious and way more vulnerable than we think we are. When you really read through all of the posts above, which I have done, you realize that there are many possible explanations for what we human beings experience here on Earth.

    In my opinion, all regions are to be respected equally. If God exists, which I suspect he/she/it does, no one can truly say which of humanity's holy books aligns most closely with God's true intentions; they all claim to reveal the only truth, but no religion has any indisputable empirical evidence that can prove it, as they all use circular self-referential logic. Science is also to be respected, as when properly understood, it explains away all of the superstitious beliefs that older cultures came up with in order to comprehend the enormity and wonder of the universe. Science has also
    provided huge benefits to humanity in terms of technology and medicine.

    It is only through the expression of universal love, tolerance, and respect for the diversity of cultures which our fellow human beings on this planet hold dear, that the human race will finally live together in peace. And when we have the humility to accept that none of us have all of the answers when we look up at the night sky, we realize that it doesn't matter what we think; it doesn't matter what we believe; it doesn't matter what we like or dislike; the only thing that really matters is what we do.

    Donate money to the people starving in Somalia; it doesn't take much to make a very big difference.

    September 10, 2011 at 7:14 am |
    • Biochemical Engineer

      You are where I was for many years along a similar path it would appear. It was only in my late 40's that I moved from Agnostic to Athiest based on the concerted religious attack on evolution. How God or the big bang came into being is beyond me, but in the end I see evidence for one and none for the other. I wish there was someone all powerfull being watching over us, but even if there is his spotty record on natural and cultural disasters suggests we should run our lives based on reason and personal responsibility.

      September 10, 2011 at 7:43 pm |
    • CvG

      Here is another speculation – suppose in the grand scheme of the universe, human beings are no more than slightly evolved flatworms which do not have enough BTUs in their tiny little brains to answer any of these big questions. Perhaps pet dogs and dolphins at Sea World can wonder about why humans bother to feed them, but they probably should not be expected to be able to answer every question they can imagine. I'm just saying – we need to cut ourselves some slack.. If you look at the shape of the world and human history in general, aside from inventing technology, are we really that smart? We only think we are because our frame of reference is limited to Earth.

      September 12, 2011 at 9:47 am |
  20. Andrew

    How do they explain Evolution in an Age (such as the United States for the past 50 years) with all kinds of Subsidy Welfare Programs that REWARD BAD CHOICES AND BAD BEHAVIOR AND ENCOURAGE THE LOWER ELEMENTS GENETICALLY TO REPRODUCE? Our government is promoting "dis-evolution". And conversely our irrational government taxes away those who are more productive and do the right thing. Families that save money, both parents work, who pay to raise their own children, are given no help but instead are taxed by the government. Compared to single parent and teen mothers who get pregnant out of wedlock, who have crack babies, they are rewarded again and again by the US Govt. freebie programs.

    September 10, 2011 at 1:43 am |
    • CvG

      Your comment does not discredit Darwin, it may just mean we're screwed. Go to Wikipedia and Google social darwinism.

      September 12, 2011 at 10:07 am |
  21. Sparky101

    You say.

    September 10, 2011 at 12:42 am |
  22. bahminj

    According to the latest census there are nearly 7 billion people on the face of the earth. With the population still growing by about 80 million each year, earth would not have room on this planet if you applied the theory of evolution. Fact is if the earth was 200,000 million years or more old… this planet would have had to transport people to another planet because there would be no room on this earth for that kind if growth based on the theory if evolution. Evolution remains forever and always assumptions based on mans flawed ideas about how life began…read the Bible,.. it clearly states..God created man in His image! Intelligent design! even Darwin doubted his own theory because he could not find fossils to support his theory on the transitional species of man's evolution.

    September 9, 2011 at 11:59 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      You're not very good at math are you? or doing simple research... Here's a test for you... support your statements about Darwin... where did you get this juicy piece of information that has eluded all the scientists world wide? Intelligent design, Bwah ha ha ha ha... what, the earth is only 6000 years old? and God made it "look like" it's older as a test of our faith? Well then, your God would have to be a deceitful a$$hole to pull a stunt like that. And you God is omniscient? What a cruel SOB to create me, knowing I'd fail his "test", so that he could send me to Hell. Screw that. I'd rather slam my d!ck in a car door than grovel at the feet of this egocentric pr!ck.

      September 10, 2011 at 12:39 am |
    • CvG

      When you were running your biblical mathematical model, did you remember to deduct the losses caused by the bubonic plague (some estimates are that 40% of the population of Europe was erased), influenza, infant mortality and life expectancy before Pasteur and antibiotics, smallpox, famine, natural disasters, warfare, etc., etc.. etc. It is not that simple.

      September 12, 2011 at 10:12 am |
  23. ngc1300

    All I see here is incessant flinging of fecal matter at each other. Nothing is served by adopting extreme positions. Those on the fringes will never be persueded, so why try? Stephen Jay Gould spoke of "non-overlapping magisteria". What he meant was very specific: science and religion should not presume to speak for each other. Science asks "How did the universe come to be?", it asks "How did we become what we are?", it seeks to explain how things work. Religion asks "Why is the universe here?, "Why are we here?", "What is the purpose of our existence?". Religion and faith have sustained people for countless ages. Science works, so it's results must be valid. I think there's room enough in our world for both.

    September 9, 2011 at 10:24 pm |
  24. The_Mick

    Because there is no other being (animal!)closer to us than the Chimpanzee on our planet now, we tend to think we are special. But the fact is that our ancestors killed off all the competition: Neanderthal Man, the remnants of Homo Erectus, the so called "Hobbits" from the Indian Ocean Isles, etc. They died off either because they didn't fit the changing environments on the earth as well as us (not likely since most lived all over) or because we killed them off the same way we've killed off the Mammoth and Giant Sloth and other animals that cross paths with ancient man. So, for the last 25,000 years or so, we've been the only highly-thinking animals left. We don't know how many times our distant ancestors did the same thing. This fossil may represent a human ancestor – or a branch of great ape that our human ancestors drove to extinction.

    September 9, 2011 at 9:26 pm |
  25. Abrondon

    (1) Even if Macroevolution were true, it provides no mechanism to explain the laws of physics that govern it. (2) Not only are the odds of the first functional amino acid forming "by chance" staggeringly unlikely, it also had to somehow include the ability to self-replicate. (3) The multiple discoveries of dinosaur soft tissue casts doubts on our assumptions about fossilization and/or aging methodology.

    September 9, 2011 at 7:37 pm |
    • Biochemical Engineer

      Scientists do not know how life started. Darwin speculated on this because it is a big question related to his theory of evolution. It is not however central or necessary to evolution. Evolution is the change in life over time well documented in the fossil. It is a fact not a theory. Darwin's theory of evolution – "Natural Selection" explains why and how evolution happens with mutiple lines of evidence and was remakably accurate given he didn't know about DNA. Modern technology has added many more lines if evidence supporting natural selection. You can't disprove the theory that life evolved from a common ancestor by demanding to know how that ancestor originated espicially when there is plenty of accumulating evidence about evolution and diversification over time. Science is more likely to disprove the common ancestor portion of Darwin's theory than creationists through DNA evidence indicating multiple mechanisms for life's origin. As of now the preponderance of DNA evidence strongly supports the common ancestor hypothesis. All that said, scientists are very actively trying to figure out how life started to understand how common it is in the universe. They have uncovered many pieces of the puzzle, but not a complete map.

      September 10, 2011 at 8:04 pm |
  26. jj

    Take that, you reactionary TPs.

    September 9, 2011 at 6:57 pm |
  27. nwatcher

    I read the article – no, really, I did. I started to read some of the posts thinking there might be some sort of discussion on the scientific findings. (I'm sure someone made some sort of intelligent post – sorry I missed it.)

    Seems science is needing to revise the "family tree" they created with the bones they find laying around. Doesn't that raise any questions that could be discussed intelligently here? Christians believe that all we see in nature has order to it (Laws of Nature- Laws of Physics – the whole Newton, Gallilea, Einstein stuff...) and must have come from a place of order and intelligence. Throwing around words like "ignorant" "fools" does nothing to change that belief.

    This article basically says scientist have found fossils that don't fit their previous irrefutable evidence that they are always right. I bet they will work overtime to explain how they really do know all the answers – this time. At least until something else pops up to force a change in all the proven, undeniable, 110% sure we know "family tree."

    Anyone else have actual THOUGHTS on the article – wait – this is CNN, typically lacking in discussion beyond name calling and completely inaccurate statements about topics they know nothing about. Find me a good Science website

    September 9, 2011 at 6:05 pm |
    • Biochemical Engineer

      The newsworthiness of this is somewhat over stated. We know the human family tree has many branches. This represents either a new branch or an unsuspected path through the known cloudy picture of exactly when, where, and how Homo evolved from Australopithecus. Related articles with titles like "Was There a Branch in the Family Tree" should be answered with duh-yes we knew that already.

      The two most interesting aspects of this are:
      1) There may have been more than one branch of Australopithecus that started down the batch to increased intelligence resembling us.
      2) Even if this is not our ancestor due to the location it can provide evidence about it happened due to a treasure trove of fossils and the good possibility of parallel evolution. The completeness and breadth of these fossils is amongst their most unusual trait. Being discovered by using Google is the biggest first.
      3) That intelligence may have started with reorginization of the brain rather than an increase in size. A major oversight in my view was the relevance of this to the hobbit which was small brained but very smart. Their evolution may have started this far back rather than by dwarfing of Homo erectus.

      The hobbit, Denosovians, and Ardipithecus were far more startling and unexpected discoveries IMO. Two unexpected advanced forms of Homo, and a new form of walking in a forest ape.

      September 10, 2011 at 8:21 pm |
      • Michael Abatemarco

        It's an interesting thing about brain size. It has been speculated that neanderthals whose brain size was larger than modern humans may have had the capacity for greater intelligence but it has also been speculated that the decrease in brain size of modern humans may serve as an efficiency model; think of how early computers took up an entire room and could only perform a fraction of the things modern computers that fit in the palm of your hand are capable of doing.

        September 10, 2011 at 9:59 pm |
      • Biochemical Engineer

        Michael I share your curiosity about brain efficiency and neanderthals big brains. Maybe they had bigger brains for faster reflexes or abilities we don't have, but ours were better designed for social IQ so that while an individual neanderthal may have been smarter our line worked more efficiently in groups. Neanderthal's may have been more like the rain man capable of solving very difficult problems very fast,but unable to work well with others. Pure off the cuff speculation on my part. Imagine how smart we would be if we got as much out of a lb of brain mass as the hobbits seem to have. MAybe the little greys and asgard aren't so outlandish as I once thought.

        September 13, 2011 at 10:02 pm |
  28. Reeeeealllly?

    Look leave Muhammoniod alone. he is entitled to believe what he wants. But at the same time shut the hell up about your religion. And we dont have to be tolerant because we have the freedom not to be if we choose. And since your group isnt tolerant of others... dont expect others to be tolerant to your lot.

    Peace out!

    September 9, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
    • Right On!

      Sounds reasonable.

      September 9, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
    • satanbug

      i see it as it is time for people to grow up..I wouldn't let my kid believe in Santa at 16...we have real problems to face as a specis...this deperate hanging on to the fairy tales of goat herders in some deperate bid to live forever, is pathetic

      September 10, 2011 at 10:54 am |
  29. HockeyMinny

    Can't really tell if it's Michelle or Sarah (without make-up)

    September 9, 2011 at 4:38 pm |
  30. KimchiAustin

    My thoughts on the Bible and evolution: Who was there to witness God creating "earth and man?" Soooo, who wrote about it in the Bible as if there were witnesses? Just think for once people, and stop bringing up religion every time evolution is mentioned. I see a fossil that can be carbon dated and have concrete evidence of a time it existed. Some of you are the same people that scoff at magic tricks and biological dangers because you "can't see it." Yet, you will vehemently chime in about how "ridiculous" evolution is and chant "God! God!" whenever something definite and evidently-solid is discovered. Make up your minds already!

    September 9, 2011 at 4:24 pm |
    • MaybeAgnosticMaybeNot

      Before some one steps in to point out the flaws in Carbon dating, it is true carbon dating could not be use to date a fossil. Carbon dating only has a range of about 14,000 yrs. However carbon dating is only one method of radiometric dating, using other elements, such as lead, uranium, thorium... These methods can render dates going back billions of years.

      September 9, 2011 at 4:36 pm |
      • nwatcher

        in bone? lead and uranium – should have died at a younger age than it appears to

        September 9, 2011 at 6:07 pm |
    • satanbug

      are you my cousin...its me al

      September 10, 2011 at 11:03 am |
  31. Ghostbuster

    God in man created. Because in the beginning, who wrote that stuff down? Man did.......

    September 9, 2011 at 4:23 pm |
    • KimchiAustin

      Just like man wrote down "Three Little Pigs" and created the genre of fiction. Just because man wrote it down doesn't mean it happened.

      September 9, 2011 at 4:26 pm |
  32. KimchiAustin

    It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant people become in adulthood because they didn't pay attention to high school biology class. You embrace the "medical wonders" of penis enlargement pills and worship science when it's curing you of a disease, creating your latest electronic toy, or enabling you to have children and live longer lives, YET you will scream bloody murder if science tries to explain our origins and our future. Science is not some little cult that tries to pretend that if they drink koolaid they can ride the next comet to heaven, it's a whole entity that has existed before you or I was born and has strived to figure out humans, our nature, where we come from, and how the world around us works. How in the h3ll do you find fault with something that can be proven, yet will rip my throat open if I question religion and Biblical events (that even the Church, can't find significant evidence of concrete proof)?

    September 9, 2011 at 4:19 pm |
    • nwatcher

      don't believe in religion yet talk about he11?

      September 9, 2011 at 6:09 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        I'm guessing it's a figure of speech... just like OMG. 😉

        September 12, 2011 at 9:32 am |
  33. Tn Ken

    Do you realize how hard these fossils are to find? And to think they have lasted for milliions of years. That can only be because God wanted us to find them.

    September 9, 2011 at 3:27 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      deceitful little bugger your god is... all that trickery... sounds like something your devil would do.... are you sure you're praying to the right fellow?

      September 12, 2011 at 9:34 am |
    • CvG

      Like a little kid spinning a top? Maybe god is a kid. Thanks for disease, famine, natural disasters, etc. Read Mark Twain – The Mysterious Stranger – Letters From the Earth. A classic.

      September 12, 2011 at 10:19 am |
  34. Reality is Reality

    There is a fungi named Ergot that is naturally occuring. This fungi, when ingested, causes hallucinations and irrational behavior. Ergot ended up in many of the bronze age foods. God wasn't in a burning bush. The observer was simply tripping his balls off.

    September 9, 2011 at 3:21 pm |
  35. Catholicperson

    Many people tend to be in the camp of evelution or God. I belive that God set everything in motion, and that science just proves to us just how much of a genious God is.

    September 9, 2011 at 3:20 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, does it? Awe... that's nice...

      September 12, 2011 at 9:36 am |
  36. Moose

    ....Ugh. What mook thought it would be a good idea to bring up religion on this article? Now we have a Muslim hate party going on that's not even related to the subject matter in the first place!

    That being said, to everyone who's throwing a hissy fit about human evolution spitting in the face of the Bible, get over yourselves. All that talk about a young earth doesn't hold water. The Bible is not a complete historical record. And one more thing–God works in mysterious ways, so before you dismiss the theory of evolution, you might consider the possibility that God created Man and everything else using evolution as a mechanism.

    September 9, 2011 at 3:15 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      Or maybe the possibility that there is no god, and evolution happened... including to the homo sapiens.

      September 12, 2011 at 9:38 am |
  37. hmmmmm...

    Why does religion and evolution have to be mutually exclusive? God's timeline is very different than us...could it be that God's plan was evolution all along?

    September 9, 2011 at 3:07 pm |
    • satanbug

      yes they do...they are exclusive...just like the study of plate tectonics and throwing maidens into volcanoes to appease fire gods...sorry man

      September 10, 2011 at 10:57 am |
  38. Conrad Shull

    To all who espouse the "it's only a theory" argument, so is gravity.

    September 9, 2011 at 2:53 pm |
    • nwatcher

      really? I did not know that – explain more

      September 9, 2011 at 6:11 pm |
  39. MaybeAgnosticMaybeNot

    According to the Bible, the entire earth was underwater at some point. during that time all bodies of water would have been mixed. Based on volume, the entire world would have been a salt water ocean. Meaning all manner of freshwater creatures would have been killed. So how does a Christian explain the existance of freshwater fish today?

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

      Let alone the variations in human race which would not be possible if we all came from the same parents 6k years ago.

      September 9, 2011 at 3:11 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      My personal favourite is how Noah made a pitstop in Australia and deposited all the marsupials, and the penguins in the south, and the polar bears in the north, and the moose in North America.

      September 12, 2011 at 9:42 am |
    • CvG

      God saved them. He just didn't bother telling Moses.

      September 12, 2011 at 10:21 am |
      • fimeilleur

        LOL... 😉

        September 12, 2011 at 12:08 pm |
  40. RodRoderick

    "As you’re beginning to have the stresses and stressors of environmental change and the things going on in Africa around 2 million years (ago), you would think that many experiments would emerge, Sediba just being one of those," he said.
    Given the Stresses and Stressors of Congress, the next Evolution of the Human Race is to become more A$$hole like.

    September 9, 2011 at 1:52 pm |
    • Judas Priest

      Welcome to the new human race.

      September 9, 2011 at 1:53 pm |
  41. Sparky101

    What I found more interesting that all the conjecture in the article, was the hatred and name-calling coming from the "educated." Having been firmly on both sides of this, I can understand both sides very well. However, I'll never understand how one can disparage another's ideas or opinions, simply because they are not the ideas or opinions that person holds to be true. That is just plain wrong on a number of levels, but I also understand how it makes people like WhatWhatWhat? feel better about themselves.

    September 9, 2011 at 1:43 pm |
  42. Peter

    Yes, GOD made it all, and his name is The LORD Jesus Christ. But you sinners love the words of your own kind, sinful wicked men; Marx, Lenin, Stalin. Who is the latest liar, philosopher, scientist, college professor? And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

    September 9, 2011 at 1:14 pm |
    • Judas Priest

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

      September 9, 2011 at 1:52 pm |
    • Conrad Shull

      Just wondering, how did serpents get around before they were condemned to crawl on their bellies?

      September 9, 2011 at 2:56 pm |
    • hmmmmm...

      The KKK also cited the Bible in their "work"...they too believe they are Christians...

      September 9, 2011 at 3:11 pm |
    • Ed

      And when he saw the wickedness in the hearts of men, he drowned them all save one family. He didn't just uncreate them – he drowned them. What a cruel, vindictive bastard.

      September 9, 2011 at 3:40 pm |
      • nwatcher

        Correction: How did a completely Holy, Perfect and perfectly Just (as in Justice) God keep from destroying them sooner. A more interesting question to ponder may be: How long do you think this present generation has before He decides the world he created is getting too filthy to tolerate it anymore? (Lucky for us He's holding off to give us a chance to repent)

        September 9, 2011 at 6:17 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        @ nwatcher,

        Or maybe, there IS no god, and the flood story was made up to explain (a tsunami?) a natural event that the primitive people couldn't explain at the time?

        September 12, 2011 at 10:43 am |
  43. magnus

    I thought 'Homo' was a bad word?

    September 9, 2011 at 1:10 pm |
    • Judas Priest

      not if it's followed by 'erectus'.

      September 9, 2011 at 1:53 pm |
  44. Can-Science

    People need to learn cite examples for and against their points, for example if evolution had occurred twice on our planet to create the foundations of life. Oh wait...

    September 9, 2011 at 12:56 pm |
  45. Thomas Whitney

    All this article does is say that they found some more fossils that MAY be in line with us. No way to know for sure, it is all guess work...go back in a time machine to observe what really happened...that is the only way you would know for sure..

    September 9, 2011 at 12:46 pm |
    • Judas Priest

      That not being bloody likely, what say we try examining the information that we CAN find? Just throwing that out there.

      September 9, 2011 at 12:56 pm |
  46. dugee

    I I am certain that most of us are descended from apes. Some like Muhammed et al have a way to go even to meet the basic 'ape' criteria let alone the 'sapiens' part. Hang in there guys, evolution might work for you eventually and you will understand what all the smart apes are talking about.

    September 9, 2011 at 12:38 pm |
  47. John Henson

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

    September 9, 2011 at 12:08 pm |
    • Judas Priest

      Google this phrase please.
      "missing link fallacy"

      September 9, 2011 at 12:59 pm |
      • magnus

        nice username.

        September 9, 2011 at 1:11 pm |
    • Ed

      There is an ever-expanding mountain of evidence that strongly supports the theory of evolution. What does your side have? A short little story devised in an ancient time of superstition by unknown authors. It's not even a contest.

      September 9, 2011 at 2:56 pm |
  48. blue voodoo

    Anyways, it seems we are headed back in direction of smaller craniums–evolution ended, probably sometime in the 17th or 18th century, and we have been returning to more and more animal-like state since then. Practically everybody I know is quite animalistic. They talk, but they are really disguised growls and howls.

    September 9, 2011 at 11:26 am |
  49. keiths

    I want one of you religous nuts to explain Homo neanderthalensis or Neanderthals. This has nothing to do with the article, just evolution. Neanderthals were around thousands of years before humans and servived into the time when humans began to take over the world. Where in the Bible does it mention these people? Neanderthals cooked food and buried their dead just like we do. The Neanderthatl's brains were as big as ours. Where in the Bible are these people?

    September 9, 2011 at 10:44 am |
    • Judas Priest

      To quote Bill Hicks:
      "One word. Dinosaurs."

      September 9, 2011 at 1:01 pm |
    • magnus

      They were 'human' in many ways but they lacked vocal chords and thus could not communicate as effectively and hence they were at a major disadvantage when Human Sapiens came onto the scene to slaughter them all like cattle.

      September 9, 2011 at 1:13 pm |
    • Ed

      And all of those cave drawings? Not humans – just very artistic apes.

      September 9, 2011 at 3:55 pm |
  50. Question

    I have a question to the evolution people. I dont know much about it, but when the fish crawled out of the ocean why did some become apes and others became dogs, cats, ect?? Its an honest question. Like i said I dont know much about either Religion or Evolutiuon.

    September 9, 2011 at 10:41 am |
    • Total Nonsense

      even if i dont know it, there is a SCIENTIFIC EXPLAINATION FOR THAT. but there is no explanation for the most widspread disease on earth: religion.

      September 9, 2011 at 10:43 am |
      • Judas Priest

        Way to lose friends and alienate people there. Did you even read their post before you sent off, or are you just that rude?

        September 9, 2011 at 1:28 pm |
    • magnus

      fish crawled out and became amphibians, and then those evolveed to reptiles, and some evolved to birds and other evolved to mammals. Its a very very slow process. Evolution is very very slow.

      September 9, 2011 at 1:35 pm |
    • Ed

      Species generally don't stay clumped together. When groups move around, they are influenced by varying environmental conditions. Over time, the groups begin to differentiate depending on these influences. In this way, new species evolve.

      September 9, 2011 at 3:17 pm |
      • Sparky101

        Correction, " this way new species are thought to....."

        September 10, 2011 at 1:22 am |
      • fimeilleur

        No Spanky, he got it right the first time... remember the ring species that I introduced you to... 🙂

        September 10, 2011 at 11:27 pm |
      • Sparky101

        No fraumiller, but he is perhaps a little more on the ball than you. The junk science you "introduced" me to is crap and a waste of time.

        September 10, 2011 at 11:49 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        You have evidence to the contrary?

        September 11, 2011 at 3:41 am |
    • CvG

      If you are really interested there is a huge body of information produced from the fossil record and dna that shows how it is theorized that the various species of mammals present on earth today evolved from the few mammalian species that existed when the asteroid hit 65 million years ago and a few species of dinosauers evolved into birds and the rest went extinct. Just google paleontology – tree of life – and get started.

      September 12, 2011 at 10:32 am |
  51. More Room For Me

    For all those that choose not to believe it is fine with me.... MORE ROOM FOR ME!

    September 9, 2011 at 10:30 am |
  52. zoney1

    Science teaches that matter can neither be created nor destroyed only changed. That leaves us with two choices. Matter has exiisted and always will exist or someone (God) created matter. There is no conflict between evolution and religion. Religion teaches that God created mankind in his own image. What is the image of God? The form of the human body? Not likely. Therefore the creation of God was the installing of a soul somewhere in our human ancestry. Because being only human I cannot envision forever and the fact that matter has always existed I believe that a supreme being created matter. The human body is only the temporary home of our souls. We are living proof as to how our bodies has evolved. We tend to think a million years is a long time for our bodies to evolve yet a million years is still only a blink when dealing with eternity. God is probably thinking he/she is working really really fast.

    September 9, 2011 at 9:54 am |
    • Aezel

      "Science teaches that matter can neither be created nor destroyed only changed. That leaves us with two choices. Matter has exiisted and always will exist or someone (God) created matter."

      A simple minded, uneducated and 100% completely wrong statement that shows zero understanding about what physicists mean when they say matter can't be created or destroyed. Since your fundamental assumption here that you dreamed up with no real knowledge is wrong your following assumptions are just as dumb.

      Try again. Go read a real book.

      September 10, 2011 at 9:27 am |
  53. Sharp

    There are some things we will never know; that we will never be capable of knowing. "No man see my face & live." (paraphrased from the Bible, God speaking directly to Moses from inside the cloud)

    September 9, 2011 at 9:04 am |
    • Judas Priest

      That should never be taken as a license to stop trying. God gave you a brain for more than just producing mucus. Use it.

      September 9, 2011 at 1:56 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      Genesis 32:30: And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
      Numbers 14:14: Thou, Lord, art seen face to face.

      Ummmmm, what say ye now?

      September 12, 2011 at 11:14 am |
  54. anonymous

    Science works to put us on the moon, explore the depths of the ocean, split the atom, speak to people on the other side of the world, clone living beings from their DNA, and create supercomputers. Except when it comes to evolution. Then, it's all junk. Oh darn, my liquid crystal display just went out. I need to place another order on Amazon.

    September 9, 2011 at 8:57 am |
  55. anonymous

    I tend to believe the theory put forth by the History Channel's Ancient Aliens miniseries, which is that evolution was artificially accelerated via DNA manipulation by aliens, initially to create a slave labor force for mining natural minerals such as gold and silver.

    September 9, 2011 at 8:49 am |
    • Judas Priest

      I tend to believe the History Channel is a cancer that obstructs the blood flow to the brains of its viewers.

      September 9, 2011 at 1:59 pm |
    • Ed

      So you're into Scientology?

      September 9, 2011 at 3:20 pm |
  56. Paual Dutcher

    The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants. These pictures are placed in all evolutionists' text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.

    September 9, 2011 at 8:36 am |
    • anonymous

      They've done it with giraffes and elephants. Next.

      September 9, 2011 at 8:50 am |
    • Judas Priest

      So where did all these species go?
      Oh, right. Flood. Sorry, my bad.
      While you're at it, google "missing link fallacy" and read it over a nice steaming cup of STFU.

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

      Ever heard of a wooly mammoth? That's right – prehistoric elephant. Keep trying though.

      September 9, 2011 at 3:23 pm |
  57. paxman

    My dear atheist brothers and sisters, please go to and look at the results of the scientific studies done by more than a dozen scientist, neurologists, psychiatrists, and psychologists. The names and degrees held by each of the testers is listed at the bottom of this web page. Why would the people who tested them lie about the results? Gives an awful lot of authority to 6 'psychotic' kids. Seems like you believe in science until it goes against your beliefs.

    Starting in June of 1981 6 kids, ages 10 to 15 dropping to their knees at the same time, focusing on the same spot (even though they have side –blinders on), bright flashing lights and hot skin probes not showing up on their EEGs, all raising their heads simultaneously when she leaves. Being arrested by the communist police and threatened with jail and torture and refusing to change their testimony. And now 30 years later, still going to church daily, praying many hours every day, all sticking to their ‘story’ while raising families. Six pathological liars? I guess the proof will be if they die without the signs happening that they say will happen in their lifetimes. Search vimeo for Mirjana or Medjugorje. Look how young Jakov is in the 1984 vimeo video 10286499, how they all raise their eyes at the same time. Someone said there's no sound (which is true) so maybe there was an audible signal so the children would synchronize their looking up. Well, there's a crowd of hundreds of people all around them, don't you think they would have heard the signal. They've done this in front of crowds of hundreds of people hundreds of times. Search u-tube videos of Mirjana. Please reply with your explanation. She says in one of her videos that Our Blessed Mother doesn't refer to atheist as non-believers but as ‘those who do not yet know the love of God’, so at least there’s hope in the way she puts it, sounds like you'll eventually come around. But she also says you'll regret waiting until the great sign, don't let your hearts become too hardened. Keep an open mind and look into it. Also, how do you explain similarities and out of body experiences in people who have had NDEs? I almost drowned as a teenager and I know what I experienced wasn't just my brain failing from lack of oxygen. I’ll keep praying for you.

    September 9, 2011 at 8:23 am |
    • Judas Priest

      You're still speaking of a subjective experience. This subjective experience can be artificially induced. This, coupled with the commonality of the experience, indicates the source is your own neurophysiology, and not a supernatural entity.

      September 9, 2011 at 2:12 pm |
  58. douglasjames

    And we are on top of the food chain?

    September 9, 2011 at 7:49 am |
  59. Gord

    With other words it doesn't fit in anywhere and scientists have to rewrite their theories once again.

    September 9, 2011 at 7:44 am |
    • douglasjames

      Pretty much, Gord.

      September 9, 2011 at 7:50 am |
    • anonymous

      Ah yes. Such is the nature of science.

      September 9, 2011 at 8:52 am |
    • Judas Priest

      "Rewrite" in the sense of, "Gee, maybe there should be a comma here", as opposed to trash it and start again. Discovering a new meaning for one word in the bible does not invalidate the entire book.

      September 9, 2011 at 2:14 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        Except when they finally decided that they mistranslated "virgin" instead of "young"... put that whole miraculous birth to rest.

        September 12, 2011 at 11:18 am |
    • Ed

      There are controversies among scientists about the mechanics of evolution, but there is no controversy that evolution occurs. Indeed these discoveries tend to support the overall theory even while making us revise how the process itself works.

      September 9, 2011 at 3:51 pm |
      • Sparky101

        Ed, why would you so totally accept something that has never been observed, something that is not repeatable, and something that no experiment can attempt to falsify?

        September 10, 2011 at 1:27 am |
      • fimeilleur

        Spanky, ring species ARE observed.

        September 10, 2011 at 11:28 pm |
      • Sparky101

        fraumiller, you sound like a gong. Evolution has never been observed, and never will. No one has observed any naturally occurring species mutate into a different species, most of all you.

        September 10, 2011 at 11:52 pm |
      • Judas Priest

        What is your criterion for "observed" here, Sparky? "Sat down and watched with their own eyes for millions of years"?
        Oh gosh, got me there. But wait:
        The mechanics of evolution have been observed in the laboratory with faster-lived species, namely bacteria and our friend the fruit fly. In short, we have observed changes in these species over time. Not huge ones, true, but these changes do occur. Now:
        The theory is that these changes will add up over time to major deviations. If the theory is correct, we should see a lot of closely related species with minor changes. We do indeed see this in the world today. (In fact, seeing this is what prompted Darwin and Wallace to come up with the theory in the first place.) Therefore:
        Because we can observe the mechanics of evolution directly, and we can see the results of evolution in the world around us, it logically follows that the variations we see in the fossil record are therefore due to evolution.

        September 13, 2011 at 10:38 am |
  60. douglasjames

    This makes good "press" and answers nothing we can call anything whatever we like, and name a year or years etc.
    It creates jobs, makes people feel whatever they feel, but at the end of the day nothing is answered.

    September 9, 2011 at 7:12 am |
  61. Nitalynn

    In other words if one of these guys was able to mate with one of Lucy's kind we might well find the missing link?

    September 9, 2011 at 5:39 am |
    • Judas Priest

      Sigh. I say again, go ye forth and google this phrase: "missing link fallacy".

      September 9, 2011 at 2:16 pm |
  62. Michael Hunter Robinson

    I think it is amazing. I have always been fasinated by skelotins.

    September 9, 2011 at 5:34 am |
  63. 2bits

    Obama is proof that we have a long way to go to evolve into sentient beings.

    September 9, 2011 at 2:13 am |
    • Nitalynn

      Make that most politicians and I'll agree with you.

      September 9, 2011 at 5:40 am |
  64. Matt

    Wow, well, I'll keep this short and mind blowing. A. Yall got trolled. B. Creationists, come on, really? C. Cool story bro. D. I find this interesting and want everyone to remember, THIS IS SCIENCE, if you want to argue religion and beliefs, please go somewhere else, I really don't think this is the place for it.

    September 9, 2011 at 2:01 am |
  65. Billy Spudd

    Science needs to stop pushing the 'direct linear evolution' of human ancestry on an already confused public. The evolution of animals was a spray of similar animals, generation after generation. It is good enough that one can get the idea of which way evolution the spray came from. Whether one fossil or another was 'a direct ancestor' or not, based on some quibbling point is bordering on asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. If fossils are similar from the same area, they indicate the manner of evolution. It is ridiculous to try and pinpoint 'this one (little Becky) was a human ancestor...but this one (little Johnny)....was not.'

    September 9, 2011 at 1:14 am |
  66. Daws

    Yeah sounds like a branch, ie cousin, but then most all evolution is about branching, the "missing link" placeholder is kind of a misnomer and confuses the process of evolution. One thing doesn't just become another, it's more like a branch splits off into two and only one end up surviving. The tree of life is a twisted one, like a bonsai, twisting and turning to the growth and death of old and new branches.

    September 9, 2011 at 1:07 am |
  67. Carla

    Another wild number tug... If evolution was true, there should have been findings of millions of more in-between creatures' bones. These "scientists" always put whatever number they like on whatever pieces of stuff they find, though scientific measuring methods beyond few thousand years back do not exist. And they never think about other possibility because they are so pre-tuned to their own theories. Why is mankind alone so distinct on this animal planet, handling language? Con-artists are more honest than these "scientists."

    September 9, 2011 at 12:58 am |
    • Judas Priest

      Turn off your computer right now. Evil con-artist scientists made it.

      September 9, 2011 at 2:18 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      Language is a tool. Communication is found throughout the animal kingdom. As we can learn to communicate with animals (Ceasar Milan comes to mind), so are they learning to communicate with us (

      September 12, 2011 at 11:25 am |
  68. history

    Ever watch Ancient Aliens? Explains everything and if you cant understand or put it together yourself...well your just plain stupid. And to all you Darwinism guys are retarded. And to all you religious freaks who cant think for yourself and have to have a book tell you...your even more retarded

    September 9, 2011 at 12:56 am |
    • Judas Priest

      Did I mention that the history channel is a cancer which blocks the flow of blood to its viewers' brains?

      September 13, 2011 at 10:41 am |
  69. old.frt

    This posting was about paleo-history, specifically the earliest hominid fossils.
    It took only a few comments to turn into an irrelevant, ideological food fight about nonsense.
    Way to go fellas.

    September 9, 2011 at 12:45 am |
  70. Marine5484

    When someone says to me....that the earth is only 6000 years old I reach into my pocket,pull it out....and say fossil. And if they argue with me.....I throw it just above there head.
    -Lewis Black

    September 8, 2011 at 11:47 pm |
    • Kyle

      My watch is a Relic.

      September 9, 2011 at 12:07 am |
  71. anyways

    The fossil looks neat 🙂

    September 8, 2011 at 11:43 pm |
  72. I am coverting to atheism

    After reading more into everything I just decided that these guys are right. There is no God. I sat over a week and read the old testament front to back and wow, it is just pure evil. Rape, murder, genocide etc. I tried to think wait, the old testament doesn't matter only the new but realized that without the old we wouldn't have original sin or genesis. There is no way to look back. It's like Plato's "Allegory of the Cave" and I'm the one chained down in the cave unable to look behind me. Once I go outside and see the light and see reality I can no longer go back and believe the old ways. Everything is so much clearer without all the nonsense. The whole game of my religion is right and yours is wrong is crazy. Why is god quiet anyways, why hide or why be mysterious. We should burn forever in a place called hell for infinity for finite sins? Doesn't make much sense.

    September 8, 2011 at 11:29 pm |
    • Kyle

      Not only are you right about the old testament, but jesus also said that every letter of the law is to be followed. That means the old testament AND the new testament are to be followed.

      September 9, 2011 at 12:09 am |
      • isolate

        Oh, my, Kyle, you're as ignorant about the Bible as you are about science! Jesus specifically railed against the Pharisees for strictly following the letter of Torah while completely ignoring its spirit.Take a look at Matthew 23 for a bit of enlightenment. It contains the famous quote:

        “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel."
        ~ Matthew 23: 23-4 (NIV)

        Want a more direct refutation? How about 2 Corinthians, where we learn:

        "Such confidence as this is ours through Christ before God. Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." ~ 2 Corinth 3: 4-6

        September 9, 2011 at 3:44 pm |
      • Sparky101

        Once again, Kyle opens his mouth and inserts his foot. That's not at all what the Bible says. Gad's man Romans is a short book, go read at least that, and when you find something you don't understand, don't ask your baby brother, go ask someone who is a knowledgeable Christian (if you are able to humble yourself even a little bit).

        September 10, 2011 at 1:38 am |
      • fimeilleur

        @ isolate,

        got slaves?

        September 12, 2011 at 11:27 am |
    • Thad

      Read the other books too please

      September 9, 2011 at 10:01 am |
    • Sparky101

      Let me get this straight, in a little over a week, you read the Bible and rejected it. What would you say to any person of faith that said they found a book by Theodosius Dobzhansky or Stephen Jay Gould and read it in a little over a week, and rejected it? Would you consider that an adequate treatment of a complex subject? I certainly wouldn't.

      September 10, 2011 at 1:35 am |
  73. Jennifer

    Wow, I didn't know there were people who still thought that you could only believe in either evolution OR creation, but not both. Well I personally am a Christian AND I believe in evolution and love Darwin!

    Btw you can't dissect the Bible word for word & believe everything written in it- it has been translated many times and could have easily had a few words changed by accident during a translation... actually there is a pretty strong theory that many church leaders of the past have purposefully left out books of the Bible or changed a few words (like changing a female prophet's name to a male name instead, for example) for reasons like female suppression or enforcing papal power over the people...

    ...So just because the Bible doesn't say that we evolved does not mean it didn't happen. It could have said it at some time before that chapter was lost. Who really knows.

    I believe in God and evolution. To not believe in both is to underestimate the pure genius of our God, because whoever thought up the incredible process of evolution was the ultimate mastermind.

    September 8, 2011 at 10:47 pm |
    • The Brown Note

      Since we have the original texts, altered translations aren't exactly the problem.

      It's the lies and contradictions. False promises.

      It is all a myth.

      September 8, 2011 at 11:00 pm |
      • Sparky101


        September 10, 2011 at 1:39 am |
      • fimeilleur

        Yes, for example Genesis 1 vs Genesis 2

        Trees created before Adam, vs Trees created after Adam
        Animals created before Adam, vs Animals created after Adam

        September 10, 2011 at 1:43 am |
      • Sparky101

        Fraumiller, nowhere in Genesis 2 does the Bible state that God made trees after he made Adam. What it does say is that after God made Adam, that he put him in a garden that he had planted, and that in this garden, God had made all kinds of trees to grow up out of the ground. Not only that, but the trees had already produced fruit for Adam to eat. Similarly, Genesis 2 says that God had already made the animals, and that after he made man, he brought the animals to the man. There is absolutely no conflicting information like you suggest.

        September 10, 2011 at 2:23 am |
      • fimeilleur

        Here are the detailed lines and verses for you...

        Genesis 1:11-12 and 1:26-27 Trees came before Adam.
        Genesis 2:4-9 Trees came after Adam.

        Genesis 1:20-21 and 26-27 Birds were created before Adam.
        Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Birds were created after Adam.

        Genesis 1:24-27 Animals were created before Adam.
        Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Animals were created after Adam.

        Genesis 1:26-27 Adam and Eve were created at the same time.
        Genesis 2:7 and 2:21-22 Adam was created first, woman sometime later.

        Do you want more?

        Genesis 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
        Genesis 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.

        Who Did the Angel Speak to Regarding the Birth of Jesus?

        Matthew 1:20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.
        The angel appeared to Joseph.

        Luke 1:28 In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."
        The angel spoke to Mary.

        Dude, I can go all day... now on a side note... my screen name is F I M E I L L E U R, I'm not german, there is no Frau... I haven't disrespected you, please don't disrespect me.

        September 10, 2011 at 2:29 am |
      • Sparky101

        Yes Fraumiller, you can go on all day with your errors. Nowhere in Genesis 2 does it say God created trees after he created man. No where. You sidestep the verse about how God had planted a garden and caused trees to grow up out of the ground and that after he created Adam, he put him in that garden with trees that were now mature enough to bear fruit for food. You are apparently so biased that you can't begin to see that, even though it is right there in the verses you mention. Read carefully and you won't make such mistakes.

        As to an angel appearing in a dream to Joseph, but even earlier Gabriel appearing directly to Mary, I'm not sure why you see that as an inconsistency. These were two separate occurances. In the first instance, Mary is not yet pregnant when Gabriel appears to her. In the second instance, Joseph is now aware of Mary's pregnancy, and since they are "betrothed" he has the intention of giving her a "quiet" divorce. In a dream (seems to be the consistent way angels dealt with Joseph) he is told not to end their betrothal, but to marry her anyway – which is exactly what he does some time after his dream.

        Just how do you perceive this as a deal breaking inconsistency?

        September 10, 2011 at 3:03 am |
      • fimeilleur

        Alright Spanky101,

        Genesis 2

        1Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

        2And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

        3And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

        4These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

        5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

        6But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

        7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

        8And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

        9And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

        So let's recap: Genesis 2:5 talks about before, i'll say it again in case you missed it, BEFORE plants were in the ground and God watered the earth (no rain) and BEFORE there were men to till the soil...
        Genesis 2:6 God made it rain
        Genesis 2:7 God made man
        Genesis 2:8 God planted a garden and placed man in it. (is he so inefficient that he couldn't use the plants he already created in Genesis 1:11-12?)
        Genesis 2:9 God grew the trees.

        I can't break it down any clearer than that... if you don't see it, you are A) willfully ignoring it; or B) doing incredible mental gymnastics to fit your beliefs.

        September 10, 2011 at 3:18 am |
      • Sparky101

        Fraumiller, I'm just as frustrated that you cannot see what is right before you. So where does it say "God made man before he made the trees"? It does not say that. However, we can agree that scriptures say God made man and that God made trees. No, apply a little sense to your reading. At what point does God put Adam (whom he made fully grown) into the garden which he had planted and cause the trees to grow up out of the ground? After the trees had fully matured and were producing fruit. Notice that the fruit was available when Adam entered the garden. In other words, the trees were created prior to Adam being put in the garden, not after. You are aware that those chapter numbers and verses were not part of the original text, right? It is after the beginning of what you see as Chapter 2:1-3, that the translators inserted a subtitle "Adam and Eve." I don't think your King James did that. Now if you continue to verse 15, you will see repeated that the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden to work it and take care of it. And at that time, he commanded the man that he could eat from any tree in the garden except one. When Adam was put in the garden, the trees had already been created and were bearing fruit. The garden needed to be tended, and man was created to work the ground and care for the creation. Trees first, then man. Clear as the nose on my face.

        September 10, 2011 at 3:43 am |
      • Sparky101

        Fraumiller, as an example of your apparent propensity to misinterpret scripture, in your last response you claim that in Genesis 2:6, God makes it rain. Nowhere does it say that. It says in verse 5 that the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth, and it does not go on to claim that he does any time soon. Yet you claim he does make it rain in verse 6. You are wrong once again.

        September 10, 2011 at 3:49 am |
      • fimeilleur


        M E N T A L G Y M N A S T I C S.

        Genesis 2:5 talks about before, i'll say it again in case you missed it, BEFORE plants were in the ground and God watered the earth (no rain) and BEFORE there were men to till the soil...
        Genesis 2:6 God made it rain
        Genesis 2:7 God made man
        Genesis 2:8 God planted a garden and placed man in it.

        Genesis 2:15 God put man in the garden that man never left... AND THIS MAKES SENSE TO YOU?

        One more time for posterity: M E N T A L G Y M N A S T I C S.

        September 10, 2011 at 3:52 am |
      • fimeilleur

        Sorry, it "geysered" water all over the place...

        But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. Or was it foggy... let's not forget verse 5 again: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth,

        September 10, 2011 at 3:54 am |
      • Sparky101

        See Fraumiller, you must be very careful with how you read scripture. Of course you concede that God did NOT make it rain in 2:6. Thanks. That becomes very important later on, and yet you missed it and would pass it on to others with your error. You must be careful what you tell people Scripture says, to ensure it really does say what you are telling them. Once again, you are reading something in what you think is a sequence, as though it was step by step, when nothing says it is. In Genesis 1, God lays out the steps of creation in days, in a sequence. In Chapter 2, he is not repeating that sequence, he is providing more information. Nowhere does it state that he created Adam before he created trees. It does say that when he created Adam, that he placed him in a Garden and that the trees were bearing food for Adam to eat. You cannot read into that what you have done. That is incorrect. For instance does Genesis 2 say on what days each of God's creation was made? No, it does not. We already know God created the earth, sun, moon, water, continents (as in Pangea – all on one side), trees, animals etc. and then the last thing he created was man. Interestingly he states it this way "Let us create man in our image." Now if any bible tweaker wanted to remove something, this would have been revised – yet it was left as first written, plural. Hmmmm, no possible reference to a Trinity there, and this is in the Jewish Bible.

        September 10, 2011 at 4:20 am |
      • fimeilleur

        OMG, ok, let's say you are 100% correct in your reading of the Bible... I'm still not convinced. Why? Because the Bible is supposed to be the infallible word of God. Inerrant word of God. God is supposed to be all knowing. The stupid moron can't string a story together that is coherent and easily understood by the masses. Why are there 13 english language translations of the bible on line? Why are there 30,000 different christian religions? Could it be any more obscure than that? God's own believers can't agree on what they agree on (other than God is real 'cause the bible says so, and the Bible is the word of God, 'cause God says so in the Bible). Look, I don't know where you are on this pale blue dot I call home, but it's 2:30 am for me... I'm out.

        September 10, 2011 at 4:30 am |
      • Sparky101

        Fraumiller, you say "I don't hate God." and then you say "The stupid moron can't string a story together that is coherent and easily understood by the masses." Yes, I can feel the love there.

        Then you ask "Why are there 30,000 different christian religions?" News flash, there aren't.

        September 10, 2011 at 5:10 am |
      • fimeilleur

        Wow, you have a broad definition of hate. George W. Bush is a stupid moron too, I've never met the guy, how could I hate him?

        Secondly, 30,000 is a number... the fact that there is more than one christian faith... is enough to show disagreement.

        September 10, 2011 at 12:08 pm |
      • Sparky101

        As anyone can see by your own statements, you have a hatred for God. That's okay man, don't try to hide it and deny it after you've shown it. So, you are now agreeing that your statement that there are over 30000 different Christian religions was not a true statement? Then why did you state it as a fact? What are you trying to do with things like that?

        September 10, 2011 at 11:59 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        Spanky, spanky, spanky... Now, according to Wikipedia, there are over 38,000 branches of Christianity. Please look at the non exhaustive list they provide. You are boring the hell out of me with your ridiculous claims.

        September 11, 2011 at 3:29 am |
    • Atheist

      But why would you love a vicious god? Have you read the old testament all the way through and understood it? Its extremely evil. Not only that but there are a TON of contradictions. Most of christian beliefs come from egyptian religion and yet everyone laughs at that.

      September 8, 2011 at 11:35 pm |
      • Sparky101

        What Christian beliefs come from Egyptian religions?

        September 10, 2011 at 1:40 am |
      • fimeilleur

        Read the story of the birth of Horus... it mimics someone's life while predating him at the same time.

        September 10, 2011 at 1:48 am |
      • Sparky101

        And somehow this is proof to you that the Bible subsumed Egyptian religion as its basis? I do know that some of today's religions have incorporated parts of other beliefs into their dogma, but I don't see this being supported by the scriptures anywhere. I can understand people accepting that this has happened, but I do see no proof of it. It's kind of like if A = B, and B = C, then C must equal A. A fine argument in math, but it does not translate well to the development of the Biblical scriptures.

        September 10, 2011 at 2:31 am |
      • fimeilleur

        Well, looks like a duck, walks like a duck...

        Funny how the creation myth of the Bible, mimics not only egyptian myths, but Roman ones, Greek ones, Babylonian ones (I can give you references if you wish). These ancient civilizations all have one thing in common, trade with the Hebrew at the time the Bible was being written...

        Interesting how the creation myth of the Bible does NOT mimic ancient aztec, or mayan creation myths, nor NA indian creation myths... wonder why that is? Could it be there was no trade between them and the Hebrew? Hmmmm

        September 10, 2011 at 2:40 am |
      • Sparky101

        That is your opinion, and the way you rationalize it. I don't believe you are correct in your analysis, but that's my opinion and the way I rationalize it. Here's something that interests me. The book of Job is argueably the oldest book in the Bible. Job is not a Jew, but he knows God. In that ancient book, there is a mention of the exact names of constellations. Most every society that exists or existed, knew the constellations by the same names. That would indicate a time in which a particular group of people spread out to different parts of the world, and took with them a common knowledge. Think tower of Babel. Possible? So, is this the same God you say came from Egyptian theology, or did he actually predate them?

        September 10, 2011 at 3:10 am |
      • fimeilleur

        Exact names of the constellations? verse please...
        and so... do you think the bible was first written in English? or the Greek myths were first written in English? How about years of translations making things fit together nicely...

        September 10, 2011 at 3:31 am |
      • Sparky101

        No fraumiller, we do not need translations of translations when we have original texts. I believe most if not all of the Tanach was written in Hebrew, which would include the book of Job. While I'd much prefer that you carefully read the book of Job, I kinda doubt you are able to do that. So, jump to Chapter 38:31. No, he does not list them all, just mentions a few, with the understanding that just about everyone knew them as second hand knowledge back in those days when men needed the stars to navigate distances and observe signs God placed in the stars.

        September 10, 2011 at 4:00 am |
      • fimeilleur

        So... you do know that it is demonstrated that the constellations that "God placed" for us to use as navigational aides have changed over the last thousand years, let alone 6000, even 10000 years... why just last week, a supernova lit up it's part of the sky over 100000 times brighter than the week before... you don't find it odd that your God made an ever- changing road map for us to use?

        Next point, Most scholars date the book of Job to be written in the 6th of 4th century BCE, but you'll state most scholars will disagree on just about anything... so what. Let's say my researchers are right and it was written as I stated above... yes the greek empire had already collapsed and yes the constellations were named (generally for their gods and demi gods) all this proves is that the cultures had commerce and trade.

        September 10, 2011 at 4:18 am |
      • Sparky101

        Fraumiller, please tell me which constellations have changed.

        September 10, 2011 at 4:26 am |
      • fimeilleur

        Spanky, as I said, I'm going to bed... but feel free to read the following information on constellations.

        September 10, 2011 at 4:36 am |
      • Sparky101

        I just knew you couldn't.

        September 10, 2011 at 5:13 am |
      • fimeilleur

        Spnky, yes I did... read the link.

        September 10, 2011 at 12:10 pm |
      • Sparky101

        No fraumiller, your link did not name any constellations that have changed, But it did mention that naming the constellations pre-dated your Greeks (as I had tried to tell you). I'll bet anyone from Job's time (who also pre-dates your Greeks), could look up at the stars and point out each of the constellations that existed and were called by name back in their day.

        September 11, 2011 at 12:09 am |
      • fimeilleur

        Spanky, as I've stated, my source tells me that the book of Job was written anywhere between the 6th and 3rd century BCE. Now, I'll give you another source ( that tells me Ancient Greece started 80 centuries AGO, I hardly think Job predates this. You are clearly a religitard.

        September 11, 2011 at 3:39 am |
    • Nitalynn

      God is not vicious. He allows us freedom of choice. We are able to do good or evil. In doing evil others are going to be hurt but as the result of that evil others may also do good. This life is where we chose our character.

      September 9, 2011 at 5:46 am |
      • fimeilleur

        So your God isn't omniscient? I thought he knew everything, including the result of our decisions... so he knows if we are going to make a good decision or a bad one and is unwilling to change it... kind of like betting on the results of a fixed race... nope, not buying it.

        September 9, 2011 at 7:14 am |
      • Sparky101

        Fraumiller, you seem to want a God that would not permit you to make a decision because you might screw it up. If God made robots, how would that satisy his desire for a relationship to his creation? There would be no place for love in your invented world, because all of your creation would have no choice but to do what your God would command. So, do they do it because they love God, or because they have no choice? I mean don't you even appreciate that God allows you a choice to accept him or reject him? Just because you reject him does not mean you're going to turn into a terrible rapist/murderer, it just shows he allowed you a choice. You are not a robot, for God did not make man that way. Thank God.

        September 10, 2011 at 1:46 am |
      • fimeilleur

        Follow me: You claim we have a choice. You claim God is all knowing: past, present and future. You claim God is all powerful...

        So he knows my future... he knows if I will reject him or not... even if it is my choice... he knew this in the past before I was even conceived... he knows that it will be much easier for EVERYONE to believe in him, if he'd just simply manifest himself...

        I am NOT all powerful, I cannot choose to believe in something without proof... he should have known this... and presented better evidence for His existence... but no, he doesn't... so He'll send me to Hell for His short comings... not much love there...

        September 10, 2011 at 1:56 am |
      • Sparky101

        It is most unfortunate that you dislike God as you do, for it jades your impression of him. Follow me here, God knows of your decision because he is outside of time and can observe his creation beginning to end (you included). Yet, when you were formed, you were given a choice, you were not forced to make the choice you did, you were free to accept or reject. He has made himself known to you, in the complexity and beauty of his creation, and by his Word. If you had lived in Jesus' time, you obviously would have rejected him then, even though he was right in front of you, visible to you, and he performed miracles and did other things to identify himself, and yet most rejected him (and you would have also). So your argument that if God wanted to save you, he could have manifested himself to you. He already did that, and still you reject him. But, you are still alive, so he is giving you an opportunity every day you breathe, to investigate his truths with an open mind. It is in no way his fault that you refuse his gifts.

        September 10, 2011 at 2:39 am |
      • fimeilleur

        I dislike your God as much as I dislike the tooth fairy, leprechauns and unicorns... not to mention Zeus, Odin, Allah, and Vishnu... after all, there is as much proof of their existence as there is for your God.

        No, it is his fault... for an all powerful being, he is as dense as lead... Is it not too hard to ask? once a generation or even once every cycle of Haley's Comet... a simple smiting of a non-believer in public... clear blue sky and OUT OF NOWHERE, the holy elbow drop from the sky... big thunderous booming voice... FEAR ME!!! OR LOVE ME!!!! Whatever... your choice.

        September 10, 2011 at 2:47 am |
      • Sparky101

        And just why do you hate him so? Why should he come to you on your terms? Just who is the God here, you or him? I can say that without a doubt, you have severely misjudged God. According to the Scriptures, someday he will be your judge, and he will judge you with the measure you've used to judge others (probably including him). Does he have a cause to then reject you? Probably, but he won't reject you or accept you for the things you've done, so much as did you accept him or not. You hate him, but I guarantee he does not hate you.

        September 10, 2011 at 3:20 am |
      • fimeilleur

        I told you I don't hate Him, I don't believe he exists. Do you hate the tooth fairy? Do you hate Harry Potter? (not the actor... the character) Do you hate Darth Vader? No, these are all fictional characters... and we're all pretty sure that none of them exist (in reality).
        Why on my terms? because I am 100% sure that I exist not only in my mind, but within the interactions of those around me. God... not so much. And quit with the threats of eternal hellfire and damnation... I don't believe in your God, why would you think I'd be afraid of his wrath and punishment? If he wants to "save" me, he has to provide better proof than your book of superstitious desert dweller's fairy tales, and your word for it. And he ought to have known about this from the start. So, no. I don't hate him, don't pray for me, I'll take my chances. Pascal's wager won't work either... please don't delude yourself.

        September 10, 2011 at 3:38 am |
      • Sparky101

        Your hatred of God is apparent in the things you say about him and the way you distort his Word to fit your needs. You reject him. I am not threatening anyone, just saying that according to scripture, all will be judged – but you won't be rejected for what you have or have not done. Scripture say you will be judged with the same measure you have used to judge others, including God. That is not in the Bible to promote fear, it is in the Bible for you to realize the importance of how you have judged God, to encourage you to soften your hatred, and attempt to see things another way. The Bible explains the way the Creator designed you to live, if you wish to have an abundant life. Just like you should change your car's oil every 3,000 for it to operate as designed, not everyone does that. It can create costly problems later, but you don't blame the designers if you don't change your oil as recommended and your engine subsequently has problems. In that instance, you know who to blame. So why would you blame God for your decisions? Doesn't make much sense.

        September 10, 2011 at 4:41 am |
      • fimeilleur

        You are as thick as Mt Everest is high. I D O N ' T B E L I E V E I N Y O U R G O D! I cannot blame him for anything. IF your God existed then yes he'd be responsible for everything that I accuse him of because a pre-determined result is NOT a choice AT ALL. Don't worry about it, though, He's not real. I take FULL responsibility for my actions, my words, my choices. I don't become a better person "because I turned to God". I am a socially responsible person (i.e., my actions that affect the rest of society are well thought through before they are put into action) I don't need to ask for forgiveness from an invisible sky fairy, I seek restitution from the people I ACTUALLY offend.

        September 10, 2011 at 12:18 pm |
      • Sparky101

        If you don't believe in him and dislike him, then why do you denigrate him, call him names, and attack his people? If he doesn't exist, what then does it matter to you that others (more intelligent, more educated and more beautiful than you) do?

        September 11, 2011 at 12:12 am |
      • fimeilleur

        You're an idiot.

        September 11, 2011 at 3:43 am |
  74. Mike

    [And God said to Jesus go, and spread stupidity among your believers. Hate the dark men of the deserts. And may your descendants and followers molest the children of the peasants]. Anyone else Bible say that?

    September 8, 2011 at 9:44 pm |
  75. markjuliansmith

    OK I will – I will 'Prove God Does Not Exist' – not hard at all.

    My proof is the notion God is a textual construct only, which has no evidence other Mans assertion it is true – i.e. that the existence of God merely by Man saying it is true through tawdry Revelations from Man himself is not proof of the existence of God. That is my assertion based on the following logic.

    It is rather ridiculous to ask me to prove another Mans assertion that a bucket is in a corner where clearly it is not visible and only exists as a revelation in a Mans mind which Man writes down in text as proof it does. And further Man himself informs us the bucket itself is the source of the authorization for Mans Revelation the bucket exists.

    Such logic is clearly irrational for a bucket which never existed independently authorizes its own existence?

    To accept the bucket exists can occur only if irrational equals rational and this is only possible if Man can be proved to be knowledgeable in all things to enable being objective in all things, and in no way subject to superstitious or self-serving behavior – Man has defined himself as such to enable the impossible to be possible – with exactly the same process and logic as the Man revealed self-realised bucket.

    Half-Man Half-bucket the conduit of the irrational self-realised bucket turned rational in Man-bucket – the Revealer through Revelation of the self-realised bucket who by strange fortuitous coincidence cannot make an appearance due to other engagements.

    September 8, 2011 at 9:28 pm |
    • Kyle

      I made this post earlier about the existence of god...

      If you want to believe in all the jesus crap, then you might want to read the passages in the bible, quotes from jesus, where he states that he will return before some of his followers saw death. Just to clarify, he was speaking to people of his time, directly to them. He said he'd come back within their generation.

      Considering that muslims believe jesus was a prophet, then the lies of jesus also negate the myth of islam as much as it does christianity. There are plenty of contradictions in the bible and koran that completely destroy these religions from the inside by their own words.

      Therefore we can deduce that the christian and muslim gods do not exist.

      How about the jewish god?

      Old testament... ten commandments. Let's see, Moses gets ten commandments, and they are destroyed. It is alleged that god promises that he will write down the SAME commandments. What does this alleged god do? Writes down a different set of commandments. The jewish god lies as well, negating this deity.

      As you can see, it's not difficult to debunk the three most popular religions completely with a few words, taken directly from religious texts that outline these entire belief systems.

      The bible by the way, isn't the whole bible. If you actually read the stupid thing, you'll find that it references other books of the bible. Only problem is that those books were not included in the bible. So what does this mean? Since the bible was not complete, then everyone that believes in it is inherently doomed since they never got the full message.

      September 8, 2011 at 9:52 pm |
      • markjuliansmith

        If logic was an underlying rational for faith then yes you are right – the text itself contradicts the possibility of truth.

        But alas the Religion of Certainty makes the irrational rational.

        Where in 9/11 a person surviving claims it was a sign from God showing how Gracious and Merciful HE is and proves God exists – so given this the ones who died should be proof of the opposite – God is clearly not Gracious and Merciful if HE exists at all.

        Such is the way of the Lord.

        September 8, 2011 at 10:09 pm |
      • Kyle

        mark, the bible clearly states that if you ask for it, ye shall receive.

        So, using 9/11 as an example, why is it that people died in this tragedy? Surely people prayed to this magnificent god and asked for their loved ones to be safe, alive. But god did not answer, even though he PROMISED to.

        Let me guess, god's will? Well, where in the bible does it state that anything you ask for shall be received unless it's the will of god?

        Consider this.... all religious texts on earth are flowed because they were clearly created by mankind. They were fabricated by men. In knowing this, then how can we simply assume and have faith in a god that has not bothered to show up anywhere, ever, you know, to give us some direction on what's happening.

        And if it is the will of god, then why are we promised to receive anything we ask for if we clearly are not? This negates free will if the magical lord has a plan. That means our lives and deaths are clearly laid out, you know, since god is omnipotent and knows all things past present and future.

        Since the texts are all myths, and god doesn't bother itself with stopping in for tea, EVER, then it is a logical conclusion that it does not exist. There is NO miracle in saving one and killing thousands. That my friend is terribly flawed and completely illogical. By that standard of disregard for life, I could never worship a being that would just let that slide.

        September 8, 2011 at 10:46 pm |
      • Sparky101

        Kyle, what cannonical books are referenced in the Bible that do not exist in the Bible?

        September 10, 2011 at 1:49 am |
    • Sparky101

      Mark, for a very long number of years, non-believers laughed at the "story" of Abram and his home town "Ur." And then Ur was found. For a long time, non-believers laughed about Babylon's existence. And then it was found. While the Bible was not intended as an historical text (it is way to thin for that), I don't think any of the history it relates has been proven totally false. The Babylonian captivity and the rise of Daniel under Nebuchadnezzar II, was very important to the story of the Wise Men from the "East." Such tie-ins are extremely consistent, but you must know a lot about one, to see the relation to the other. They are not all separate stories. It's rich, even if you don't believe it.

      September 10, 2011 at 1:57 am |
  76. OffTheGrid99

    I'm only going to say this once... THINK about it before you respond... "God used science to create the universe. Science is what man uses to try and disprove God."

    September 8, 2011 at 8:44 pm |
    • Kyle

      And god hasn't bothered to show up to prove itself.

      Science wins.

      The end.

      September 8, 2011 at 9:53 pm |
      • Sparky101

        Wow Kyle, don't you know about Jesus?

        September 10, 2011 at 2:42 am |
  77. hillman

    we are getting close to finding out where we came from its all part of the plan 2012 is right around the corner a new age a new understanding about humanity and the origins of life will be reveled in 2012

    September 8, 2011 at 8:39 pm |
    • OffTheGrid99

      I would not call 2012 a "plan" but rather a short period in a time cycle that repeats itself and restores balance. Remember, most of the ancient civilizations and prophets who warned of 2012 did not claim it would be the end of the earth, but a great change in life itself.

      September 8, 2011 at 8:46 pm |
    • Kyle

      The reason why people say the Mayans predicted 2012 to be the end or time of change or whatever is because when the Mayans made that calender, they ran out of space on that rock. They probably figured, "Hey, we'll just make another calendar when that time gets here, this one will suffice for the time being."

      September 8, 2011 at 9:54 pm |
      • isolate

        Bingo! Just as we saw back in May, when Harold Camping's "inerrant" prophecy that the world would end on May 21st came and went without a quiver of Armageddon. Like all Biblical Doomsday predictors do, he simply declared it was a "spiritual" apocalypse, and pushed the date out to October 21st. When that date passes he'll come up with another excuse and a new date. Meanwhile, many of his gullible followers lost all they possessed.

        When December 22, 2012, arrives without the end of the world, Mayan Calendar buffs will simply "reinterpret" their hypothesis and come up with a new date. The end of the world has been predicted every decade since the Christian movement began nearly 2,000 years ago. And we're still here. 🙂

        September 9, 2011 at 4:03 pm |
  78. Pert ner Supertime

    So if man evolved from a monkey, why hasn't all the monkeys evolved into humans by now????

    September 8, 2011 at 8:23 pm |
    • John

      It takes milliojns of years? FFS

      September 8, 2011 at 8:28 pm |
    • John


      September 8, 2011 at 8:29 pm |
    • Atheist

      First, get an education.

      Humans did not evolve from any of the apes living today. Millions of years ago, there was an advantage for certain monkeys to get bigger, lose their tails, etc. and become apes. Then there was an advantage for certain of those apes to become bipedal, lose much of their hair, etc. and become humans. While those particular ones were becoming humans, others stemming from a common ancestor were becoming chimps, gorillas, etc. It was a very gradual process taking millions of years. We don't know what direction evolution will take in the future – there is a chance that some of today's apes could evolve in a human-like direction, but it would depend entirely on the selective pressures placed upon the species. Animals evolve to fit their environment – there would have to be some benefit to apes evolving to be more like us. So far, they haven't needed to in order to survive, so it hasn't happened.

      In any case, just because a certain group of a certain species evolve into something new, it doesn't mean the old species necessarily becomes extinct. For example, polar bears evolved from brown bears – we still have both species. Polar bears evolved to take advantage of the habitat farther north. Just because some brown bears in the far north evolved into polar bears, that's no reason for brown bears everywhere to disappear or become polar bears. You wouldn't say: "If polar bears evolved from brown bears, why do brown bears still exist?" would you? It's the same thing with humans and apes.

      September 8, 2011 at 8:58 pm |
      • CvG

        It is much more complicated than that. When there is a change in the environment that creates pressure on a population and a commensurate opportunity for natural selection to prefer one mutation over another or over the status quo, there are thousands of directions a species could evolve. The mutations themselves are random – it is environmental pressure that determines whether a particular mutation is beneficial or harmful. So far as we know, only homo sapiens evolved in several areas at the same time that led to tool production and the development of language, which led to technology, which is what makes homo sapiens the dominant mammal species on earth (tied among living organisms with the AIDS virus, roaches and kudzu). It is not the intelligence of the individual human which made the big difference. We aren't that smart – it was reaching the point in the evolution of culture that advances in technology figured out by the super smart people in the society could be recorded and transferred cumulatively from generation to generation. This development has to be seen as an unintended consequence of natural selection that could have stalled out and left us living in caves. It has made us dominant in an extremely short time and it may end up leading to our even faster demise. Dinosaurs thrived on earth for millions and millions of years in great diversity, but no dinosaur species seems to have mutated in a direction in which language and tool making made enough of a difference to start a trend – perhaps because it didn't make a difference, and perhaps because the random nature of mutations never created the opportunity in the right species at the right time. We can not assume that, if humans disappeared from the planet, another intelligent species with technology would take our place. Given the time it took for this to happen the 1st time, it might never happen on this planet again. Even if it did, the energy resources that fuel technology are also close to being used up – the industrial revolution could not have occurred without them, and it is doubtful humans could have figured out nuclear power without the technological developments fueled with fossil fuel. So we may be it on this planet as far as technology users.

        September 12, 2011 at 12:56 pm |
    • Kyle

      Pert, the same reason why snakes and lizards exist today.

      Any more stupid questions?

      September 8, 2011 at 9:55 pm |
    • isolate

      Because you get all your misinformation about evolution from anti-evolution sources, and you aren't motivated or bright enough to research the real thing. Look up "human evolution" in Wikipedia and prepare to haveytour beliefs challenged. Even better, read Darwin's book, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection." It's wonderfully well-written and will answer all your questions.

      Basically, monkeys remained monkeys because they are monkeys, not apes. Somewhere along the line monkeys and apes diverged from a common ancestor into all the genera and species we see today. About 5-7 million years ago the common ancestor of chimpanzees and hominids diverged, responding to environmental changes, each in its own way. We know this because 98% of human DNA is identical to chimp DNA. Chimpanzees didn't "become" hominids, which is why the genus and various species remain today.

      September 9, 2011 at 4:26 pm |
    • Sparky101

      Good question, Pert ner Supertime, and the most correct answer you will hear is that it is because Darwin's evolution is not true. No one can prove it using the scientific method, and never will. The theory does not lend itself to observable, rigorous and repeatable experiments that could prove it false.

      September 11, 2011 at 12:18 am |
  79. John

    "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." — Edward Gibbon

    September 8, 2011 at 8:17 pm |
    • Pert ner Supertime

      I'm Wise and and i'm a Christian. OOOps there goes your theory.

      September 8, 2011 at 8:26 pm |
      • John

        Stupid people don't realize they are stupid intill its to late.

        September 8, 2011 at 8:30 pm |
      • Atheist

        Hahaha, you hit the nail on the head.

        September 8, 2011 at 8:59 pm |
      • Sparky101

        John, it's too late buddy. Game's over.

        September 11, 2011 at 12:19 am |
  80. Atheist

    If you are an educated Christian, I would like to talk with you today about an important and interesting question. Have you ever thought about using your college education to think about your faith? Your life and your career demand that you behave and act rationally. Let's apply your critical thinking skills as we discuss 10 simple questions about your religion.

    Here is an example of the kind of thing I am talking about: As a Christian, you believe in the power of prayer. According to a recent poll (, 3 out of 4 doctors believe that God is performing medical miracles on earth right now. Most Christians believe that God is curing cancers, healing diseases, reversing the effects of poisons and so on.

    So here is question #1: Why won't God heal amputees?

    It's a simple question, isn't it? We all know that amputated legs do not spontaneously regenerate in response to prayer. Amputees get no miracles from God.

    If you are an intelligent person, you have to admit that it's an interesting question On the one hand, you believe that God answers prayers and performs miracles. On the other hand, you know that God completely ignores amputees when they pray for miracles.

    How do you deal with this discrepancy? As an intelligent person, you have to deal with it, because it makes no sense. In order to handle it, notice that you have to create some kind of rationalization. You have to invent an excuse on God's behalf to explain this strange fact of life. You might say, "well, God must have some kind of special plan for amputees." So you invent your excuse, whatever it is, and then you stop thinking about it because it is uncomfortable.

    Here is another example. As a Christian, you believe that God cares about you and answers your prayers.

    So the second question is: Why are there so many starving people in our world?

    Look out at our world and notice that millions of children are dying of starvation. It really is horrific. Why would God be worried about you getting a raise, while at the same time ignoring the prayers of these desperate, innocent little children? It really doesn't make any sense, does it? Why would a loving god do this?

    To explain it, you have to come up with some sort of very strange excuse for God. Like, "God wants these children to suffer and die for some divine, mysterious reason." Then you push it out of your mind because it absolutely does not fit with your view of a loving, caring God.

    Third question: Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people in the Bible? Look up these verses:

    – Exodus 35:2 – God demands that we kill everyone who works on the Sabbath day.
    – Deuteronomy 21:18-21 – God demands that we kill disobedient teenagers.

    – Leviticus 20:13 – God demands the death of homosexuals.

    – Deuteronomy 22:13-21 – God demands that we kill girls who are not virgins when they marry.

    And so on… There are lots of verses like these.
    It doesn't make any sense, does it? Why would a loving God want us to murder our fellow human beings over such trivial matters? Just because you work on the wrong day of the week, you must die? That makes no sense, does it? In fact, if you think about it, you realize that it is insane. So you create some kind of rationalization to explain these verses.

    Question #4: Why does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense? You have a college degree, so you know what I'm talking about. You know how science works. You happily use the products of science every day: your car, your cell phone, your microwave oven, your TV, your computer. These are all products of the scientific process. You know that science is incredibly important to our economy and to our lives.

    But there is a problem. As an educated person you know that the Bible contains all sorts of information that is total nonsense from a scientific perspective.

    – God did not create the world in 6 days 6,000 years ago like the Bible says.
    – There was never a worldwide flood that covered Mt. Everest like the Bible says.

    – Jonah did not live inside a fish's stomach for three days like the Bible says.

    – God did not create Adam from a handful of dust like the Bible says.

    These stories are all nonsense. Why would an all-knowing God write nonsense? It makes no sense, does it? So you create some type of very strange excuse to try to explain why the Bible contains total nonsense.
    Question #5: Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery in the Bible? Look up these Bible verses:

    – Exodus 21:20-21 – God says that it is OK to own slaves, and it is also OK to beat them.
    – Colossians 3:22-24 – Slaves need to obey their masters.

    – Ephesians 6:5 – Slaves need to obey their masters just as they would obey Christ.

    – 1 Peter 2:18 – Slaves need to obey their masters, even if their masters are harsh .

    And so on…
    And why do all intelligent people abhor slavery and make it completely illegal? You have to come up with some kind of weird rationalization to explain it.

    Question #6: Why do bad things happen to good people? That makes no sense. You have created an exotic excuse on God's behalf to rationalize it.

    Question #7: Why didn't any of Jesus' miracles in the Bible leave behind any evidence? It's very strange, isn't it? You have created an excuse to rationalize it.

    Question #8: How do we explain the fact that Jesus has never appeared to you? Jesus is all-powerful and timeless, but if you pray for Jesus to appear, nothing happens. You have to create a weird rationalization to deal with this discrepancy.

    Question #9 – Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood? It sounds totally grotesque, doesn't it? Why would al all-powerful God want you to do something that, in any other context, sounds like a disgusting, cannibalistic, satanic ritual?

    And finally, Question #10 – Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians? Christians get married in front of God and their Christian friends, all of whom are praying to God for the marriage to succeed. And then they say, "What God has put together, let no man put asunder." God is all-powerful, so if God has put two people together that should seal the deal, right? Yet Christians get divorced at the same rate as everyone else. To explain this, you have to create some convoluted rationalization.

    So, we have looked at 10 fascinating questions. In order to believe in God, you have had to create all sorts of strange rationalizations and excuses. If you are an intelligent, college-educated person, all of these excuses and rationalizations probably make you uncomfortable. If you think about it honestly, using the critical thinking skills that you learned in college, you have to admit that your answers to these questions make no sense at all.

    Now, let me show you something remarkable. What if you instead assume that God is imaginary? A funny thing happens: the answers to every one of these questions make complete sense. Just look at all ten questions as an intelligent person:

    1) Why won't God heal amputees? Because God is imaginary, and he doesn't answer any prayers. Every "answered prayer" is actually a coincidence. All scientific evidence supports this conclusion.
    2) Why are there so many starving people in our world? Because God is imaginary, and he is therefore unable to answer their prayers.

    3) Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people in the Bible? Because God is imaginary, and the Bible was written by ridiculous, ruthless men rather than any sort of loving being.

    4) Why does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense? Ditto. Primitive men wrote the bible, not an all-knowing being.

    5) Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery? Ditto.

    6) Why do bad things happen to good people? Because God is imaginary and bad things happen at the same statistical rates to everyone.

    7) Why didn't any of Jesus' miracles in the Bible leave behind any evidence? Because God is imaginary, and Jesus' miracles are myths.

    8) How do we explain the fact that Jesus has never appeared to you? Because God is imaginary.

    9) Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood? Because God is imaginary, and this bizarre ritual came from a pagan religion.

    10) Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians? Because God is imaginary.

    Do you see what has happened here? When we assume that God exists, the answers to these ten questions make absolutely no sense. But if we assume that God is imaginary, our world makes complete sense.
    It's interesting, isn't it? Actually, it's more than interesting – it is incredibly important.

    Our world only makes sense when we understand that God is imaginary.

    This is how intelligent, rational people know that God is imaginary.

    When you use your brain, and when you think logically about your religious faith, you can reach only one possible conclusion: the "god" that you have heard about since you were an infant is completely imaginary. You have to willfully discard rationality, and accept hundreds of bizarre rationalizations to believe in your "god."

    Now, let me ask you one last question: why should you care? What difference does it make if people want to believe in a "god", even if he is imaginary?

    It matters because people who believe in imaginary beings are delusional.

    It matters because people who talk to imaginary beings are delusional.

    It matters because people who believe in imaginary superstitions like prayer are delusional.

    It's that simple, and that obvious. Your religious beliefs hurt you personally and hurt us as a species because they are delusional. The belief in any "god" is complete nonsense.

    You are a smart person. It is time for you to use your intelligence to free yourself from these delusions. It is time for you to begin thinking like a rational human being, rather than clinging to imaginary friends and childhood fantasies.

    September 8, 2011 at 8:13 pm |
    • JD

      Question #9 – Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood? It sounds totally grotesque, doesn't it? Why would al all-powerful God want you to do something that, in any other context, sounds like a disgusting, cannibalistic, satanic ritual?'s called symbolism dude. Christ body was broken and he shed his blood on the cross. this ritual is an acknowledgment of that incredible sacrifice. Thoughts?

      September 8, 2011 at 8:28 pm |
      • Atheist

        Your book is FULL of evil, from rape to murder oh and human sacrifice –> .

        September 8, 2011 at 8:41 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        really? only one answer? and a weak one at that... That was going to be your "gotcha" response to invalidate all 10 questions brought before you? At best you were looking at 10%... but you didn't even get that... Sad day for religion if you're it's brightest defender.

        September 9, 2011 at 7:17 am |
      • isolate

        Transubstantiation was the thing that first made me question the rigid Roman Catholic dogma I was brought up in. The RC church insists that the host and the wine are miraculously changed into the physical body and blood of Jesus Christ, which we as children were solemnly told on every occasion. Except that the host and the wine don't change their physical qualities whatsoever. before and after are exactly the same stuff.

        If someone told me that every night at dinnertime he transformed his Big Mac into filet mignon, his French fries into baked truffle brie en croute, and his Dr Pepper into Veuve Clicquot, 1985, I would be truly astounded. But if I asked to see this miracle first-hand and was told that the Big Mac, truffles and champagne remained exactly the same after the miracle as before, I would implore them to seek the services of a mental health professional.

        September 9, 2011 at 4:57 pm |
      • Sparky101

        Atheist, why would you ask Christians to do something you've never done, (i.e., If you are an educated Christian, I would like to talk with you today about an important and interesting question. Have you ever thought about using your college education to think about your faith)?

        September 11, 2011 at 12:21 am |
      • Sparky101

        Fraumiller, he was not defending anything, he was explaining something. You'd have done yourself a favor to have read what he said instead of spending all your time trying to insult and denigrate him. But that's the way a God hater operates.

        September 11, 2011 at 12:25 am |
    • OffTheGrid99

      I will bet my life that your last words as the flames consume you will be "Oh my God."

      September 8, 2011 at 8:50 pm |
      • Atheist

        I'll take that bet!! Easy win for me. Hell isn't even a real place. It was a place here on Earth. Do you still believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy as well? Read and get smart ->

        That is all you got?? You're religion is false, your god is not real and if he was, he is weak

        September 8, 2011 at 9:02 pm |
      • Kyle

        Hell was actually a mythological Greek conception during the time people still believed in Zeus. The Greek hell of Zeus and the gods is used in the bible. What does that tell you? Christianity stole the idea from the Greek myth. Since we now know Greek mythology to be false, we can now clearly see that hell too, is a myth.

        September 8, 2011 at 9:58 pm |
    • Sparky101

      You ask "Look out at our world and notice that millions of children are dying of starvation. It really is horrific. Why would God be worried about you getting a raise, while at the same time ignoring the prayers of these desperate, innocent little children? It really doesn't make any sense, does it? Why would a loving god do this?

      Millions of Christians have given of their earnings to provide food for starving people, many have given up comfy jobs to go help. If you aren't giving at least 10% of your gross income to such causes, then I'd think it was you that are not loving your brothers, not God. He has given you that responsibility, what have you done with it?

      September 10, 2011 at 4:48 am |
    • xlion

      Now do Hinduism.

      September 11, 2011 at 5:49 pm |
    • xlion

      O.K. Now do Hinduism.

      September 11, 2011 at 5:55 pm |
    • xlion

      Okay, now do Hinduism.

      September 11, 2011 at 5:56 pm |
  81. Informed Christian

    If you want to deny Christ, then start with abandoning Christian holidays, holiday pay, marriage, claims of morality, bashing anyone less "educated" than yourself, euthanize your parents, abort your children, destroy all fidelity. Short of that, you are not practicing what you "preach". You will also find out, probably when it's too late, that Jesus lives, and you will not.

    September 8, 2011 at 8:12 pm |
    • Atheist

      Oh you mean the pegan holidays like Christmas and easter? Winter Solstice has been celebrated in cultures the world over for thousands of years. This start of the solar year is a celebration of Light and the rebirth of the Sun. In old Europe, it was known as Yule, from the Norse, Jul, meaning wheel.

      Today, many people in Western-based cultures refer to this holiday as "Christmas." Yet a look into its origins of Christmas reveals its Pagan roots. Emperor Aurelian established December 25 as the birthday of the "Invincible Sun" in the third century as part of the Roman Winter Solstice celebrations. Shortly thereafter, in 273, the Christian church SELECTED THIS DAY to represent the birthday of Jesus, ... ttp://

      So read up and step into the real light. Get smart. The holiday was in celebration of the winter solstice. Guess your an atheist too. Oh and one doesn't need religion to be moral. Just like inside the prison system to see that. Is that it? Thats all you got? Gonna go to imaginary hell too or this one which is the hell you are referring to . Wake up people.

      September 8, 2011 at 8:25 pm |
      • Sparky101

        "Oh you mean the pegan holidays?" No, and he didn't mean the "pagan" holidays either. Christmas is not a pagan holiday anymore than your birthday is. Christmas has no roots in pagan celebrations, it is distinctly Christian and also secular in nature. No one today, knows the date of Christ's birth. Such records were not even considered back in those days. A date was selected for perhaps a very good reason. Did you know that the date the Magi came to the house Joseph and Mary were then living in, was approximated to have been December 25th? And what did these Magi do? They gave gifts to the baby Christ and worshipped him – the first Christmas celebration.

        September 11, 2011 at 12:32 am |
    • Kyle

      Marriage was not invented by christians. I'm sorry to burst that holier-than-thou bubble of yours. Civil unions existed long before the christian myth was created. Marriage was capitalized upon by religion.

      And about that jesus fella, if he ever really existed, he'd dead. He isn't coming back. If you think he is, then READ YOUR BIBLE. In it, you'll find that jesus specifically states to his followers (those living and sitting in front of him) that he will return before some of them see death. He also states that he will return in the same generation of many of his living followers. Christians have been making the mistake for nearly 2000 years thinking that he's going to triumphantly return.

      Sorry, but he isn't coming. Period.

      September 8, 2011 at 10:02 pm |
  82. steve samples

    God is supernatural (meaning that He supercedes nature) and science is limited to the things of nature. Trying to find the supernatural by means of nature, and concluding there must not be a supernatural because there is not any natural evidence, is like casting a hook in the desert and coming home empty handed and concluding there are no fish in the world. ~the absence of evidence, is not the evidence of absence~

    September 8, 2011 at 8:11 pm |
    • Atheist

      Wow that is brilliant. If you consult the dictionary, here is the first definition of God that you will find:

      "A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions." [ref]
      Most believers would agree with this definition because they share a remarkably clear and consistent view of God. Yes, there are thousands of minor quibbles about religion. Believers express those quibbles in dozens of denominations - Presbyterians, Lutherans, Catholics, Baptists, Episcopalians, Methodists and such. But at the heart of it all, the belief in God aligns on a set of core ideas that everyone accepts.
      What if you were to simply think about what it would mean if there were a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe? Is it possible for such a being to exist? Epicures thought about it in 300 BCE, and he came up with this:

      "The gods can either take away evil from the world and will not, or, being willing to do so, cannot; or they neither can nor will, or lastly, they are both able and willing. If they have the will to remove evil and cannot, then they are not omnipotent. If they can, but will not, than they are not benevolent. If they are neither able nor willing, then they are neither omnipotent nor benevolent. Lastly, if they are both able and willing to annihilate evil, how does it exist?"
      [See also Proof #31]
      In other words, if you sit and think about who God is supposed to be, you realize that such a being is impossible. Ridiculous, in fact.

      Take this quote from the Bible. In Matthew 7:7 Jesus says:

      Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!
      The impossibility of God is visible here as well. Based on Jesus' statement, let's assume that you are a child and you are starving in Ethiopia. You pray for food. What would you expect to happen based on Jesus' statement? If God exists as an all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful parent - a "father in heaven" - you would expect God to deliver food to you. In fact, the child should not have to pray. Normal parents provide food to their children without their children having to beg for it. Yet, strangely, on planet Earth today we find tens of millions of people dying of starvation every year.
      Another way to approach the impossibility of God is to think about the concept of omniscience. If God is omniscient, then it means that he knows every single thing that happens in the universe, both now and infinitely into the future. Do you have free will in such a universe? Clearly not. God knows everything that will happen to you. Therefore, the instant you were created, God knows whether you are going to heaven or hell. To create someone knowing that that person will be damned to hell for eternity is the epitome of evil.

      Here is another way to understand the impossibility of God. If you look at the definition of God, you can see that he is defined as the "originator and ruler of the universe". Why does the universe need an originator - a creator? Because, according to religious logic, the universe cannot exist unless it has a creator. A believer will say, "nothing can exist unless it is created." However, that satement immediately constructs a contradiction, because we must then wonder who created God. For a believer the answer to that is simple - "God is the one thing that does not need a creator. God is timeless and has always existed." How can it be that the everything MUST have a creator, while God must NOT? The contradiction in the definition of God is palpable.

      As soon as your think about the concept of a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient being, you realize the impossibility of the concept. That impossibility is yet another way to see that God is imaginary.

      BETTER YET!! –> If god is all powerful, can he make a rock/stone that even he cannot lift? If he can't make one, then he is not all powerful. If he can make a rock/stone that even he cannot lift then he isn't all powerful to not lift it. See, just takes some common sense to see why god is imaginary. (notice I lowercase make-believe things)

      September 8, 2011 at 8:16 pm |
      • Sparky101

        No you don't lower case imaginary things, you lower case God as an insult, nothing more, nothing less.

        September 10, 2011 at 4:53 am |
    • Kyle

      What idiot goes fishing in the sand?

      Everyone knows fish live in water. Therefore, you go fishing where the fish are.

      What a horrible analogy for trying to justify the existence of an all- powerful being that's afraid to show his face to us puny mortals.

      September 8, 2011 at 10:04 pm |
  83. Atheist

    Let's imagine that I tell you the following story:

    There is a man who lives at the North Pole.
    He lives there with his wife and a bunch of elves.
    During the year, he and the elves build toys.
    Then, on Christmas Eve, he loads up a sack with all the toys.
    He puts the sack in his sleigh.
    He hitches up eight (or possibly nine) flying reindeer.
    He then flies from house to house, landing on the rooftops of each one.
    He gets out with his sack and climbs down the chimney.
    He leaves toys for the children of the household.
    He climbs back up the chimney, gets back in his sleigh, and flies to the next house.
    He does this all around the world in one night.
    Then he flies back to the North Pole to repeat the cycle next year.
    This, of course, is the story of Santa Claus.
    But let's say that I am an adult, and I am your friend, and I reveal to you that I believe that this story is true. I believe it with all my heart. And I try to talk about it with you and convert you to believe it as I do.

    What would you think of me? You would think that I am delusional, and rightly so.

    Why do you think that I am delusional? It is because you know that Santa is imaginary. The story is a total fairy tale. No matter how much I talk to you about Santa, you are not going to believe that Santa is real. Flying reindeer, for example, are make-believe. The dictionary defines delusion as, "A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence." That definition fits perfectly.

    Since you are my friend, you might try to help me realize that my belief in Santa is a delusion. The way that you would try to do that is by asking me some questions. For example, you might say to me:

    "But how can the sleigh carry enough toys for everyone in the world?" I say to you that the sleigh is magical. It has the ability to do this intrinsically.

    "How does Santa get into houses and apartments that don't have chimneys?" I say that Santa can make chimneys appear, as shown to all of us in the movie The Santa Clause.

    "How does Santa get down the chimney if there's a fire in the fireplace?" I say that Santa has a special flame-resistant suit, and it cleans itself too.

    "Why doesn't the security system detect Santa?" Santa is invisible to security systems.

    "How can Santa travel fast enough to visit every child in one night?" Santa is timeless.

    "How can Santa know whether every child has been bad or good?" Santa is omniscient.

    "Why are the toys distributed so unevenly? Why does Santa deliver more toys to rich kids, even if they are bad, than he ever gives to poor kids?" There is no way for us to understand the mysteries of Santa because we are mere mortals, but Santa has his reasons. For example, perhaps poor children would be unable to handle a flood of expensive electronic toys. How would they afford the batteries? So Santa spares them this burden.
    These are all quite logical questions that you have asked. I have answered all of them for you. I am wondering why you can't see what I see, and you are wondering how I can be so insane.
    Why didn't my answers satisfy you? Why do you still know that I am delusional? It is because my answers have done nothing but confirm your assessment. My answers are ridiculous. In order to answer your questions, I invented, completely out of thin air, a magical sleigh, a magical self-cleaning suit, magical chimneys, "timelessness" and magical invisibility. You don't believe my answers because you know that I am making this stuff up. The invalidating evidence is voluminous.

    Now let me show you another example...

    Another Example

    Imagine that I tell you the following story:

    I was in my room one night.
    Suddenly, my room became exceedingly bright.
    Next thing I know there is an angel in my room.
    He tells me an amazing story.
    He says that there is a set of ancient golden plates buried in the side of a hill in New York.
    On them are the books of a lost race of Jewish people who inhabited North America.
    These plates bear inscriptions in the foreign language of these people.
    Eventually the angel leads me to the plates and lets me take them home.
    Even though the plates are in a foreign language, the angel helps me to decipher and translate them.
    Then the plates are taken up into heaven, never to be seen again.
    I have the book that I translated from the plates. It tells of amazing things - an entire civilization of Jewish people living here in the United States 2,000 years ago.
    And the resurrected Jesus came and visited these people!
    I also showed the golden plates to a number of real people who are my eye witnesses, and I have their signed attestations that they did, in fact, see and touch the plates before the plates were taken up into heaven.
    Now, what would you say to me about this story? Even though I do have a book, in English, that tells the story of this lost Jewish civilization, and even though I do have the signed attestations, what do you think? This story sounds nutty, doesn't it?
    You would ask some obvious questions. For example, at the very simplest level, you might ask, "Where are the ruins and artifacts from this Jewish civilization in America?" The book transcribed from the plates talks about millions of Jewish people doing all kinds of things in America. They have horses and oxen and chariots and armor and large cities. What happened to all of this? I answer simply: it is all out there, but we have not found it yet. "Not one city? Not one chariot wheel? Not one helmet?" you ask. No, we haven't found a single bit of evidence, but it is out there somewhere. You ask me dozens of questions like this, and I have answers for them all.

    Most people would assume that I am delusional if I told them this story. They would assume that there were no plates and no angel, and that I had written the book myself. Most people would ignore the attestations - having people attest to it means nothing, really. I could have paid the attesters off, or I could have fabricated them. Most people would reject my story without question.

    What's interesting is that there are millions of people who actually do believe this story of the angel and the plates and the book and the Jewish people living in North America 2,000 years ago. Those millions of people are members of the Mormon Church, headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. The person who told this incredible story was a man named Joseph Smith, and he lived in the United States in the early 1800s. He told his story, and recorded what he "translated from the plates", in the Book of Mormon.

    If you meet a Mormon and ask them about this story, they can spend hours talking to you about it. They can answer every question you have. Yet the 5.99 billion of us who are not Mormons can see with total clarity that the Mormons are delusional. It is as simple as that. You and I both know with 100% certainty that the Mormon story is no different from the story of Santa. And we are correct in our assessment. The invalidating evidence is voluminous.

    Another example

    Imagine that I tell you this story:

    A man was sitting in a cave minding his own business.
    A very bright flash of light appeared.
    A voice spoke out one word: "Read!" The man felt like he was being squeezed to death. This happened several times.
    Then the man asked, "What should I read?"
    The voice said, "Read in the name of your Lord who created humans from a clinging [zygote]. Read for your Lord is the most generous. He taught people by the pen what they didn't know before."
    The man ran home to his wife.
    While running home, he saw the huge face of an angel in the sky. The angel told the man that he was to be the messenger of God. The angel also identified himself as Gabriel.
    At home that night, the angel appeared to the man in his dreams.
    Gabriel appeared to the man over and over again. Sometimes it was in dreams, sometimes during the day as "revelations in his heart," sometimes preceded by a painful ringing in his ears (and then the verses would flow from Gabriel right out of the man), and sometimes Gabriel would appear in the flesh and speak. Scribes wrote down everything the man said.
    Then, one night about 11 years after the first encounter with Gabriel, Gabriel appeared to the man with a magical horse. The man got on the horse, and the horse took him to Jerusalem. Then the winged horse took the man up to the seven layers of heaven. The man was able to actually see heaven and meet and talk with people there. Then Gabriel brought the man back to earth.
    The man proved that he had actually been to Jerusalem on the winged horse by accurately answering questions about buildings and landmarks there.
    The man continued receiving the revelations from Gabriel for 23 years, and then they stopped. All of the revelations were recorded by the scribes in a book which we still have today.
    [Source: "Understanding Islam" by Yahiya Emerick, Alpha press, 2002]
    What do you make of this story? If you have never heard the story before, you may find it to be nonsensical in the same way that you feel about the stories of the golden plates and Santa. You would especially feel that way once you read the book that was supposedly transcribed from Gabriel, because much of it is opaque. The dreams, the horse, the angel, the ascension, and the appearances of the angel in the flesh - you would dismiss them all because it is all imaginary.
    But you need to be careful. This story is the foundation of the Muslim religion, practiced by more than a billion people around the world. The man is named Mohammed, and the book is the Koran (also spelled Qur'an or Qur'aan). This is the sacred story of the Koran's creation and the revelation of Allah to mankind.

    Despite the fact that a billion Muslims profess some level of belief in this story, people outside the Muslim faith consider the story to be imaginary. No one believes this story because this story is a fairy tale. They consider the Koran to be a book written by a man and nothing more. A winged horse that flew to heaven? That is imaginary - as imaginary as flying reindeer.

    If you are a Christian, please take a moment right now to look back at the Mormon and Muslim stories. Why is it so easy for you to look at these stories and see that they are imaginary fairy tales? How do you know, with complete certainty, that Mormons and Muslims are delusional? You know these things for the same reason you know that Santa is imaginary. There is no evidence for any of it. The stories involve magical things like angels and winged horses, hallucinations, dreams. Horses cannot fly - we all know that. And even if they could, where would the horse fly to? The vacuum of space? Or is the horse somehow "dematerialized" and then "rematerialized" in heaven? If so, those processes are made up too. Every bit of it is imaginary. We all know that.

    An unbiased observer can see how imaginary these three stories are. In addition, Muslims can see that Mormons are delusional, Mormons can see that Muslims are delusional, and Christians can see that both Mormons and Muslims are delusional.

    One final example

    Now let me tell you one final story:

    God inseminated a virgin named Mary, in order to bring his son incarnate into our world.
    Mary and her fiancé, Joseph, had to travel to Bethlehem to register for the census. There Mary gave birth to the Son of God.
    God put a star in the sky to guide people to the baby.
    In a dream God told Joseph to take his family to Egypt. Then God stood by and watched as Herod killed thousands and thousands of babies in Israel in an attempt to kill Jesus.
    As a man, God's son claimed that he was God incarnate: "I am the way, the truth and the life," he said.
    This man performed many miracles. He healed lots of sick people. He turned water into wine. These miracles prove that he is God.
    But he was eventually given the death sentence and killed by crucifixion.
    His body was placed in a tomb.
    But three days later, the tomb was empty.
    And the man, alive once again but still with his wounds (so anyone who doubted could see them and touch them), appeared to many people in many places.
    Then he ascended into heaven and now sits at the right hand of God the father almighty, never to be seen again.
    Today you can have a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus. You can pray to this man and he will answer your prayers. He will cure your diseases, rescue you from emergencies, help you make important business and family decisions, comfort you in times of worry and grief, etc.
    This man will also give you eternal life, and if you are good he has a place for you in heaven after you die.
    The reason we know all this is because, after the man died, four people named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote accounts of the man's life. Their written attestations are proof of the veracity of this story.
    This, of course, is the story of Jesus. Do you believe this story? If you are a Christian, you probably do. I could ask you questions for hours and you will have answers for every one of them, in just the same way that I had answers for all of the Santa questions that my friend asked me in Example 1. You cannot understand how anyone could question any of it, because it is so obvious to you.
    Here is the thing that I would like to help you understand: The four billion people who are not Christians look at the Christian story in exactly the same way that you look at the Santa story, the Mormon story and the Muslim story. In other words, there are four billion people who stand outside of the Christian bubble, and they can see reality clearly. The fact is, the Christian story is completely imaginary.

    How do the four billion non-Christians know, with complete certainty, that the Christian story is imaginary? Because the Christian story is just like the Santa story, the Mormon story and the Muslim story. There is the magical insemination, the magical star, the magical dreams, the magical miracles, the magical resurrection, the magical ascension and so on. People outside the Christian faith look at the Christian story and note these facts:

    The miracles are supposed to "prove" that Jesus is God, but, predictably, these miracles left behind no tangible evidence for us to examine and scientifically verify today. They all involved faith healings and magic tricks – see this proof.

    Jesus is resurrected, but, predictably, he does not appear to anyone today – see this proof.

    Jesus ascended into heaven and answers our prayers, but, predictably, when we pray to him nothing happens. We can statistically analyse prayer and find that prayers are never answered – see this proof.

    The book where Matthew, Mark, Luke and John make their attestations does exist, but, predictably, it is chock full of problems and contradictions – see this proof.

    And so on.
    In other words, the Christian story is a fairly tale, just like the other three examples we have examined.
    Now, look at what is happening inside your mind at this moment. I am using solid, verifiable evidence to show you that the Christian story is imaginary. Your rational mind can see the evidence. Four billion non-Christians would be happy to confirm for you that the Christian story is imaginary. However, if you are a practicing Christian, you can probably feel your "religious mind" overriding both your rational mind and your common sense as we speak. Why? Why were you able to use your common sense to so easily reject the Santa story, the Mormon story and the Muslim story, but when it comes to the Christian story, which is just as imaginary, you are not?

    Try, just for a moment, to look at Christianity with the same amount of healthy skepticism that you used when approaching the stories of Santa, Joseph Smith and Mohammed. Use your common sense to ask some very simple questions of yourself:

    Is there any physical evidence that Jesus existed? – No. He left no trace. His body "ascended into heaven." He wrote nothing down. None of his "miracles" left any permanent evidence. There is, literally, nothing.

    Is there any reason to believe that Jesus actually performed these miracles, or that he rose from the dead, or that he ascended into heaven? – There is no more of a reason to believe this than there is to believe that Joseph Smith found the golden plates hidden in New York, or that Mohammed rode on a magical winged horse to heaven. Probably less of a reason, given that the record of Jesus' life is 2,000 years old, while that of Joseph Smith is less than 200 years old.

    You mean to tell me that I am supposed to believe this story of Jesus, and there is no proof or evidence to go by beyond a few attestations in the New Testament of a Bible that is provably meaningless? – Yes, you are supposed to believe it. You are supposed to take it on "faith."
    No one (besides little kids) believes in Santa Claus. No one outside the Mormon church believes Joseph Smith's story. No one outside the Muslim faith believes the story of Mohammed and Gabriel and the winged horse. No one outside the Christian faith believes in Jesus' divinity, miracles, resurrection, etc.
    Therefore, the question I would ask you to consider right now is simple: Why is it that human beings can detect fairy tales with complete certainty when those fairy tales come from other faiths, but they cannot detect the fairy tales that underpin their own faith? Why do they believe their chosen fairy tale with unrelenting passion and reject the others as nonsense? For example:

    Christians know that when the Egyptians built gigantic pyramids and mummified the bodies of their pharaohs, that it was a total waste of time - otherwise Christians would build pyramids.

    Christians know that when the Aztecs carved the heart out of a virgin and ate it, that it accomplished nothing - otherwise Christians would kill virgins.

    Christians know that when Muslims face Mecca to pray, that it is pointless - otherwise Christians would face Mecca when they pray.

    Christians know that when Jews keep meat and dairy products separate, that they are wasting their time - otherwise the cheeseburger would not be an American obsession.
    Yet, when Christians look at their own religion, they are for some reason blind. Why? And no, it has nothing to do with the fact that the Christian story is true. Your rational mind knows that with certainty, and so do four billion others. This book, if you will let it, can tell you why.
    A simple experiment

    If you are a Christian who believes in the power of prayer, here is a very simple experiment that will show you something very interesting about your faith.

    Take a coin out of your pocket. Now pray sincerely to Ra:

    Dear Ra, almighty sun god, I am going to flip this ordinary coin 50 times, and I am asking you to cause it to land heads-side-up all 50 times. In Ra's name I pray, Amen.
    Now flip the coin. Chances are that you won't get past the fifth or sixth flip and the coin will land tails.
    What does this mean? Most people would look at this data and conclude that Ra is imaginary. We prayed to Ra, and Ra did nothing. We can prove that Ra is imaginary (at least in the sense of prayer-answering ability) by using statistical analysis. If we flip the coin thousands of times, praying to Ra each time, we will find that the coin lands heads or tails in exact correlation with the normal laws of probability. Ra has absolutely no effect on the coin no matter how much we pray. Even if we find a thousand of Ra's most faithful believers and ask them to do the praying/flipping, the results will be the same. Therefore, as rational people, we conclude that Ra is imaginary. We look at Ra in the same way that we look at Leprechauns, Mermaids, Santa and so on. We know that people who believe in Ra are delusional.

    Now I want you to try the experiment again, but this time I want you to pray to Jesus Christ instead of Ra. Pray sincerely to Jesus like this:

    Dear Jesus, I know that you exist and I know that you hear and answer prayers as you promise in the Bible. I am going to flip this ordinary coin 50 times, and I am asking you to cause it to land heads-side-up all 50 times. In Jesus' name I pray, Amen.
    Now flip the coin. Once again, after the fifth or sixth flip, the coin will land tails.
    If we flip the coin thousands of times, praying to Jesus each time, we will find that the coin lands heads or tails in exact correlation with the normal laws of probability. It is not like there are two laws of probability - one for Christians who pray and the other for non-Christians. There is only one law of probability because prayers have zero effect. Jesus has no effect on our planet no matter how much we pray. We can prove that conclusively using statitical analysis.

    If you believe in God, watch what is happening inside your mind right now. The data is absolutely identical in both experiments. With Ra you looked at the data rationally and concluded that Ra is imaginary. But with Jesus... something else will happen. In your mind, you are already coming up with a thousand rationalizations to explain why Jesus did not answer your prayers:

    It is not his will
    He doesn't have time
    I didn't pray the right way
    I am not worthy
    I do not have enough faith
    I cannot test the Lord like this
    It is not part of Jesus' plan for me
    And on and on and on...
    One rationalization that you may find yourself developing is particularly interesting. You may say to yourself: “Well, of course Jesus doesn’t answer me when I pray about a coin toss, because it is too trivial." Where did this rationalization come from? If you read what Jesus says about prayer in the Bible (see this proof), Jesus does not ever say, "don't pray to me about coin tosses." Jesus clearly says he will answer your prayers, and he puts no boundaries on what you may pray for. You invented this rationalization out of thin air.
    You are an expert at creating rationalizations for Jesus. The reason you are an expert is because Jesus does not answer any of your prayers (see this proof). The reason why Jesus does not answer any of your prayers is because Jesus and God are imaginary.

    September 8, 2011 at 8:11 pm |
    • Colin

      One of the better posts I have read – ever on this site.

      September 9, 2011 at 12:13 am |
      • fimeilleur

        I agree

        September 9, 2011 at 7:20 am |
      • Sparky101

        Yeah, but he copied it from a bunch of other articles.

        September 10, 2011 at 2:14 am |
      • fimeilleur

        @ Sparky101,

        How does that invalidate any of his points?

        September 10, 2011 at 2:23 am |
    • magnus

      Stop using LOGIC! How dare you use simple logical tools to explain yourself! How dare you speak with logic!

      September 9, 2011 at 1:15 pm |
    • isolate

      Amen, brother! Tell it like it is!

      September 9, 2011 at 5:03 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      How does that invalidate any of his points?

      September 10, 2011 at 2:22 am |
    • Sparky101

      Atheist, just some additional evidence of your lack of knowledge of Scriptures. You say "God put a star in the sky to guide people to the baby." No, he put signs with the stars, and it was not a sign that much of anyone noticed. Who did notice the sign? Wise men from the East. Why is that important to know? If it was a simple sign, like a special star, then why didn't Herod's Magi see it? Why only the Magi from the East? And why would people from Persia be interested in traveling across barren land to bring gifts to worship "the King of the Jews"?

      You also say that "In a dream God told Joseph to take his family to Egypt. Then God stood by and watched as Herod killed thousands and thousands of babies in Israel in an attempt to kill Jesus." Where does Scripture say Herod killed thousands and thousands of babies in Israel? Nowhere. At that time, how many boys aged 2 or less lived in Bethelehem (which is only a small town in Israel), thousands and thousands? Not hardly.

      September 10, 2011 at 5:06 am |
      • fimeilleur

        And this makes a difference to you? GOD PERMITTED the massacre of all the babies! It says so right in your buy bull. You have an athletic brain, my friend... all those twists and turns, loops and flips... shocking.

        September 10, 2011 at 2:38 pm |
      • Sparky101

        I just knew you'd try to come up with that. Did he say "thousands and thousands"? Yes he did, and he was way wrong. I like to point out when people like you are exaggerating, like your bit about there being 30,000 different Christian religions. If you're going to pretend to make factual statements while all the time exaggerating to try to strengthen your case, people are going to call you on it. Simple fix, stick to the truth buddy.

        September 11, 2011 at 12:38 am |
      • fimeilleur

        Yes, you're right, I exaggerated my 30,000 claim... it's really 38,000. Sorry. (

        September 11, 2011 at 3:46 am |
    • Like all athiests, your retort is unsound due to a simple premise

      It's called Faith.

      If you were the Supreme Ruler and Creator, He who created the universe, ask yourself why would you give in to a selfish and demeaning demand placed by your most intelligent yet manipulative and violent living creation by showing up in a white 3-piece business suit with a nametag saying "I am God".

      It does NOT work that way. God requires humans beings to demonstrate faith, for "no man is worthy of God". So there goes your precious evidence you so desperately need to support the possibility God exists.

      You also fail to even understand that your doubt of God is a tool used by Satan, used with ever increasing, stunning efficiency in today's faithless world.

      September 10, 2011 at 5:32 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        faith, the ability to believe in the ridiculous without any proof what so ever... also see gullible.

        Genesis 7:1: The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation.
        Noah was righteous.

        Job 2:3: Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason."
        Job was righteous.

        Luke 1:6: Both of them were upright in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commandments and regulations blamelessly.
        Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous.

        James 5:16: Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.
        Some men are righteous, and their prayers are effective.

        1 John 3:7: Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous Christians become righteous.

        Romans 3:10: As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;
        No one is righteous.

        Ummm... please tell me you see the problem here... I think a righteous man would be "worthy of God"

        Also, Satan is as real as God... so... ... ... nope, he's not real either. Now drink your milk and cookies and go to bed.

        September 10, 2011 at 5:40 pm |
      • Sparky101

        Ahhh fraumiller, again with your half-vast understanding of scriptures. You haven't a clue what the Bible says makes a person "righteous," do you? Nor do you understand what God looks for in a man. No wonder you don't believe the Bible, you haven't spent the time necessary to understand it. So why do you continually try to pass yourself off as one who does, when you consistently show otherwise? You hate God so much that you try to prove him wrong in his Word, but you misuse it, misread it, and mistake your "understanding" for knowledge. You just don't possess much understanding of the scriptures. You ought to just concede that and either get educated or stop trying to fool people.

        September 11, 2011 at 12:47 am |
      • fimeilleur

        So... Romans 3:10 is wrong then?

        September 11, 2011 at 3:48 am |
  84. Atheist

    There are literally thousands of religions being practiced today. Here are 20 of the most popular, along with an estimate of the number of followers:

    Christianity: 2.1 billion
    Islam: 1.3 billion
    Hinduism: 900 million
    Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
    Buddhism: 376 million
    African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
    Sikhism: 23 million
    Juche: 19 million
    Spiritism: 15 million
    Judaism: 14 million
    Baha'i: 7 million
    Jainism: 4.2 million
    Shinto: 4 million
    Cao Dai: 4 million
    Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
    Tenrikyo: 2 million
    Neo-Paganism: 1 million
    Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
    Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
    Scientology: 500 thousand
    [Source: Encyclopedia Britannica]
    If you believe in God, you have chosen to reject Allah, Vishnu, Budda, Waheguru and all of the thousands of other gods that other people worship today. It is quite likely that you rejected these other gods without ever looking into their religions or reading their books. You simply absorbed the dominant faith in your home or in the society you grew up in.

    In the same way, the followers of all these other religions have chosen to reject God. You think their gods are imaginary, and they think your God is imaginary.

    In other words, each religious person on earth today arbitrarily rejects thousands of gods as imaginary, many of which he/she has never even heard of, and arbitrarily chooses to "believe" in one of them.

    The following quote from Stephen F. Roberts sums up the situation very nicely:

    "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
    A rational person rejects all human gods equally, because all of them are equally imaginary. How do we know that they are imaginary? Simply imagine that one of them is real. If one of these thousands of gods were actually real, then his followers would be experiencing real, undeniable benefits. These benefits would be obvious to everyone. The followers of a true god would pray, and their prayers would be answered. The followers of a true god would therefore live longer, have fewer diseases, have lots more money, etc. There would be thousands of statistical markers surrounding the followers of a true god.

    Everyone would notice all of these benefits, and they would gravitate toward this true god. And thus, over the course of several centuries, everyone would be aligned on the one true god. All the other false gods would have fallen by the wayside long ago, and there would be only one religion under the one true god.

    When we look at our world today, we see nothing like that. There are two billion Christians AND there are more than one billion Muslims, and their religions are mutually exclusive. There are thousands of other religions. When you analyse any of them, they all show a remarkable similarity - there is zero evidence that any of these gods exist. That is how we know that they are all imaginary.

    September 8, 2011 at 8:09 pm |
    • JD

      "Simply imagine that one of them is real. If one of these thousands of gods were actually real, then his followers would be experiencing real, undeniable benefits".....the real, undeniable benefit is peace my friend. it may sound fluffy to many but believers experience peace and its all the evidence we need. sure there are definitely ups and downs but at the end of the day the peace prevails.

      September 8, 2011 at 8:20 pm |
      • Atheist

        Lots of imagining going on there. I like to live in the real world. Just like all the peace around the world we are experiencing. Just like the amputees who get their limbs back from god for believing., right!! You think christians are better people. I look inside the prison system, the divorce rates, etc. And notice how you ignore jesus, if not, you wouldn't even have a computer, let me demonstrate. (for you it should be in crayon):
        Jesus made a number of very clear statements about money and wealth in the Bible. For example:

        Matthew 6:19

        Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
        Luke 14:33
        Any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.
        Matthew 6:24
        No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and Money.
        Matthew 19:21-24
        Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
        Matthew 19:28-29
        Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.
        Luke 9:23-25
        Then he said to them all: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self?
        Matt 13: 22
        The one who received the seed that fell among the thorns is the man who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful.
        Hebrews 13:5
        Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, "Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you."
        Phil 2:3
        Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.
        Acts 2:44-45
        All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.
        The message is clear. If you want to follow Jesus, you need to "sell your possessions and give to the poor." It is a very simple message, and easy to do. Have you done it? The fact that you are reading this page would indicate that you have not. Chances are you own a computer, pay for an Internet connection every month, live in a home or apartment, have a car, etc. In other words, you live a life at a level of wealth unimaginable in Jesus' time. Meanwhile, billions of people on the planet live in startling, abject poverty.
        Why don't you sell everything and follow Jesus, as he requests in the Bible? The reason is simple: Jesus and God are imaginary, and you know it. If Jesus were real, you would do what he says.

        September 8, 2011 at 8:36 pm |
      • Sparky101

        Atheist, you ask "Why don't you sell everything and follow Jesus, as he requests in the Bible?" Because that is not what he asks. In your zeal to try to use his word to prove him wrong, you failed to read and understand. You cherry pick words out of the Bible to try to form a argument such as the one above, but you are totally wrong on your conclusion. You should discuss this aspect of scripture with someone knowledgeable of the scriptures. Then you wouldn't make such an azzz of yourself.

        September 11, 2011 at 12:52 am |
    • magnus

      I'm so tired of you using logic to explain yourself. Stop using logic. Logic to Religious People = Kryptonite to Superman.

      September 9, 2011 at 1:21 pm |
  85. Terry

    Brainwash: a process systematically using unethically manipulative methods to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator, often to the detriment of the person being manipulated ~ Elmo invites dinosaurs on his show & the mantra begins,'millions&billions of years ago.' All thru our upbringing the mantra rings. So effective the result, even Bible 'believers' question the length of a day in Genesis. Satans greatest victory; getting man to question Gods Word to his own demise.

    September 8, 2011 at 8:05 pm |
    • Kyle

      Satan and hell are both borrowed from Greek mythology. The mythological Greek hell is spoken of in the bible, just FYI.

      There are photos of Mt. Olympus online if you care to look. We now know there are no gods living up there. Since Greek mythology is KNOWN and proven to be nothing more than a myth, and since the bible uses Greek mythological terms for places and things, then we can conclude that christianity is also a myth.

      September 8, 2011 at 10:09 pm |
      • Judas Priest

        Kyle, that's a false analogy, and lazy. Do the leg work.

        September 9, 2011 at 2:49 pm |
    • Hasa Diga Eebowai

      You do know that "gods words" were written by 100's of humans most decades if not hundreds of years after the proposed events took place. There are called testaments, and not god chapters for a reason.

      September 9, 2011 at 12:45 pm |
  86. JD

    at what point in the evolutionary process did male become male and female? how does natural selection intersect here? did an a-sexual being just began to grow genitals and eventually become male or female.

    September 8, 2011 at 8:05 pm |
    • Atheist

      Let me get my time machine and find that out for you genius. We reproduce to carry our genes on so our offspring can be healthy. Unless you want to believe in the whole begot begot begot thing in which case incest is for you. We all know how incest produces brilliant people. But if you want to really know more, ask a scientist specializing in that. Look, I think the bible and other fiction books are great reads but I don't believe in it. I also don't believe in star wars even though the stories were in books as well

      September 8, 2011 at 8:54 pm |
    • Andrew

      You know, there's a wikipedia article entirely devoted to explaining the origin of s-xual reproduction. The article, of course, has citations listed as well, so if wikipedia isn't a good enough source for you, feel free to browse the primary articles.

      Is there a reason you decided to ask the question as though it's some fundamental curiosity rather than do the research yourself and learn? I mean, if you're actually curious about the answer, why didn't you bother to research it yourself? Or are you asking the question with no interest in the answer?

      September 8, 2011 at 9:05 pm |
    • Hasa Diga Eebowai

      Some species have more than two sexes.

      September 9, 2011 at 12:43 pm |
  87. steve samples

    You first must have something before it can evolve. Nothing evolves into nothing. Science cannot account for the origin of matter. You first must have matter before you have anything to evolve. Science has yet to be able to produce life in a lab. So before your evolutionary process even gets off of the ground you first need matter and then you need life for which science cannot give an account of either one. All we have with evolution is a natural process of the patterns of life. I have debated the naturalist on many ocassions and I know your responses, you'll say " God did it is not an answer, just because it is complex does not mean God did it". You are correct in saying so. It does not mean that God did it, but it leaves open the possibility. If you want to make a statement of faith in the future discovery of science to fill in all of the gaps that is your option, if somebody wants to make a statement of faith in a creator to fill the gaps that is still an option. The only honest and unbiased statement that anybody can make without any presuppositions is "I don't know". To say that there is not any scientific evidence for a creator is a correct statement, however you make that statement with implications that can be misleading. ~absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence~ We wouldn't expect there to be any evidence of a supernatural creator even if there is one. Science is limited to dealing with nature by observance of nature or labratory experiment. If the supernatural does exist you cannot observe it in nature, nor can you do so in a lab. If you could observe it in nature it then would not be supernatural. To test it in a lab would require you to perform a miricle and then it would not be supernatural. Supernatural means it suprcedes nature or it cannot be know in nature. So again ~the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence~. We have molecular machines in the living cell, we have information in our DNA. There are over 30 laws of physics that are precisionally tuned beyond comprehension to govern the cosmos so that there can be life on earth. I know, again you say " It doesn't mean that God did it" agreed, but it leaves open the possibility that He might have.

    September 8, 2011 at 8:03 pm |
    • Atheist

      Prove that god exist.....

      September 8, 2011 at 8:55 pm |
      • Thad

        How are you?
        Art can not exist without an artist.
        Matter cannot be created nor destroyed.
        The amount of energy+matter is constant in the universe.
        Only a timeless and matterless Existence can change these rules.
        My personal proof is the dreams that are shown to us that are the same with something will happen in the future.
        Also the animal world has a lot of proofs.
        Like sea turtles, salmon, king butterfly whish are guided by something in their migration journey.
        Also believing does not hurt, beilef makes people more peaceful and happy and forgiving and humane.
        What happened 10^-34 seconds before big bang ? 🙂 .
        Smile and be happy.

        September 9, 2011 at 10:15 am |
      • fimeilleur

        @ Thad,

        Ok, let's conceid for a fraction of a second that you are right... those are pretty big claims to make: Only a timeless and matterless Existence can change these rules. What evidence do you have for a timeless and matterles existence? and since you capitalized Existence... I can only guess that you are claiming the Christian God of the Bible IS this timeless and matterless existence... if I'm wrong... is it Vishnu? or Thor? or Odin?... no, just because you say it's true, doesn't make it.

        Your personal experience is just that: personal. It cannot be replicated, nor verified. Unless you keep a record of these clairvoyant dreams and publish them prior to the actual events happening... by the way, the James Randi Educational Foundation has a $1,000,000.00 prize to the first person who can demonstrate any paranormal activity... look him up... but I do charge a 5% commission/ finder's fee if you win... 😉

        "Also the animal world has a lot of proofs. Like sea turtles, salmon, king butterfly whish are guided by something in their migration journey." Another bold statement... I guess proof to you is: "I can't explain it, therefore God did it" Pretty weak.

        And then to top it all off, two days before the 10th anniversary of the 911 attacks on the US... you have the balls to say the following: "Also believing does not hurt, beilef makes people more peaceful and happy and forgiving and humane."

        Those 19 hijackers believed so much in their fairytale, they were willing to, not only die for their beliefs, but kill for them as well. George W. Bush believes so much in his Christian God, that he was unable to forgive the people of Afghanistan, nor act humanely to them or the Iraquis, who he entered into an illegal war, to further his Christian Crussade.

        Take your sanctamonious, hollier-than-thou, pompously arrogant a$$ somewhere else. You, sir, are a Thadhole.

        September 9, 2011 at 4:18 pm |
      • Sparky101

        Fraumiller, you say to Thad "Take your sanctamonious, hollier-than-thou, pompously arrogant a$$ somewhere else. You, sir, are a Thadhole." Wow, what did he say to upset you so much that you try to denigrate him and call him names? Quite the overreaction on your part. That's that "God Hater" in you that I've been pointing out. Thad said nothing that was "holier-than-thou" or "sanctamonious(sic)." Just seems to be the way you God Haters operate.

        September 11, 2011 at 12:59 am |
      • fimeilleur

        No, Spanky, I don't hate your God... but you're getting close...
        What did he say that set me off on him? I thought it was pretty clear... that lie of a claim that religious people are more peaceful... absolute BS as shown in my examples to him... and if you check out page 4, you'll meet your fundie friend Joe... Proves my point EXACTLY

        September 11, 2011 at 3:53 am |
    • Kyle

      ...and according to christianity, god just exists and always has. How could a living being just exist? That would mean he had to come from something. Or is that the argument? something from nothing because of magic?

      I'd prefer the explanation of god on my desk by monday in terms other than in circular logic please.

      September 8, 2011 at 10:13 pm |
      • isolate

        Oh, my, again! Now you've demonstrated that you don't understand logic, as well as science or the Bible. This is a circular argument:

        1. The Bible is the inerrant word of God.

        2. It says so in the Bible.

        3. Therefore, the Bible is the inerrant word of God.

        Using the means of the argument (the Bible) to justify the conclusions of the argument (the truth of the Bible) is a classic circular argument.

        September 9, 2011 at 3:54 pm |
    • Hasa Diga Eebowai

      So there "might" be a creator of the universe, another physical law greater then our universe could explain the same. You still have no soul (with all you emphases on matter you might need to think about this more), and there is no afterlife. Therefore, whether or not there is a creator of the universe is a moot point for most.

      September 9, 2011 at 12:42 pm |
    • magnus

      before even considering how life evolves, take a step back and try to figure out how the universe and all the matter evolves. life is just to recent to reflect upon. explain the big bang please

      September 9, 2011 at 1:23 pm |
    • Hasa Diga Eebowai

      The big bang has been explained. It is before the big bang that is unknown (for now). "Unknown" being the key word as we do have some evidence from quantum mechanical theories to speculate there is no evidence that is provided by mythology.

      September 9, 2011 at 2:14 pm |
    • isolate

      1. Evolution, as Darwin put it best, is about the origin of speciation in biology, not about the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of matter, or anything else. Evolution is the founding stone of modern biology. The subject cannot be taught without reference to evolution, except in Bible colleges, which don't graduate scientists.

      2. Life has indeed been created in a lab. Craig Venter, the biologist who led the effort to map the human genome, in May of last year, created a bacterium in his world-famous lab, and others have duplicated the experiment in other labs around the world. The synthetic bacterium, nicknamed Synthia, has been hailed as a step change in biological engineering, allowing the creation of organisms with specialised functions that could never have evolved in nature. Wiki "synthia," for details.

      3. "I don't know," is perhaps the most common response of a reputable cosmologist when asked about the ultimate origins of the universe we live in. There are many hypotheses, but no hard evidence as yet. God is possible, as you say, but so improbable as to be unlikely as an answer, since no research so far has turned up a speck of evidence in its favor, and science runs on proof. The Big Bang hypothesis as the immediate– not ultimate– originhas been tested, challenged, and is at the moment the best solution out there that can stand up to scientific scrutiny. That may change tomorrow.

      4. You might use as an argument for the supernatural the fact that we can only perceive about 4% of the universe. It may be that we lack the requisite number of senses to perceive any more, or, again, that question may be answered tomorrow in a manner acceptable to science. How do scientists "know" that 96% of the universe is at present imperceptible? It's not via a "still, small voice," as Elijah put it, but because the physics and mathematics are conclusive.

      For an excellent book on the present state of knowledge on the subject, pick up "The 4 Percent Universe: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Race to Discover the Rest of Reality" by Richard Panek at your local library. I'm about three-quarters of the way through it, and it's a scientific mind-bender.

      Science is not "against" religion. Frankly, it doesn't care. If someone published a paper in a journal like Science or Nature next week that a god or gods existed, and it stood up to scientific scrutiny, was provable, duplicable and falsifiable, the author would have a clear shot at a Nobel Prize and the acclaim of scientists the world around.

      September 9, 2011 at 5:58 pm |
  88. Informed Christian

    As I said to a friend of mine, who asked "You believe in that B.S. (religion)?" I said " suppose that in the end I am wrong, living my life, beleiving in an omnipotent God, and I am wrong and you are right, then I will suffer the same fate as you, nothing and no afterlife, no punishment, but if you are wrong and I am right, then you WILL bow down, acknowlege Jesus, and then you WILL be slain in front of the host of heaven, burned as chaffe, and sent to an eternity of punishment, separation from GOD and everyone else. Meanwhile, where does your morality come from? Mine comes from FEAR of eternal punishment and the wrath of GOD, with the promise of everlasting life. Which question do you think is worth being wrong on?

    September 8, 2011 at 8:02 pm |
    • Andrew

      Suppose you're wrong, all religions are wrong, and the actual truth is that there's a real god, but he/she/it only punishes people who believe in religion based on insufficient evidence. Then you'd be going to hell for belief, but not for being an atheist. You are proposing a false dichotomy, a "no god or my god", when there's an infinite number of possible gods out there. So, why believe in god, when you could be sent to hell for doing so? See the problem with your Pascal's Wager?

      September 8, 2011 at 9:08 pm |
    • Kyle

      Enjoy wasting years of your life on something that doesn't exist.

      And FYI, if you were informaed, you wouldn't be a christian.

      Read if you want to learn what the bible has to say. If you read that site and you're still a believer when you're done, then you really won't make it further than working at McDonalds.

      September 8, 2011 at 10:16 pm |
    • Hasa Diga Eebowai

      Everyone is going to someone else's "hell".

      September 9, 2011 at 12:39 pm |
    • Judas Priest

      My morality comes from a belief that there is a right way and a wrong way to treat people, and that every action (and inaction) has consequences. It does not come from threats of supernatural punishment. I was not bullied or beaten into it, it is my own choice.
      Why, by the way, do you characterize Jesus as a bully and a tormentor?

      September 9, 2011 at 2:30 pm |
  89. Frank Mondana

    The one thing that the fundamentalists miss is pretty huge. They say that Satan and/or his lackeys are behind every scientific find, theory, critical thought, and everything else that differs from the Bible (or their version of the books since "The BIBLE can be literally hundreds of differing versions with different books and words all under the one title). If this were true, He/She/It would have to be just as omnipresent as God, if not more so.
    There are thousands of scientists, thousands of science teachers, and hundreds of thousands of science students that are studying and finding evidence that supports their work and studies. Millions of fossils have been found, light from stars are studied, DNA is a little more understood, rocks are analyzed for composition and age, electrons are being used to store, retrieve, and simulate processes, and chemists understand a little more about what makes up everything. If I tried to make a complete list of science and engineering work done daily, this post would be thousands, if not millions of pages long. My point is that every hour of every day, millions of scientific experiments and theories are performed and created.
    For a being that has to be less than God, this is a huge workload. He has to plant all of the faulty theories, then follow along and make sure every piece of evidence is placed for the scientists to find. Good ol' Lucifer has to be in billions of minds and places every minute of every day. Even using demons and other bad guys subcontracting, he is a very busy guy. Also remember that we science guys are always looking for more facts. We don't gain a belief then just stick with it. This means the big red dude has to stay in millions of minds every second. He then has to be more "powerful" than God since a religious belief kind of sticks; you know, the whole blind faith thing. God doesn't have to keep whispering in a believers ear every moment.
    Religion was created to explain the big ball of fire in the sky, droughts, storms, floods, and other natural phenomenon that had no explanation a few thousand years ago, if not longer. Soon after religion, some of the more enterprising folks learned that they could manipulate the unwashed masses using belief systems. These original clergy (in every part of the world) soon found that by manipulating fear, they could easily hold sway over huge numbers of their people without any pesky wars. Then they saw the money. It takes loads of cash to build huge buildings that their deities use to hang out. Then, when resources started getting a bit thin, it was time to use war to "convert" the neighbors to increase the flock and the checking account.
    I have no issue with anyone who wants to believe in a deity. The real problem is with religion. Religion was not created by God(s). It was created purely as a way to control people.
    That's it. I much prefer to come up with my own observations of the world. I love critical thinking. I cannot simply use some book(s) as a guide for how I think.
    The funny part is that most of my atheist buddies are some of the least judgmental folks I know. We tend to view others through a much less restrictive lens. We judge people by character, not by the building they walk into once a week.

    September 8, 2011 at 7:31 pm |
    • Kyle

      Believers like to blame satan... but last time I read the bible, it didn't say anything about satan being omnipresent or omnipotent. is it that he tempts all of us?

      Wait, it's the demons, right?

      I've heard of the spirit of lust... but if there's only one demon of lust, how is it that the majority of the population experiences lust? The demon can't be omnipotent or omnipresent. So how can millions be tempted all at the same time?

      September 8, 2011 at 10:19 pm |
      • Sparky101

        Once again, Kyle displays his ignorance of scripture. For someone so "steeped" in the belief that science is always fact based, why does he not gain at least a mediocre grasp of scriptures instead of pretending he does and then failing?

        September 10, 2011 at 12:50 am |
    • Sparky101

      You say "The funny part is that most of my atheist buddies are some of the least judgmental folks I know." That's cool. Notice that none of your atheist buddies have posted to this thread, because those that have are an awfully judgemental crowd.

      September 11, 2011 at 1:02 am |
  90. emodido

    Everybody should believe and obey the commands of Jesus Christ. He is the reason there is an America (not the continent of course, just the part that has states, but not Mexico because they have states too, but they are real). Our forefathers brought upon this continent a nation, by God!! It says it right there in the Amendments to our Constitution, that was, by the way, the very breath of God! And another thing...all these dang immigrants who come to our country speaking other jibber jabber....Why don't they just all speak English! After all, if English was good enough for Jesus, why isn't it good enough for everyone!

    September 8, 2011 at 7:28 pm |
    • Atheist

      Treaty of Tripoli ...As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion . Eat it!!!!!

      September 8, 2011 at 9:05 pm |
      • Sparky101

        Atheist, are you so insane with the topic that you couldn't even feel that tug on your leg? Please re-read his last sentence. He's pulling your leg, and you swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

        September 10, 2011 at 12:52 am |
    • Andrew

      Umm... you are aware that the word "god", or any variant of it, is not in any way present in the US constitution, nor amendments to the constitution. And the only references to religion promote religious freedom, not trumping Christianity.

      I think you need to reread the constitution, it's fairly evident you have no idea what is contained in it. Why is it that people who supposedly love the constitution in a weirdly religious way are seldom well educated on it?

      September 8, 2011 at 9:13 pm |
      • Sparky101

        Uh Andrew, our founding documents speak of the Creator, of Providence, and the word "Lord" is written in the Constitution.

        September 10, 2011 at 12:48 am |
      • fimeilleur

        @ Sparky101,

        In the year of our Lord was the common way of saying year... that is the only time "lord" appears in the Constitution.
        Creator appears exactly ZERO times and Providence appears only once, when allotting the number of representatives to the house (as in Providence Plantations)... do you want me to search the other documents too, or is this embarrassing enough for you?

        September 10, 2011 at 12:55 am |
      • Sparky101

        Fraumiller, you are once again wrong. Go read the Declaration of Independence, one of a minimum of four documents that are considered our "founding" documents.

        September 10, 2011 at 1:07 am |
      • fimeilleur

        @ Spanky

        Declaration of Independence:
        Lord exactly ZERO times
        Creator exactly One time to grant everyone the same rights as everyone else (400 years later, the christian fundies still fight this principle tooth and nail)
        Providence exactly One time as an oath of affirmation. I didn't know God held a monopoly on "Devine Providence". I think Vishnu might have some objections to that.

        Hardly a triumphant pat on the back there Spanky, out of over 1400 words, generic religious reference gets... 2. Bravo...

        September 10, 2011 at 12:35 pm |
      • Sparky101

        So fraumiller, here you are once again conceding that I was correct. I love it. You admit that the word "Lord" does exist in our Constitution, and that bothers you so much that you try to down play it. Be that as it may, the word "Lord" is in there, contrary to what Andrew stated so emphatically.

        September 11, 2011 at 1:07 am |
    • Kyle

      It's an emo troll.

      September 8, 2011 at 10:20 pm |
    • Judas Priest

      You're missing an "L" in your name.

      September 9, 2011 at 2:26 pm |
    • emodido

      yeah, I was actually trolling here. It is amazing how many people are stupid enough to reply to responses without reading entirely through them (on both sides of the issue). Of course the word, "creator," is mentioned in the Constitution and references to a God are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. Politics have not changed much throughout history. However, you have to look at history and know it to be able to realistically examine it. The quote about Jesus speaking English has been around a long time, and attributed to Miriam Ferguson, a senator from Arkansas (though the quote is usually discounted today). The Founding Fathers knew the necessity of including religion in order to win the populus over. Not to say that there were not those of faith who helped to make the new United States. The fact is, the documents were never intended to be a religious doctrine in the sense they are sometimes made out to be today. The documents were meant to unite a new nation behind a cause of what they interpreted as injustice, and a right to create a separate, independent nation apart from Great Britain. It doesn't matter which side you take on the evolution issue, you cannot argue it (or anything else) if you don't know the background inside and out.

      September 10, 2011 at 9:36 pm |
  91. Thad

    September 8, 2011 at 7:06 pm |
    • emodido

      Aaaah Piltdown man. Kinda like the preacher that sleeps with his flock.

      September 8, 2011 at 7:49 pm |
  92. Thad

    September 8, 2011 at 7:02 pm |
  93. b3aner w3iner

    Just an FYI, in asserting that God exists "outside time", you've come up with an irrational explanation to an irrational problem.. there is no reason to believe that anything exists outside time. Not only have we never observed any such phenomena, not even the bible makes this outlandish claim.

    There is even less reason to believe that anything exists "outside time" than there is to believe in a supernatural god.

    September 8, 2011 at 6:51 pm |
    • Hasa Diga Eebowai

      Time and space are one. There was no "time" as we would like to know it until the start of our universe.

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

      actually, i think this riddle is quite easy to solve. Time exists in the universe. Outside the universe there is no time. I am not religious, but the only thing a religious person has to say is that God resides outside the universe and thus he/she/it is not bound by the laws of time. thus, 14 billion years to us is an instant to him/her/it.

      September 9, 2011 at 1:26 pm |
    • Hasa Diga Eebowai

      Again why your god, you have no evidence for that whatsoever. It could be more universes in a multiverse that has another aspect of "time". As we have no evidence, there are an infinite number of possibilities. Why does there have to be a conscious creator if not to appease human emotions?

      September 9, 2011 at 2:05 pm |
      • Sparky101

        Because matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed (but can be changed in form), and because nothing goes from disorder to order without an input of energy or design.

        September 10, 2011 at 12:57 am |
      • fimeilleur

        @ Sparky101,

        So your solution then is God did it... ok, which god? I bet you my god can kick your god's a$$...

        September 10, 2011 at 12:59 am |
      • Sparky101

        Fraumiller, I just mention the facts, what you do with them is your perogative. But go ahead and disregard the ones you don't find convenient, that's normally what you people do.

        September 10, 2011 at 1:09 am |
      • fimeilleur

        @ Spanky

        Excuse me? Disregard facts? How old is the earth? Where is the evidence of the planetary flood? No, we don't disregard facts...

        September 10, 2011 at 12:39 pm |
      • Sparky101

        Well, here we find you disregarding the 2nd law of thermodynamics and entropy. I suppose that is enough to prove what I said about your position.

        September 11, 2011 at 1:15 am |
      • fimeilleur

        Spanky, can you name the other two laws of thermodynamics? Or how about take into account that the 2nd law only refers to a closed system? See the earth is NOT a closed system because it gets it's energy from the sun. The 2nd law does NOT apply to the earth's energy system.

        September 11, 2011 at 1:57 am |
  94. Renee

    I I feel so sorry for all the people on here who don't believe in God. I don't understand why you try so hard to disprove his existence. I would rather go through life believing in God and die and find out I am wrong than to not believe and die and find out I was wrong. I will pray for all of you.

    September 8, 2011 at 6:51 pm |
    • Thad

      Thank you.

      September 8, 2011 at 7:03 pm |
    • emodido

      That's called Pascal's wager. Most fundementalist churches hammer that idea because it shows you don't really have faith. Don't let your preacher find out you said that or "no grape juice for you!"

      September 8, 2011 at 7:47 pm |
    • Andrew

      I don't try hard to disprove god, I simply don't believe. I can't "disprove" god any more than I can "disprove" unicorns, or "disprove" Russell's Teapot orbiting Jupiter.

      My beliefs are based only on what I can support, and god does not meet my burden of proof. However, what if we're both wrong, and a god exists, but he condemns believers who believe based on insufficient evidence? Well, isn't non-belief then better than belief? See how your logic fails?

      September 8, 2011 at 9:15 pm |
    • Kyle

      I used to believe in god.... until I read my bible. That's how christianity works. It's all about blind faith. That blind faith is in the form of a bunch of people that go to church week after week and listen to someone preach lessons from the bible. They pick and choose, using the concordance to come up with the crap they need for their sermons. What they don't do is actually read the bible and see all of the contradictory, negative trash in it. These people never read the bible on their own. They're afraid to. Believe me, I know.

      Now that I know that the bible is full of trash, I feel free. Free of the fear of going to some imaginary hell because of my horrible sins. Those horrible sins include going to work, going home, sleeping, getting up, going to work...

      Quit being so bloody righteous. Do some research if you have it in you, and you'll see that you're just another sheep.

      September 8, 2011 at 10:26 pm |
      • Sparky101

        Yet another "Kyle" theory of conjecture, bias, bigotry and vapor.

        September 10, 2011 at 12:45 am |
      • fimeilleur

        @ Sparky101,

        Care to point any of these out?

        September 10, 2011 at 12:48 am |
      • Sparky101

        Sure, Kyle makes some grand generalizations that are absolutely false, to support his theory that people don't read the Bible. Obviously Kyle does not, but he errs greatly in trying to cast his failures on society as a whole. That's just one example, need more?

        September 10, 2011 at 1:12 am |
    • Hasa Diga Eebowai

      You have no soul, there is no afterlife, and you soul is nothing more then biochemical reactions in your head. The protohypothesis that there is creator of the universe at this moment is a moot point.

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

      Pascal would give you a hug if he was around today.

      September 9, 2011 at 1:28 pm |
    • Hasa Diga Eebowai

      If the great mind of pascal emerged today, do you really think it would be concerned with appeasing one out of the now known 1,000s of deities?

      September 9, 2011 at 2:07 pm |
  95. wikiIeaks

    looks like a typical chimp skull. I love how they talk about evolution like it's a fact. what morons.

    September 8, 2011 at 6:50 pm |
    • Atheist

      oh you mean this kind of proof?

      Now think....Who is the moron now?

      September 8, 2011 at 8:48 pm |
    • Hasa Diga Eebowai

      Evolution is a fact, its specifics are still under debate. Life has and is changing over time, there is no doubting that.

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


      September 9, 2011 at 1:28 pm |
    • Hasa Diga Eebowai

      It has already been shown that humans are evolving at this exact moment. We are quite a different species then we were when the biblical events supposedly occurred.

      September 9, 2011 at 2:10 pm |
      • Sparky101

        Really? In what way are we now a different species? And by the way, evolution is still without proof. No one has observed any natural species evolving into another species.

        September 10, 2011 at 1:14 am |
      • fimeilleur

        Have you ever looked up the term ring species? I'll sum it up for you... species A live in climate, region A; it's lineage (specimen B & C) migrate to regions B&C respectively; their lineage (D & E) migrate to regions D & E respectively (picture a circle, starting at the south with A, moving east or west with B & C, each carrying on in the same direction with D & E, closing the circle. This phenomena is observed today in birds and reptiles. Consider that species A,B,C,D,and E all still exist, and they have each adapted in one way or another to flourish in it's present region. What is observed is that A can reproduce with either B or C, B can reproduce with either A or D, C can reproduce with either A or E, B & C can reproduce between each other, but D & E cannot. (this is of course simplified, but hopefully clear) This is observed today, and proof of Observed evolution. Please see this video for a more descriptive explanation... you can even skip ahead to the end where he discusses ring species.

        September 10, 2011 at 1:41 am |
      • Sparky101

        Fraumiller, that is not an example of speciation observed. What species has been observed as having evolved into another species?

        September 10, 2011 at 2:03 am |
      • fimeilleur

        Well, let's see, A begets it's own KIND B and C, B begets it's own KIND D, C begets it's own KIND E... but in the end, D and E can't mix... they must be different KINDS... and by biblical definition of KIND...

        here's a better video...

        September 10, 2011 at 2:10 am |
      • Sparky101

        See fraumiller, I called you out. I asked you to name the natural species that has been observed mutating to a new species, and all you've done is run around in circles. Name it!

        September 11, 2011 at 1:18 am |
      • fimeilleur

        In the 2 videos I directed you to, there are two fine examples in them. Anyone reading this thread can confirm this.

        September 11, 2011 at 2:00 am |
  96. BackOnTrack

    OK, aside from all the religious and 'scientific' garble ... it's still just a pack of monkeys, so don't get too excited. There is still no proof of either evolution or creationism ... a whole lotta conjecture though!

    September 8, 2011 at 6:38 pm |
  97. literate

    Energy NEVER dies. It is transformed. Therefore, I believe in an afterlife, I believe in a Creator, I believe in evolution. All can co-exist because energy survives. I just can't wrap my head around the idea of nothingness, and I bet most of you can't either. It makes no sense in the physical world (there is always something, even in a black hole) and it makes no sense in the spiritual world. Our brains are limited to observation of the physical world – touching, hearing, feeling. If you can think it, it does exist because energy lives on.

    September 8, 2011 at 6:27 pm |
    • Kyle

      A black hole is made up of condensed material. OJ287 is the most impressive of the known black holes.

      The spiritual world is imaginary. Just because we're alive doesn't mean we have souls. What we have is consciousness. Our brains fire small electrical signals. Reactions occur. That's the skinny of it. Rather oversimplified of course.

      Nothingness to many causes fear. When you have the fear of the unknown, then religion is born. The irony is that people are quite literally afraid of NOTHING.

      The energy in our bodies is literally from ancient stardust. When the earth is consumed by the sun in approximately 5 billion years, everything you have ever known and will ever know will be turned back into that. The energy will continue to be utilized in other forms.

      When a star dies, does it go to heaven? After all, it is in itself energy.

      I bet plants or animals are fine with the concept of nothingness. Why? Because they simply haven't evolved to the point where they live in fear and have created religious beliefs and gods.

      September 8, 2011 at 10:35 pm |
      • Sparky101

        The "Kyle" theory has absolutely no basis in fact – but he believes it.

        September 10, 2011 at 12:44 am |
    • Hasa Diga Eebowai

      You can speculate about what is bigger than our universe, as we currently don't know. But, sorry there is no after life. The energy the powers you brain/"soul" comes from the food you eat. You die, no longer provide the energy, your "soul" no longer exists (its energy and information is recycled in the biosphere and/or escapes into the universe). When you unplug a computer does its "soul" go on to an after life? With no after life, the creator hypothesis if you can even call it that, is a moot point for most.

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

      Consciousness is an evolutionary advantageous feature to possess. Because of consciousness, humans (and perhaps other animals) acquire the ability to think of the future, but to do so, you need to have a frame of reference and self. By thinking about the future, it allows you to plan and strategize to give you an advantage over other species.

      September 9, 2011 at 1:32 pm |
  98. darkblaze69

    And then there are agnostics....we don't care. We're here and we're fine with that, and we wish everyone else would just shut up already.....

    September 8, 2011 at 6:18 pm |
    • Kyle

      If agnostics didn't care, they wouldn't waste the time believing in the possibility... Agnostics are the indecisive types that never get anywhere in life.

      Ask an agnostic, "Hey, what do you want to have for dinner?"

      Answer, "Well, I'm not really sure..... can you decide for me?"

      Keep striving for mediocrity.

      September 8, 2011 at 10:58 pm |
      • Ed

        Ignorant people shouldn't stereotype – it's embarrasing, really.

        September 9, 2011 at 2:46 pm |
      • isolate

        Ask an atheist what she or he wants for dinner and s/he will give you a menu choice or whip up a meal.

        Ask a fundamentalist Christian what s/he wants for dinner and s/he will insist the Lord will provide whatever s/he needs by way of sustenance.

        A month later the atheist will attend the fundamentalist Christian's funeral, and join the others at the wake wondering what would possess someone to starve themselves to death like that.

        September 9, 2011 at 3:01 pm |
      • kyle

        Wrong, agnostics are the most critical thinkers that are concerned with epistemology. If a god exists, then it would exist outside of our universe (considering it supposedly created the universe), science is unable to say anything about what exists outside of the universe, thus it is impossible for anyone existing in the universe to know (gnostic) what is outside the universe, thus we cannot know if god exists or not.

        September 11, 2011 at 2:25 am |
      • CvG

        Did you hear about the dislexic agnostic insomniac?

        He lays awake at night and wonders if there is a dog.

        September 12, 2011 at 9:21 am |
    • The Brown Note

      If agnostics didn't care, they wouldn't waste the time believing in the possibility... Agnostics are the indecisive types that never get anywhere in life.

      Ask an agnostic, "Hey, what do you want to have for dinner?"

      Answer, "Well, I'm not really sure..... can you decide for me?"

      Keep striving for mediocrity.

      September 8, 2011 at 10:59 pm |
    • Doug

      Listen to Captain Kyle, the supreme atheist. You're dead wrong.

      Agnostics don't "waste time believing int he possibilty". We acknowledge that it is possible, but aren't sure and don't care enough to try and prove our point one way or the other. Less stressful that way. Feel free to keep beating your head against the wall. You're acting like a religious zealot.

      By the way, I have no problem deciding what I'm going to have for dinner. It's whatever I find that looks good.

      September 9, 2011 at 10:20 am |
    • Anthony


      September 9, 2011 at 11:03 am |
    • Realist

      evolution is just as theoretical as any religion.

      September 11, 2011 at 11:53 am |
      • Acromyrmex-versicolor

        Don't make the mistake of equating belief in evolution with atheism.

        Belief in evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive, although to be a religious person who also believes in evolution does require some compromise. However, to refute evolution is to refute fact – one may debate how evolution occurs, but not really whether or not it occurs (unless one wants to remove oneself from rational argument).

        September 11, 2011 at 7:15 pm |
    • Moe Smith

      if you didnt care, you wouldn't have posted.

      Agnostics are those who simply are afraid to stick by their convictions. so they make sure that they can tell a non-believer that, they really don't but when they run across someone who is serious about faith, they can claim that they do believe. they are worse than atheists.

      September 12, 2011 at 10:30 am |
  99. Faye

    I would like to reiterate that Homo habilis is older than Homo erectus.
    It's in every physical anthropology textbook I own. Otherwise, please carry on. These types of articles are more fun for their comment wars. I'm going to grab a nice cup of tea and keep reading.

    September 8, 2011 at 6:18 pm |
    • Paul

      Really, what are you doing for dinner? I'm bored, too. 🙂

      September 8, 2011 at 6:19 pm |
      • Faye

        Just made vegetarian pizza.

        September 8, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
    • Judas Priest

      Research is not CNN's strong suit. Journalism died with Edward Murrow.

      September 9, 2011 at 12:55 pm |
  100. jesus, bible god = garbage

    the evangelical parasites are responsible for the progress and betterment of any society. If we didn't have the christian vermin the world would be a happier and more peaceful place. The pure arrogance that the bible is the blueprint for morality makes me roll on the floor laughing.

    September 8, 2011 at 6:11 pm |
    • Paual Dutcher

      We will see if your that cocky when the heart monitor goes flat

      September 9, 2011 at 8:35 am |
    • Total Nonsense

      whitout religion to stop progress... we whould be 100's of years more advance. Religion is a illness.

      September 9, 2011 at 10:41 am |
1 2 3 4


  • Elizabeth Landau
  • Sophia Dengo
    Senior Designer