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

Your thoughts on evolution

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow @CNNLightYears on Twitter

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

    Genesis says, that God said, to let the Earth put forth animal life (Oxford NRSV: the newest/most accurate translation), thus animal evolution is fine...perhaps to the point of reaching the Homo Genus. If God made only Adam and eve, Cain takes an evolved wife, thus varying the genetics. Then of course the great flood kills everything save Noah and family, who were the preserved line of Adam.

    Far as a timeline issue, there is no timeframe for how long Adam and Eve were in the garden, Adam's age could easily only have begun being counted post-exile from the garden...why would an immortal keep track of his age after all? Thus, the issue might not be so much an either or, but a sorta "both are credible" thing.

    My 2 cents...

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

      I believe the Bible also says that people were building a giant tower to heaven and God didnt like this so he created different languages so they could no longer communicate. To me it still sounds like religion contorting to fit scientific findings. Has anyone thought that maybe these stories are an ancient peoples interpretation of what they could not understand or grasp at that time?

      September 13, 2011 at 12:16 pm |
    • Cru

      Didn't Noah then throw stones over his shoulder that then became people?

      September 13, 2011 at 12:16 pm |
  2. Voiceinthewind

    Evoultion is part of God's plan, if it was not we would still all be in a Magical garden eating apples and talking to snakes(LOL). The entire galaxy is in a constant state of evoultion and as we know it is changing every day. if you don't think you are learning and evolving then you should get out of the way and let other people learn and evolve instead of holding us back. As far as I am concerned mankind has evolved and will continue. Pass me another dinosaur egg please and some, scrambled please. Laugh out Loud. There are some real oroms in this world for sure.

    September 13, 2011 at 12:02 pm |
  3. Cru

    ...So, you say there's something there. I say it is not. You say that although you cannot see it, just like I cannot, that you insist that it is there.

    It is at this point that I think you're crazy for basing any shared decision on what we both agree is not visible, or conclusively proven to be.

    While you can say the proof that it is not there is inconclusive, it still remains that you would want to base decisions on what COULD be there, instead of the countervailing premise that everything in the room is as it is, without the need to disprove the monster under your bed.

    September 13, 2011 at 12:01 pm |
    • Sad for the Human Race

      CRU Lol, What did you say? Way to change the subject.

      September 13, 2011 at 12:04 pm |
      • Questionable

        I believe he is saying that Christians can make a claim to Gods existance without proof, and never look back to think maybe things are as they appear

        September 13, 2011 at 12:10 pm |
      • Cru

        Not really, it's a thing of weighing evidence and the ability to replicate studies – versus taking it on faith and not needing to show any proof but the assertion that complexity is explanation enough.

        September 13, 2011 at 12:15 pm |
  4. jp2thx

    I feel science is overreaching in their conclusion about where and how life was created. In others words, scientist and anthropologist collected a few puzzle pieces and think we have the full picture. As for me, I believe God created life and abides by the laws of physics and other sciences. Lastly, who says man has to be created. I believe humans have always existed just like the elements on the periodic chart.

    September 13, 2011 at 12:01 pm |
  5. David

    Science trumps religion.... every time.


    End of Story.

    September 13, 2011 at 11:59 am |
  6. Mike D

    Religious institutions have a long and sad history of opposing scientific progress. Religion has opposed heliocentricism, the idea that the Earth is round, the notion that Jupiter has moons, any number of medical advances, and many more things besides. However, religion loses every time, and it's losing this battle as well. The time will come when creationists will be viewed as lunatic fringe crackpots, the same way flat Earthers and geocentricists are seen today. This may well happen within our lifetimes.

    September 13, 2011 at 11:53 am |
  7. markh

    The only reason that we are having this argument in the first place is because HUMANS decided to catorgarize everything. The beginnings of Linneus and Darwin were never to set out and prove where humans came from it was simply to organize and place every living thing on earth into categories. The only organisms on earth that understand the breakdown of species are humans and in the long run how are we "educated" enough by a fossil record which spans Billions of years in which there is no possible way of finding every living thing during that time. Yes, Dna has changed our view on things over the past 60 years but my DNA may be a 99.2% match to someone who lives in china. Does that mean we have a common ancestor? Maybe.. maybe not, As a student who has taken many classes that are "taxonomy" based I can tell you that the vast majority of scientists differ in their opinions of how things are related and new ideals are constantly being formed proving that the scientific understanding of evolution is actually much less than many scientists will lead you to believe. Things have adapted to different situations over time yes thats true but a full fledged belief in evolution from a fossil record with holes that are millions of years wide is a bit "faithful" in my opinion

    September 13, 2011 at 11:42 am |
  8. Sad for the Human Race

    Wow, I believe that a war could start over this subject. There is certainly alot of hate if you don't believe in one's point of view.
    There is absolutely no theory that is correct. It is a theory, the reason it is a theory is because it is not fact. telling people it is does not make it one. Whether you are a "creationist" or "evolutionist" we are all part of the human race with differing opinions. Live and let live.

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

      You don't know the difference between the term "scientific theory" vs. the everyday meaning of the term "theory." They are very different terms with very different meanings. Please do some googling on the difference.

      September 13, 2011 at 11:47 am |
    • Cru

      That it is a theory, does not make it subjective.
      It is not to each their own as you say.
      A theory is society's mutual agreement on the truth thus far.

      September 13, 2011 at 12:03 pm |
  9. MaGiMo

    I deny having apes as ancestors. My ancestors are Adam and Eve. Oh and for those whom think I should do some reading, I have done quite a bit. I have not read every single book out there but I have read many.

    September 13, 2011 at 11:35 am |
    • YourWrong

      Name one.

      September 13, 2011 at 11:48 am |
    • Cru

      That's cool, Adam and Eve claim apes, so it all works out.

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

      Sarah Palin:

      "All of them!"

      September 13, 2011 at 5:47 pm |
    • pirate

      Starting with the Cat in the Hat?

      September 13, 2011 at 9:16 pm |
  10. MaybeAgnosticMaybeNot

    I went to a Christian school for 14 years of my life. If any of you have seen the South Park Episode where Mrs. Garrison gives a lesson on Evolution, that is pretty much how I was taught evolution. Something to the effect of " a retarded fish frog having butt sex with a squirrel". This is actually how Christians teach evolution and it is a disservice to their religion. I didn't actually learn about evolution until I took a college geology class. To parents and teachers: atleast give your kids the real facts on evolution so they don't look so dumb when they meet someone who knows the real study of evolution. Oh, and too Christians who saw that South Park Episode, Shame on you. That show has naughty language.

    September 13, 2011 at 11:31 am |
    • Read-Darwin

      Please don't make such wildly exaggerate claims about how this is how all Christians teach evolution. Your experience is yours, but you cannot apply it to all. Your small data gathering and hypothesis conclusion do not apply on a larger scale – kind of like evolution. There are many brilliant scientists and doctors who see God in their work and they are able to contribute to furthering our knowledge.

      September 13, 2011 at 11:44 am |
    • MaybeAgnosticMaybeNot

      Based on the data presented on this message board, I say that either very few people, Christian or not, are doing a poor job teaching evolution, or most people just can't understand what is being taught.

      September 13, 2011 at 12:40 pm |
  11. ArthurP

    You are aware of course that Issac Newton did not believe in the Holy Trinity he even wrote an essay to that effect.

    September 13, 2011 at 11:31 am |
  12. Barry G.

    There are Christians (and Jews) who accept evolution, and they don’t consider evolution to be a challenge or impediment to their faith, the theology of Genesis, or any other part of the Bible.

    I’m one who respects and appreciate the work and findings of the scientific community, and yet I believe in the monotheistic ethical principles of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures; and, I believe in the God whom the Hebrews said revealed these ethical principles and teachings.

    Of course there are many who don’t share this view. They view the first eleven chapters (as well as the rest of the Bible) literally. This is nothing new.

    Even in the first few centuries of the Christian church, many of the leading leaders in the Christian community understood and interpreted the Scriptures allegorically. (cf., the Christian community in Alexandria and the one at Antioch.)

    (Before this there were Jews, who interpreted the OT Scripture allegorically, as in the case of Philo.)

    The fact that light was said to have been created on the first day (Gen. 1;3-5), and yet the solar system is not created until the fourth day (Gen. 1:14-19), makes clear that the Hebrews were not making a scientific presentation, but were making a theological one, a statement of faith.

    (This should come as no surprise, for the Hebrew Scriptures were written in a manner consistent with the genre of the other religious writings of their day. (viz., the Babylonian and Mesopotamian creation account and other stories.)
    Unfortunately many fail to understand this.

    Jack Wayland Vancil (professor of Genesis and Near Eastern Studies) stated: We should leave science to the scientific community, for they are well equipped and quite able to do this work.

    Those of us who are members of the community of faith should focus on theology, matters of faith, and the ethical teachings imparted in the Scripture.

    I commend the scientific community for their dedication and skill. Keep up the good work.

    To my brothers and sisters I would say that no one should be compelled to choose between accepting and believing the teachings of the Scripture and Darwin.

    September 13, 2011 at 11:30 am |
    • Questionable

      This is a prime example of contorting religion to fit science

      September 13, 2011 at 11:32 am |
      • Barry G.

        My interpretation of the Scripture is guided by careful consideration of the historical and literary context of the material, as well as an examination of the structure of the text, linguistics, etc..

        Science (as marvelous as it is) does not determine my understanding of the Biblical Scripture.

        The material of Genesis (particularly chapters 1-11) is typical of the genre and literature of that the Ancient Near East (e.g., Enuma Elish [Babylonian or Mesopotamian Creation epic], the Epic of Gilgamesh [Ancient Sumerian text, among the earliest literary works]; the law Code of Hammurabi; pagan psalms; etc.).

        Such an exegetical approach to the Scripture is what guides my understanding of the material, not science.
        The fact that Genesis and the remainder of the Bible do not contradict science and evolution may be offensive to you, but you’re going to have to deal with this.

        The unfounded and unjust (i.e., unfair) nature of your comments only supports the need for such biblical texts, which are concerned with ethical matters, such as justice, humility and wisdom.

        After all isn't science concerned with a fair assessment and presentation of the facts?

        I suggust you get the facts, before you judge and reject my beliefs or understanding.

        I suggust that you take a semester or two of basic statistics. This may help you make better decisions, ones based on a careful gathering (sampling) of data, as well as a careful calculation of this data [consider: z=x-mu divided by the standard deviation].

        Reject/Acccetp the Null Hypothesis?

        Regardless of the extent (or dearth) of your knowledge of science, I urge you to let the Scriptures help you overcome you’re arrogance, cynicism, unjust views, and other weaknesses and failings.

        September 14, 2011 at 12:29 pm |
    • YourWrong

      While I think your beliefs are better than the average fundamentalist it still just goes to show how silly and meaningless religion is in general. You have modified your beliefs so they don't conflict with reality. Who told you that you could do that? When everyone twists the meaning and interpretation of scripture to fit their own personal agenda it has no original meaning. You can't just pick and choose what you want to believe. Its all or nothing or you are creating your own religion. Your modified interpretation has no more creedance than anyone elses. Also it completely goes against the fundamental teachings. If everyone can just create their own version of religion then it is simply meaningless to begin with.

      September 13, 2011 at 11:42 am |
      • Barry G.

        My interpretation of the Scripture is guided by careful consideration of the historical and literary context of the material, as well as an examination of the structure of the text, linguistics, etc.. Science (as marvelous as it is) does not determine my understanding of the biblical Scripture.

        The material of Genesis (particularly chapters 1-11) is typical of the genre and literature of that the Ancient Near East (e.g., Enuma Elish [Babylonian or Mesopotamian Creation epic], the Epic of Gilgamesh [Ancient Sumerian text, among the earliest literary works]; the law Code of Hammurabi; pagan psalms; etc.).

        Such an exegetical approach to the Scripture is what guides my understanding of the material, not science.

        The fact that Genesis and the remainder of the Bible is not inconsistent with scientific principles and evolution may be offensive to you, but you’re going to have to deal with this.

        The unfounded and unjust nature of your comments only supports the need for such biblical texts, which are concerned with ethical matters, such as justice, humility, wisdom and goodness.

        Regardless of the extent (or dearth) of your knowledge of science, I urge you to let the Scriptures help you overcome you’re arrogance, cynicism, nasty attitude, and other weaknesses and failings.

        September 14, 2011 at 12:20 pm |
  13. dabble53

    Created in the image of god? How do you know what god looks like? Maybe s/he looks more like an ape than you'd care to admit. May s/he (who says god even has to have a sex???) looks more like a protoplasmic blob. Or may the meaning of in the image of god means without sin (not that that lasted very long), and not so much as in a physical image?
    All of this is really moot since unless you can explain where god came from, it's all one mythology/speculation substituting for another (where did the universe come from?)

    September 13, 2011 at 11:29 am |
    • Barry G.

      “Created in the image of God” refers to God’s nature—his justice, compassion and wisdom.

      The word used her for "image" is the same word used to refer to the making of an idol, which people fashioned and used in worship.

      The God of the Bible condemned such idolatry and commanded that each person serve him and his just and ethical principles, and that they themselves serve as images or as representations of God’s just, wise and compassionate nature, by doing what is just, wise, and compassionate.

      September 14, 2011 at 12:35 pm |
  14. 2bits

    Religion is a virus on mankind. It's the reason the evolution of mankind has stopped cold.

    September 13, 2011 at 11:25 am |
  15. killallthewhiteman

    And if there were comment sections hundreds of years ago you would see stupid religious people calling blasphemy on the people saying that the world was round, and the earth revolved around the sun.

    September 13, 2011 at 11:24 am |
  16. Nick

    I was once an ardent, believing Christian who supported and defended the young-earth theory of Creationism. After doing some serious soul-searching, I educated myself as to what evolution REALLY IS and what it IS NOT from a scientific perspective. What I learned blew my mind. All of what I had been told about evolution by my church was nothing more than shameless lies based out of fear and ignorance. The evidence is EVERYWHERE to support evolution!! The fossil record, mitochondrial DNA, geographic distribution, vestigial organs, etc. etc. all point to the same conclusion of common ancestry over millions and millions of years. I actually feel bad for people who deny the theory of evolution, because I used to be one of them. I lived a long time without the knowledge of the splendor and elegance of it.

    September 13, 2011 at 11:23 am |
  17. Anon A mouse

    The gross irony here is that all of the "enlightened" and "learned" evolutionist views come from fore fathers that had a profound belief in a creator.

    Including but not limited to:
    Isaac Newton
    Sir Francis Bacon
    Michael Faraday

    Lastly, two men of the recent past, without whom, CERN would not exist – quotes:

    “The gift of mental power comes from God, Divine Being, and if we concetrate our minds on that truth, we become in tune with this great power.
    My Mother had taught me to seek all truth in the Bible"
    – Nikola Tesla

    Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" – and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
    – Albert Einstein

    Take these people away, and we'd still be wandering in the dark. It seems in our own pursuit of knowledge, a lot of people have lost humility. A key to wisdom.

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

      You dont take into account that these people may have not known any better, and not believing in God hundreds of years ago was very taboo. They may have not voiced their concerns about religion

      September 13, 2011 at 11:27 am |
      • Anon A mouse

        Speculating on "what" God "could be" or "whom" will always be taboo.
        Even Professor Hawking readily states that probability dictates that for us to even begin to think we are the highest in the food chain for intellect in this universe/multiverse is ludicrous.
        Quantum science is the study of what we cannot see. The dimensions beyond our three lending to the fourth and opening to the rest leave such a chasm of possibility that in many ways we are simply cave men playing with elementary encryption and measurement.
        What has been discovered can be represented by much less than "ONE", in fact such a fraction of "ONE" that it is really only useful in our manipulation of this sandbox universe in small ways. To even comprehend something more than "ONE" we aren't even close to being there.
        The only way we successfully get higher than the understanding of "ONE" is by changing our fractionated scale to another number base and most don't understand that principle in and of itself anyway.
        Two is more than one, but simply one divided.
        I was once told I'd never win any friends trying to discuss abstract math.

        I expect nothing less 😉

        September 13, 2011 at 11:42 am |
  18. Read-Darwin

    From Wikipedia: "The fossil record is an important source for scientists when tracing the evolutionary history of organisms. However, because of limitations inherent in the record, there are not fine scales of intermediate forms between related groups of species. This lack of continuous fossils in the record is a major limitation in tracing the descent of biological groups. There is a gap of about 100 million years between the beginning of the Cambrian period and the end of the Ordovician period." That is no small gap – just 100 million years. You choose to believe evolution but remember you are having to believe just like people believe in God.

    September 13, 2011 at 11:18 am |
    • Questionable

      You started to believe in God bc someone told you it was true. I believe in evolution bc someone showed me it was true

      September 13, 2011 at 11:22 am |
      • Read-Darwin

        Wow – do you know me? You Evolutionist really do claim to have all the answers. Actually I believe in God because I see Him everyday in His creation and through the study of science. I made up my own mind to believe in God based on my own research. Have you ever done any research on God or do you just not believe because someone told you so?

        September 13, 2011 at 11:32 am |
      • Questionable

        Went to Church for 18 years, parents are Christians, and I have taken quite a few relion/mythology classes. Is that a good start?

        September 13, 2011 at 11:46 am |
  19. Jude Agho

    I always find it quite intriguing when people talk about how perfect earth or the universe is. Look at the world around us. Survival on all species is based on competition. Viruses, bacteria and other animals would kill us if they had their way. Extent now to our solar system. We are surrounded by thousands of comets with thousands bombarding earth everyday. 65 million years ago a large meteorite is thought to have expedite the extinction of dinosaurs and there are compelling evidence based on mathematical calculations that this event occurs once every 100 million years. We humans today are the most successful species simply because we have been able to get rid of other species on our way. The world is not perfect but based on survival dictated by limiting resources. lets even forget about science for a second. Look at humanity, different countries. How do these countries survive nowadays, wars, cheap shot business deals with unequal levels of access to resources. top 200 richest people in America owns 40% of the world resources. Again the baseline is competition. I think rather than spending hours debating concepts that cannot be tested we should focus such energy towards finding sustainable solutions to humanity problems.

    September 13, 2011 at 11:13 am |
  20. Stephen Charchuk

    We've only cataloged around 10% of all life on this planet so far. They're always discovering new species.

    September 13, 2011 at 11:12 am |
  21. Greg

    Science is nothing more than a tool used by Man to explain what he cannot understand and lacks the faith in God to believe... as such, one sets out with a theory and create proofs to bolster one's position, and therefore is flawed from the beginning, sort of putting the cart before the proverbial horse, or guilty until proven otherwise innocent. Whether evolution, The Big Bang, global warming, or even modern medicine with it's side-affects worse than the original symptom... the only thing for certain is that Man 'knows' nothing, and everything is predicated on the FAITH that 99.9 times out of 100 this tool one has created will support what one has come to 'believe'. Evolutionists look for the 'missing link', Big Bangers look for the 'God Particle', and Al Gore moves his measuring stick further out into the ocean to prove the polar ice caps are melting and water levels are rising. Theories and hypotheses are all Man will ever have, but even agnostics and atheists 'believe' or have 'faith' that the sun will rise tomorrow morning until proven wrong by a God that laughs at Man's intelligence. Need a missing link, we'll piece together fossils until, Aha! Looking for a Big Bang, billions will be spent crashing atoms together just so one can measure the differences in temperatures to 27 decimal points. Global warming your way to Utopia, then we'll ridicule 'scientists' until they fudge numbers, and fund their pet projects just to show ocean temperatures have risen a degree or two in the last few decades. If life begins and ends here on earth, the brilliance of your mind snuffed out at your last breath, meaning so little, why so worried about one's legacy?

    September 13, 2011 at 11:10 am |
    • YourWrong

      "one sets out with a theory and create proofs to bolster one's position, and therefore is flawed from the beginning, sort of putting the cart before the proverbial horse"

      This is your argument against science?!?!? This should be the argument against religion and god. The assumption that there is a god in first place in unfounded and baseless. Then the religious try to force every fact of reality into the framework that a god exists. That is putting the cart before the horse! In science, observations are made, data is collected, then a theory is created to encompass the data. Then that theory is tested with new data and used to make future predictions. It all starts with the data, the theory comes after the facts have been collected. The total opposite of religion.

      September 13, 2011 at 11:22 am |
    • Cru

      You don't understand what you're talking about.

      September 13, 2011 at 12:08 pm |
  22. Liberalator

    The public debate about evolution is often mistated. Since teh debat is driven by conservative christians and not scientists. That evolution has occured in all life forms found on earth is not a theory. It is a fact. The "theory" comes into play when we ask the question "how" did evolution occur that has lead up to our present animal and plant populations.

    It is the same when we talk about atoms. It is not a theory that atoms exist. Modern technology could not have been developed without this knowledge. The "theory" aspect of atoms comes into play when we try to determine the strucutre of the atom and how it is put together.

    So we should move away from the concept that evolution is a theory and understand that it is the "how" that remains at the center of scientific inquirery.

    Religious texts, being based on failth as their main driver,.are not intended to convey scientific information. They were writtena t a time when there was little true understanding of the pgysical world. The bible, for example, is just as theoretical as the strucutre of an atom. No one knows who wrote it, where it actually came from, and it cannot prove the existence of god in itself. It is just a theory. Contrary to everyone's expectation that the bible is factual. For example there is not one shread of physical evidence that jesus ever existed. If that's not theoretical I'm not sure what is. Just because it's written doesn't make it so.


    September 13, 2011 at 11:10 am |
  23. Renzo

    Evolution- All that scientific mombo jumbo still has not been able to prove that man was evolved from a monkey. You still need better evidence then what these scienctist have these days. Everything leads to the creation of the universe by GOD. They just want to find something different .

    September 13, 2011 at 11:06 am |
    • YourWrong

      Science is not trying to prove that man evolved from a monkey becaue that is not how evolution works. "Everything leads to the creation of the universe by god" - name one thing that leads to this conclusion. Where does the original assumption that there even is a god come from in the first place?

      September 13, 2011 at 11:54 am |
  24. Questionable

    Went to Church for 18 years of my life, always knew about evolution but kept an open mind. It took 1 anthropology class to show me how indisputable evolution is. Why? Because for 18 years I had questions but the only answer was, "Thats just how God made it, or God works in mysterious ways." Science was able to give me concrete answers.

    September 13, 2011 at 11:04 am |
    • Ethan Nelson

      Within the scientific debate of evolution, I think it is important to note that there are outstanding problems with the basic theory of evolution as an origin of the species and as a device to evolve organisms on a macro scale.

      That said, it doesn't in any way imply that the "adam surgical rib removal/creation" version is a historically accurate account.

      It strikes me that if all you get out of religion is the idea that the earth and things in existence were made in a particular way, then you have had an impoverished experience of religion. Primarily, because your experience of it has been scientifically based, as if everything you read in the book was supposed to be some sort of objective documentary on a scientific process. That is a profound disservice to religion and science. Both deserve better examination.

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

        Ok here are some more of my questions, if to get into heaven you must give your life to Jesus, well what about the billions of people who never even had the chance to hear about them. Are you saying God is ok with that? What about other intelligent primates such as neanderthals, a distinctly different species from humans, did the go to heaven or hell?
        If there are always two sides to a story, why doesnt God give you the chance to hear Satans side and let you make your own choice, I mean if you only hear one side how can you know its right. Hitlers youth only heard one side of the story and took it as truth.

        September 13, 2011 at 11:20 am |
      • Ethan Nelson

        Good questions and I have a thousand more. But those questions are also very high level, meaning, they rest on so many assumptions and buried definitions, such as heaven and hell and other doctrinal concepts, that you probably won't get very far with, except to reject surface level doctrine as nonsense (which is what a lot of professing Christians need to question btw).

        Look, religion is practiced by a lot of very intelligent people, people far smarter than either you or I. So is it necessary to pick one or the other? Science or religion but not both? I don't think so.

        September 13, 2011 at 11:30 am |
      • Questionable

        I would love to read some stuff, I have taken quite a few mythology classes and went to Church for 18 years, I do know what I am talking about.

        September 13, 2011 at 11:37 am |
      • Ethan Nelson

        It is essential that religious understanding come off the felt board, were noah's ark and adam and eve are real people and real events, and into a living, breathing relationship with God. It sounds like, with respect to Christianity, you made that important step to advance past felt board Christianity taught to us as children. But it also sounds like you made an exchange instead, replacing it with science. In my own personal experience, anything of value I've ever gotten out of religion has not been scientific. 'Knowing' that the animals went two by two into the ark never helped me in life. Interacting with God has.

        So, I don't know much more than I do, despite having graduated in philosophy and studied ancient languages and the bible my whole life, plus science, software design etc... But from what little I do know, I have been enriched.

        Mysical experiences are fakes. Drugs can do the same thing. Science, and science alone, is extremely limited and empty. If your experience one day tells you that you have truly encountered God, then religious pursuit can really begin. Unless that ever happens, I recommend staying devoutly skeptical.

        September 13, 2011 at 11:55 am |
  25. Jude Agho

    Science is the systematic study of nature (natural phenomenon). Science cannot answer questions on the existence of God or supernatural myths because such belief systems cannot be tested using well formed hypothesis.The underlying assumption of science is that our senses detects reality. It is very crucial for most people to understand that Evolution doesn't endorse the non belief or belief of a God. The theory of evolution were based on observations that all of us here on earth must have notice in one way or the other. Darwin simply constructed those observations in to a theory. I don't think anyone would disagree that organisms living today are not descendants of some ancestral species. If you look at the world around us there are two important observation you'll notice.
    1) Within every natural population of organisms, there exist natural variations among the different individuals. These is true. Look at natural populations of birds, they all vary be it color of wings, length of beak etc.
    2) With variation comes unequal reproductive success. The likelihood of individuals to succeed in their natural environment also differs among the different organisms. Not all organisms will survive a famine or flood. Individuals with certain heritable traits (genes) tend to accumulate more within a natural population. Over time, remember millions and millions of years these accumulated traits may make the present individuals look different than their previous ancestors. It is important to note that it is a population that evolves not an individual. Organisms do not decide to evolve but are selected naturally by environmental events. THESE ARE COMMON FACTS AND IN NO WAY REFUTE UR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

    September 13, 2011 at 10:59 am |
  26. Rao

    The fact that the body evolves does not mean that there is no spirit. Hindus have always believed in spiritual evolution over many life times. Both spiritual evolution and biological evolution work together.

    September 13, 2011 at 10:57 am |
  27. travc

    The theory of evolution is very useful. It puts everything about biology into context, has spurred great advances, and has practical application.
    Genetics exists because evolution predicted that there would be a heritable carrier of information. DNA was discovered because we knew to look for it and what properties the theory of evolution predicted it would have. Evolution also allows us to predict the rise of new resistant diseases and crop pests and what we can do to avoid them or mitigate the problems the cause. That is a matter of life and death for millions.

    "God did it" is a completely useless non-explanation. It helps us predict nothing and fosters no new technology. At very best, it is a feel-good alternative to admitting "I don't know". Scientists are fine with not knowing everything... After all, trying to find potentially useful answers is what science is all about.

    September 13, 2011 at 10:56 am |
  28. Kurt

    My God is more perfect than many of yours. He created the laws of the universe, set it in motion, and we evolved into what we are now. He was not so imperfect that he had to constantly put His hand into the "mess" he created. The dust I rose from was the primordial goo. Only one so perfect could think all that through. We may not be monkeys, but like it or not, we share an ancestor somewhere in the past.

    September 13, 2011 at 10:54 am |
    • Questionable

      So you are able to contort your religion around scientific findings? I dont follow.

      September 13, 2011 at 10:56 am |
  29. 2bits

    Obama is proof that we have not evolved–and that evolution has hit a dead end street in the lineage of humanity.

    September 13, 2011 at 10:52 am |
  30. Ethan Nelson

    The creation vs evolution debate is a giant false dichotomy. Are the 6000 year old creationists wrong? Yes. Are the evolution explains our existence wrong? Yes. Where did all this stuff come from? Why does what exists exist? Science in general doesn't speak to those questions... religion does. Claiming the bible is a scientific document of creation is foolish. Claiming Evolution explains religious questions is foolish. This should be a non-debate.

    September 13, 2011 at 10:51 am |
    • Questionable

      Uhh that didnt really make sense.

      September 13, 2011 at 10:54 am |
      • Ethan Nelson

        I guess I will have to explain. Evolution is scientific. The bible is religious. It is wrong for people to push science to answer religious questions and it is wrong for religious people to push religion to answer scientific questions. Why would you read the story of creation as if it was a scientific doctoral thesis? Why would you read a scientific doctoral thesis as a contradiction of a religious creation story? It is stupidly unnecessary and divisive. It is like one person argues, "the sky is blue" and the other person fires back, "No!!! The train is heavy". Neither realize they aren't even talking about the same subject.

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

        Bc for hundreds of years science was hindered by the Church, the Church is what controled science. People were exicuted by the Church for developing unbiased scientific theories. Eventually science was able to show how wrong the Church was, such as the Earth not being the center of the universe, a major tipping point.

        September 13, 2011 at 11:09 am |
      • Ethan Nelson

        Ok, some of that is fair. Don't you distinguish between the "church" which is historically a political body vs religion? Again, if your entire world view of religion is that it is political, or scientific, then you'd be missing the religious kernal. You're missing the most important part.

        And some of that is not fair. Great scientists were first "natural philosophers" and very religious. They brought history shaking insights into science because they believed they were unlocking God's language of creation. F=MA etc... In many cases, it is the religious life scientists have cultivated which propelled their insights and motivated their curiosity.

        September 13, 2011 at 11:15 am |
  31. food for thought

    An atheist invites a christian for a meal: They discuss sports, cars, women, jobs and general chit-chat common to all social gatherings and have fun eating and drinking. If the atheist happens to think about mortality, he will just ponder as to both of them will eventually die, and that’s that.

    A christian invites a atheist for a meal: They discuss sports, cars, women, jobs and general chit-chat common to all social gatherings and have fun eating and drinking. If the christian happens to think about mortality, he will realize that as a believer, he will of course go to heaven forever when he dies and the atheist will of course go to hell. He now has 2 possibilities… 1- annoy the atheist and try to make him see the light (please don’t) or 2- continue without mentioning it knowing full well that he is talking to a doomed human with a very short time before he roasts in hell forever and ever. What in fact compels him to even talk to the atheist…it’s a waste of time, no?? You won’t even get to talk to him after death since you’re not going to the same place.

    I have no desire to converse with someone who views me as an eternally doomed, no soul, waste of skin (in his eyes). Makes you religious nutcases the biggest bigots EVER!!

    September 13, 2011 at 10:49 am |
    • 2bits

      That's absolutely right–Religious people by their very nature are the world's biggest bigots. By definition a bigot looks down on others as being 'lower cast' and that's what all religious people do–it's their nature.

      September 13, 2011 at 10:54 am |
      • Ethan Nelson

        Comment brought to you by a true biggot. First generalize an entire group of people, summarize that they all believe one same stupid thing and conclude that they are evil.

        September 13, 2011 at 11:19 am |
  32. Phil

    Has anyone ever considered that GOD did create all things yet with Creation also came Evolution in order for all living creatures to be able to adapt to their particular environments? As Human Beings, when we develop a new technology, in a sense we are evolving, yet at the same time, people in all parts of the world continue to stay the way they were born, i.e. people in L.A. California have not developed an additional set of lungs in order to cope with smog or people in the amazon do not evolve with skin color to match the jungle in order to survive. Many fossils found are of Human Beings with malformities that are taken to be from another species or some missing link. Oh yes, could you please explain to me why we still have monkeys hanging out in the trees of Jungles overseas, if Human Beings evolved from them? Why haven't they evolved as well?

    September 13, 2011 at 10:48 am |
    • 2bits

      Who says that in tens of millions of years they won't rule a 'planet of the apes'? Your kind of thinking cannot imagine the timescales of evolution which is why your minds grasp something easier to memorize as being the reason why were here. Little minds have no imagination.

      September 13, 2011 at 10:55 am |
    • YourWrong

      Your point is did god create the big bang. That is untestable and up for philosophic debate. God is just as possible as any other hypothesis I suppose. Science deals with physical reality and everything that has happened since the big bang. While no one can say for sure what happened prior to the big bang (and we may never know) we can say for sure that all man made religions and concepts of god espoused by most are completely false. If something did create the big bang (which there is absolutely no reason to believe) it still total negates the bible and every other religious text. The second parts of you statement is one of the silliest and tired arguments that keeps getting brought up by deniers. You have just shown that you have basically no understanding of evolution or its processes. Evolution occurs on vast time scales so of course we have not seen it directly with humans in various environments. There hasn't been close to enough time for any significant changes. Humans have only existed for the blink of an eye on evolutionary time scales. Secondly, and this is one of the weakest arguments that is continually put forward, Humans did not evolve directly from modern monkeys. That is why both exist today. We shared a common ancestor with modern monkeys way back in the past. We veered off on one branch of the evolutionary tree and monkeys took another, totally separate branch. If you don't understand this you don't understand evolution at all.

      September 13, 2011 at 11:02 am |
  33. Barking Alien

    I think Adam creating Eve from his rib and then barbequed some ribs. He had a party just needed some alchohol.

    September 13, 2011 at 10:47 am |
  34. Barking Alien

    I like to visit my relatives at the zoo. I read bible passages so that one day they too can be saved. They hold up their bananas when I say amen.

    September 13, 2011 at 10:43 am |

    So what does everyone think about women being created out of man's rib?

    September 13, 2011 at 10:42 am |
    • 2bits

      That god was a bigot.

      September 13, 2011 at 10:56 am |
      • ArthurP

        No She just was improving on the original. She used man as a starting point.

        September 13, 2011 at 11:27 am |
  36. Reasonably Blank

    Evolution... obviously, anyone who denies it is in need of a beating, but the rabbit hole deepens when u get into the Cambrian Period of our history. Google it for details its a very interesting thing.Below is the basic idea.

    The Cambrian Period is a period in Earth's history after dinosaurs roamed. The only life on the planet was 1-2 celled organisms. No development, just bacteria, etc. ALL OF A SUDDEN there is an explosion randomly the geographic land is scattered in the crust layers but it also happens that at the time of the explosion we went immediately from these 1-2 celled organisms to fully developed, multiple celled organisms, they had lungs, hearts, veins, nervous systems, the works!

    These are the facts. My opinion and my opinion alone is that there was an explosion that introduced new life to our planet and our oldest ancestors. From there we evolved into what we are today. As for the explosion that made us who we are, I believe we got visited from another planet that intentionally helped us become who we are today.

    September 13, 2011 at 10:37 am |
  37. erich2112x

    Natural selection only scratches the surface. it still offers no explanation as to why certain fish species grew lungs and set out for dry land, or why certain animals grew wings and took flight.

    September 13, 2011 at 10:35 am |
    • Questionable

      Natural selection is a terrible term. Its survival of the fittest.

      September 13, 2011 at 10:43 am |
    • 2bits

      Simple chance. You get stranded in a water hole that goes dry you either struggle to walk–and survive–or you don't.

      Same today with global warming. Mankind will struggle to survive–or he won't.

      It's not nice to fool with mother nature.

      September 13, 2011 at 10:57 am |
    • erich2112x

      i agree, 2bits, but if the water hole runs dry, and you aint got lungs, you're dead. What is the underlying force of nature that determines that i need lungs? i'm certainly not making that assessment, I'm just a fish.

      September 13, 2011 at 12:41 pm |
  38. LV

    Not so long ago, people who were acting like crackpots, and those who were clearly insane, were relegated to the same pile as those who think the Earth is flat. Now, they are taken seriously. This is a huge waste of time, and a major distraction to getting the country back on track.

    September 13, 2011 at 10:33 am |
  39. Sean

    I have seen and heard those god-worshipper trying to deny Science and FACTs, and their arguements were soooo ridiculous.

    1) God worshipper say "Science cannot explain where we, earth, and universe come from, so it must be God who created all these".

    Well, Science is making breakthroughs. Maybe Science cannot deliver the answer of whether GOD created this world or is it big-bang theory, but we are making progress, one-step at a time.

    a) Imagine without medicine, how many people on earth will be dying everyday? God worshippper say "oh my child miraclely survive the accident, must be God-Glory at work". But for some reason, they forget to THANK Science and Doctor who saves their children lifes. You think all these advance medical tools, super-fast transportation, etc does not save your children but some unseen-unknown "thing" is working hard behind the scene doing the miracle job saving your children life?

    Get a perspective!!!

    b) Imagine without science, can we have enough food and water to support 6+ billions people on earth? Did god teach you how to cultivate efficiently with weather forecasting to feed all 6+ billions? Or is it science that has transform the food chain to allow you, your parents to have 4 children each generation to multiply human and have happy family?

    Without science, I am sure we human would at war constantly just fighting for food and survival. Back to Barbarian World!! Yeah! So where is God's glory in a barbarian war killing each othe for food, water and survival?

    Listen God-worshippers, ger a perspective, think how far we human has come from since 100 years ago. There were no electricity, no satelite for life-saving escape from hurricane, no TV/freezer/washing machines, no internet and computer to share our views and enhance education opportunity to everyone, no medicine to save lifes, no machines to help cultivating corps for food, diasecting genetics to know advance if we will get cancer, etc.

    Science has come a LONG way, and we are advancing our knowledge one-step at a time. I strongly believe, one day though maybe not my life time, but Science will discover and decode the puzzle of Universe and where we come from.

    But for now, let's enjoy the fruit of science, and please ACKNOWLEDGE it. Stop worshipping or thanking some "thing" else that have save yours or children life. Thank the Medicine. Thank Science. Thank innovators who created Cars/ambulance/Helicopter. ACKNOWLEGE and Thank them, because these are nonh-disputable FACTS. FACTS!!!!

    September 13, 2011 at 10:33 am |
    • LV

      You are wasting your time. They go to the Creation Museum to see humans riding on dinos and think that is real.

      September 13, 2011 at 10:34 am |
      • ArthurP

        In the Creation Museum they have Adam and Eve wearing clothes which is totally the opposite of what is says in the Bible. They have no problem with this 'interpretation' of the word of God as it adheres to our current moral values however the ridicule any suggestion that the same actions could ever have been applied to the Bible itself.

        September 13, 2011 at 10:39 am |
  40. ArthurP

    Human evolution continues today. We see the results of it in every day. We call them birth defects. Some work to some degree as in six fingers. Some don't, heart outside the chest cavity.

    September 13, 2011 at 10:25 am |
    • 2bits

      Don't forget Obama.

      September 13, 2011 at 11:24 am |
  41. Bad Skippy

    I would like to point out that those claiming that Evolution "has no proof" – You want me to believe that a nameless, faceless, unprovable, supreme diety that left zero proof (and by proof I mean physical evidence) of his existence, created the Earth, Solar system, and the Universe at large, and you think WE are deluded? If you do, that's great – FOR YOU – but Faith is not proof. And faith is not science. While there are no diehard conclusions with Evolution, there is a great deal more to support Evoluation compared to there is to support God.

    September 13, 2011 at 10:17 am |
  42. DesMoiner

    Arguing about intelligent design versus evolution is kind of like arguing the sky's particular shade of blue. Who cares? It doesn't impact anyone's life at all, in any way. I've got bigger things to worry about; like next month's mortgage payment.

    September 13, 2011 at 10:17 am |
    • YourWrong

      It matters for several reasons. The most important being that one is verifiable fact and the other is unsupported opinion. Spreading misinformation and disregarding facts on this issue just opens the door for doing so with other issues. Nobody benefits when some group tries to supress knowledge. Also, a disregard for evolutionary facts paves the way for religious nuts to hold public office and begin to legislate based on their beliefs in ancient myths as opposed to leading with reason and fact for the benefit of all. It is so wrong for intelligent people to want to have intelligent leaders who guide us and our policies with knowledge and not superstition?

      September 13, 2011 at 10:24 am |
  43. JohnC

    As I read these things, I realized that I am just reading the people that don't believe in theory of evolution and laughing at them. But that made me realize that there's nothing they can say to make me change my mind that evolution is much more logical. That having been said, I'm sure the creationists feel that same way as I do about their beliefs. The point is, people believe what they believe, and they aren't going to change their minds no matter what you say to them. Some people need the belief in God to make them happy, some don't.

    September 13, 2011 at 10:17 am |
  44. Josh

    Can someone with expertise tell me how random mutation occurs enough on such a large scale to produce a workable adpation. I just can't get my head around how it can be produced and the probablity of such events occuring. I mean the probablities are so small for even the smallest change in cell make up, it looks like causation. Also can you tell me what you think of Chris Langhams CTMU theory.

    September 13, 2011 at 10:14 am |
  45. Larsonne

    Attention science haters! We need you to leave the gene pool immediately! The mutated genes that led to your existence are no longer useful to mankind, or any other species for that matter, so stop taking all antibiotics. Stop vaccinating your children. Stop taking vitamins and cancer-killing drugs. Drive to the nearest cliff, quickly, and bid this world adieu! The gene pool thanks you.

    September 13, 2011 at 10:11 am |
  46. jeremiah

    Fact: Micro Evolution is true and testable in a lab... you are able to prove it using the scientific method.
    Fact: Macro Evolution has never been witnessed or proven in a lab.

    Yes genetically we are all similar there is no doubt. Like a moped and a ferrari but their engines are strikingly similar... doesnt mean the moped one day grew into a ferrari.

    I bring this up to point out that educated religious people dont deny micro evolution exists. But I have yet to see any scientific evidence backing a dog changing into a cat. Similar bone structures and DNA show me they were made by the same maker....

    And before you say it... Micro evolution IS different from Macro evolution. One is saying birds beaks change to their current food source... adaptation.... The other is saying that through thousands of advantageous mutations a mushroom became a person... that I find very hard to believe based off the lack of scientific proof. Lets please make sure to identify what we are arguing about people.

    September 13, 2011 at 10:05 am |
    • YourWrong

      Your understanding of the evolutionary process is obviously very limited and flawed but lets forget that for a second and explain to us why you would automatically jump to the conclusion that there is a creator in the first place. Where does that unfounded assumption originate? Because your parents told you there was because their parents told them there was? Obviously evolution occurs on time scales that we can not observe in human lifetime, but just because we don't directly observe it happen doesn't mean that we don't have overwhelming amounts of evidence for it in the fossil records and the DNA of every species that has been mapped so far.

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

        What about Kants or Leibnizs god? or Chris Langans CTMU. They seem reasonable position to me, esspecially how Kant also formalises the goldern rule with the categorical imperative. I think it's a good base for morality to believe in god, just not to stray away from from the goldern rule. Even Friedrich Nietzsche admitted that there is no basis for morality without the premise of god.

        September 13, 2011 at 10:28 am |
      • Read-Darwin

        It is simple – when I look at a bird I think about a creator that made it just like when you look at a building you can think about an architect who designed it.

        September 13, 2011 at 10:55 am |
      • YourWrong

        Not the same. Architects do exist. I know some. I can touch one, talk to one, etc. I know their job is to design buildings and I know that all building have been designed my architects. I can factually prove that architects exist and that their job is to design buildings. The existence of a creator is a totally unfounded assumption. There is no reason to make that original assumption except that people are indoctined into belief at a young age by their parents. Very different and completely unequal positions.

        September 13, 2011 at 11:09 am |
      • Read-Darwin

        You are only able to explain things in the 'box' – the known universe. You can't explain how the box got here and how everything was created in the box. I believe God created the box and put everything in it. Science can only explain what is in the box, but it can point to what is outside the box.

        September 13, 2011 at 12:00 pm |
      • YourWrong

        That is my point. All man made religion is hogwash because it was created within the context of the "box" as you put it. You are free to believe what ever you want about how the "box" got there but assuming that a god did it is pretty large and unfounded logical leap that comes out of nowhere.

        September 13, 2011 at 12:14 pm |
    • ArthurP

      There is no such thing a macro-evolution it is a term created buy Creationists to allow them to use the term micro-evolution to explain readily visible evolutionary changes with out having to admit that their view of things may be incorrect.

      September 13, 2011 at 10:15 am |
  47. Syd

    An invisible giant in the sky that existed for an infinite number of years then one day decided he was bored and going to make a massive universe then stick people to worship him ('cause y'know he needed the ego boost) on one tiny damp pebble. Yeah, that makes sense.

    September 13, 2011 at 9:59 am |
  48. snoopmish

    What has happened to our country in the last 20 years? The collective IQ seems to have dropped to Forrest Gump levels.

    September 13, 2011 at 9:53 am |
  49. FreedomfromReligion

    You are brainwashed.

    September 13, 2011 at 9:47 am |
  50. oh yeah

    you say yes I say no, you say can be and I say can't be. If you believe in God you are and idiot to an atheist. If you believe in evolution you are and idiot to a creationist. I see a lot of name calling and hardly any intelligent comments.
    So in conclussion...I think we all came from a donkey with the way these comments go.,
    and so it will go on and on and on and on.....

    September 13, 2011 at 9:44 am |
    • YourWrong

      Don't frame this as a fair and balanced argument between sides with equally valid postions. One side has all the evidence and facts backing them up and the other side literally has nothing to support it but a disregard for all the facts and evidence.

      September 13, 2011 at 9:57 am |
      • oh yeah

        I am Just stating the facts or are you not used to seeing facts? True facts. This argument is neither fair or balanced. A fair balanced argument listens to both sides. What you are forgetting is that whoever believes in Evolution it all seems fair to them and visa versa. And there are facts on both sides. You have proven my point that people are closed minded.

        September 13, 2011 at 10:20 am |
      • YourWrong

        Name one verifiable fact on the creationist side and I will acknowledge that your argument is correct.

        September 13, 2011 at 10:26 am |
    • oh yeah

      1. Life cannot spring forth from nonliving molecules. Scientists have been unable to prove this. for a cell to survive at least 3 diff types of complex molecules must work together DNA, RNA and protiens. The average functional protein is a "simple" cell contains 200 amino acids. Even in those cells are thousands of different proteins. The probability that just one protein containing 100 amino acids could ever be randomly formed is a one chance in a million billion. All scientific evidence to date indicates that life can come only from previously existing life. To believe that even a :simple" living cell arose by chance from nonliving chemicals requires a huge leap of faith.
      DNA instruction show design – blue eyes, brown eyes, tall, short, all different.
      The Bible is often misquoted or represented in a way that sounds unreasonable, unscientific or just wrong. It has been misrepresented.
      so just in DNA it is packaged in a manner so effecient it is called "a feat of engineering"
      DNA's capacity to store info still has no equal in today computer age.
      more to follow.

      September 13, 2011 at 10:57 am |
      • ArthurP

        Self replication and evolving proteins have already be created in the lab from basic elements. You really should keep up with the literature if you are going to try to contradict it.

        September 13, 2011 at 11:12 am |
      • ArthurP

        "DNA's capacity to store info still has no equal in today computer age."

        Human DNA contains about 3 Billion base pairs that is about 3 gigabytes of data. My smart phone has an 8 gigabyte memory chip.

        September 13, 2011 at 11:17 am |
      • YourWrong

        Just because science has yet to prove anything doesn't automatically disprove it and make the opposite a fact. Science is never done and there will always be things that science hasn't proven yet. That is the beauty of science it never stops and never thinks it has figured out everything. Every new discovery and every new answer leads to more questions for science to investigate. The lack of explanation is not proof of anything so you still have yet to list an actual fact.

        September 13, 2011 at 11:29 am |
  51. ArthurP

    DNA proves Evolution. Work done In Canadian and American universities have been successful in regressing chick embryos so that they continue to grow features related to meat eating dinosaurs, including teeth and long segmented tails. They do this by blocking the commands within the chicks DNA that tell the developing embryos to absorb these features. This is the ultimate example of creating one species from another. Dinos evolved into Birds.

    September 13, 2011 at 9:43 am |

    Had the bible explained in truth how man evolved from primates the Jews and Christians would have lacked the ability to comprehend the science. In all probability, looking back at history, they would have built and worshiped statues of apes....

    September 13, 2011 at 9:33 am |
    • Alan

      Give you a heads up brother Christians do not worship statues, we worship a living God, not some statue some guy built period...

      September 14, 2011 at 9:18 am |
  53. titing refuse to be confused

    Science and religion(good and wise religion) are God given gift to humanity.They should not contradict but complement.We are living in a balancing world.If religion is higher than science,superstitous belief and fanaticism will rise,and if science is higer than religion we become more materialistic.The world is getting smaller and becoming one.One world one community,one race human race,under one God...God the father,Lord,Yahweh,Allah,Jehovah,Dio,Dios,Gino-o,pangino-on or whatever name of the most Holy you are accustom to...Peace on Earth...

    September 13, 2011 at 9:32 am |
  54. paul

    my opinion...? It's a theory. Hence the "Theory of Evolution". So quit treating like a law.

    September 13, 2011 at 9:27 am |
    • Pastafarian

      WRONG! The word "theory" does not mean what you think it means. If you'd like to stop making a fool of yourself in the future, simply google "theory vs. scientific theory" and learn the difference. Then come back and talk to us. Jesus!

      September 13, 2011 at 10:02 am |
  55. Read-Darwin

    Were Darwin's Galapagos Finches Evolution? [Source:

    What does happen in a population as the genome reacts to the environment? Darwin looks at the finches on the Galapagos Islands and notices variations in beak size. He thought that the harder seed in the dry time was causing the beaks of the finches to grow stouter from the use of the part. But what was happening was that natural selection or a long term drought in the islands was causing the seed cases to harden. The heavier beaked finch allele in the genome was favored and the lighter beaked finch allele was not. The heavier beaked finch became more dominant because it passed on the heavy beak alleles. The heavy beak was not the result of a mutation! It was already an allele in the genome and was just brought out as a result of the environment. When the rains came back the lighter beak became the more efficient beak and the number of heavy beaks reduced. This is microevolution at its best. But there was no change in the genome of the finch and certainly no new species has arisen from this. The genome expresses its variety by recombination of the alleles and causing the phenotype to show its wonderful God given types.

    September 13, 2011 at 9:26 am |
  56. Joy

    We cannot claim that evolution is a fact. Even the scientists who support this theory have not gathered enough evidence to place everything together, and their conclusions are still changing. Where does the soul come from? How are thoughts formed and when were they originally created ? How can life be formed from no life? If evolution were true, then why isn't life still forming from nonliving things? Surely, since living things are still "evolving" than even more living things should be forming from nonliving things! How did the intellect, will, and emotion originate? From the earliest recorded times in history, the human race has been shown as having demonstrated these characteristics. There are too many unanswered questions that are untouched by evolutionists who oversimplify and understate. The order, simplicity, and magnitude of creation speaks for itself.

    September 13, 2011 at 9:25 am |
    • Danielsan

      These are good questions. I have other reasons for being an atheist, but I also put faith in science to one day answer these questions, most likely not in my lifetime. After all, we now understand the nature of things that we could not understand tens, hundreds, even thousands of years ago.

      September 13, 2011 at 9:31 am |
  57. DoYourHomework

    I'm always amazed at how many clueless responses evolution articles get (both by Darwinians and religious zelots alike).

    #1 We have no proof of evolution for a single species on the plant. Those nice drawings you see of the ape moving to human. There should be thousands of human remains that clearly show the bridging of the gap, but there aren't.

    #2 Contrary to popular opinion (by Darwinian evangelists) Darwin himself didn't believe in Evolution later in his life and considered it a huge mistake. Check it out for yourself.

    #3 Modern Genetic disproves Evolution (perhaps natural selection exists). Your DNA is like a computer program that actually WEEDS OUT change. This is why genetics favors dominant over recessive genes. Modern biologist should have a very hard time swallowing evolutionary theory.

    #3a – Darwin actually saw this first years ago. Remember when you learned in school that he bred wingless blind flys but eventually the bounced back to normal in later generation (that's b/c you can't change what your genes WANT to do). The flys will never evolve into other forms of insects, just other fly variants.

    Lastly, I don't care if you believe in religion or not but at least be aware that scientists from Einstein to Hawkin all agree that the chances of our DNA swirling around to 'randomly' create mankind on its own is nil. You could fill the galaxy with test tubes and still never create material necessary to build a human randomly (let alone an engine to evolve from animal to human). They ALL believe something of a higher nature had a hand in it & they tend to be smarter guys than me.

    September 13, 2011 at 9:19 am |
    • Danielsan

      By research, do you mean reading Ray Comfort books? The banana guy?

      September 13, 2011 at 9:44 am |
    • YourWrong

      Like others who hold you view, your post shows a general lack of understanding about evolution and a total disregard for mountains of existing evidence.
      1. The formation and preservation of fossils is a rare occurrence and yet we have still found boatloads of evidence for evolution in the fossil record. We haven't even hit the tip of the iceberg in discovering fossils for the number of species that have existed on this planet and yet everything we have found so far points to evolution.
      2. It is irrelevant what Darwin believe at any point in his life. He had the original idea but did not have the technology and vast amount of data that we have now collected to support it. That doesn't even take into count that he was conflicted due to his religious beliefs and the fact that he lived in a time when religious oppression was far worse than it is now.
      3. Modern genetics proves quite the opposite of your claim. We find evidence of evolution in comparing the DNA of different species all the time. Genetics is one of the more powerful sources of evidence.
      Lastly, Not that is matters what anyone believes no matter who they are, Einstein and Hawking in no way believed in a supernatural creator. Read any of their writings yourself. Einstein often spoke of a metaphorical higher power when he was refering to nature and the laws of physics but he never for a second believed in a personal god that created anything. Hawking considers one of his greatest mistakes to be the fact that he metaphorically refered to god in a Brief History of Time in a similar sense to the way Einstien used it. Hawking has since explained himself a million times and even came out with a book a year or so ago explaining in depth why he did not believe that god was necessary. Everyone on your side of this issue spits out one fallacy after another and tries to pass them off as legitimate facts. The difference between your nonsense and the actual facts is that the real facts can be verified.

      September 13, 2011 at 9:45 am |
      • Pastafarian

        Oh my lord, thanks for writing that response so I don't have to! Honestly, the level of ignorance in these comments makes me fear for our species.

        September 13, 2011 at 10:08 am |
    • babaelf

      God as Infinite Radiant Light –Bliss, Knowledge and Power– is our Common Ancestor.....We are simply returning to Him the long way round, via the evolution of forms - His leela, His Game. God Alone Exists. Actor David Thewlis from Mike Leigh’s 1993 film, Naked, puts it humorously: How did you get here? Well, basically there was this little dot, right? And the dot went Bang! And that Bang expanded. Energy cooled into matter, matter cooled and left water which rusted to algae, then seaweed....The amoeba to worm, worm to fish, fish to fowl, fowl to frog, frog to mammal, mammal to monkey, monkey to man. Amo, amas, amat – quid pro quo, memento mori ad infinitum. Sprinkle on a little grated cheese and pop under the grill till doomsday.

      September 13, 2011 at 10:17 am |
      • babaelf

        Rather than argue about the evolution of forms, why not see that the entire game is likely about the evolution of Consciousness: from finite false consciousness in the lower kingdoms to Infinite Real Consciiousness. From the very first human form, although the mind is now infinite, it is still a false infinite mind; its infinity being veiled owing to the fact that it is still experiencing the unlimited false finite-universe instead of its Real Infinite-Self. Ascending the ladder of evolution toward more and more consciousness constituted the first Natural veil. As if it already didn’t have enough to deal with from impressions of this first evolutionary veil from stone form on to plant, worm, bird, fish, animal and finally human form –these are the "7 Days" allegorically refered to in Genesis. Then up comes the second veil, introducing a new type of UN-natural impressions.
        These are caused by backbiting, lying, cheating, stealing, pride, greed, anger, gluttony and lust in all its forms – power, money, sex, etc., collected from our less than noble, miserable acts toward each other over spans of countless reincarnations; un-natural by the fact that they are no longer necessary for the natural evolution of consciousness in the species, as they were in the lower animal forms, but by which we are still heavily influenced.
        They are left-over animal tendencies from when nature gave us survival instincts to fight for food, mates and territory, etc. In animals they were natural and absolutely necessary for survival – what Darwin referred to in his “survival of the fittest” theory. But now they become extremely problematic, as we keep repeating these old animalistic impressions over and over. Just look at the world. But the saving grace is that side by side with these selfish tendencies some animals at times develop altruistic qualities of self-sacrifice, love and patience. If all animal impressions were bad and none good, the appearance of good tendencies in humans would have been impossible. Still, our old animal impressions are a veil that must be overcome.
        This second veil is by far the heaviest of the three, necessitating countless further human reincarnations on the seemingly endless wheel of birth and death to express and thereby wear down or burn off these un-natural impressions. Here is where humanity needs the cavalry to come to its rescue; or should we say Calvary. Again, it is important that the word “un-natural” here not be taken in a pejorative or accusatory way. Rather, it is like a no longer needed booster rocket that we now have a very hard time jettisoning.
        But these carried-over impressions in humans have nothing to do with survival. They express as desires or tendencies like envy, hatred, anger, lust and are severely limiting, shackling human consciousness unbelievably. Although lust is one of the hardest to overcome, backstabbing - badmouthing someone behind their back - produces terribly pernicious impressions on the consciousness container which can only be burned-off in one's next life. Yes, Dorothy, you've been here countless times as the King in amnesia, all dressed up in rags.....

        September 13, 2011 at 11:50 am |
  58. Agha Ata

    Evolution is the only Holy Spirit we have.

    September 13, 2011 at 9:15 am |
    • babaelf

      The Holy Spirit works through the evolution of Consciousness.......

      September 13, 2011 at 11:56 am |
  59. KeithTexas

    Just as I expected, the same ignornat people are arguing the same unknowable topic.

    Science is a religion of physical evidence.
    Religion is the science of faith.

    Neither have proofs or evidence that the other can understand or use.

    September 13, 2011 at 9:15 am |
  60. australapithacus

    You atheists out there need to realize just as you think our preachers brainwash us, so too do your liberal professors that push the evolution agenda. They only teach one side of it, and mock and ridicule the intelligent design believers. Where do you think you got your strong beliefs. I bet it wasn't from your parents, because they were raised better. Nobody wants made fun of so they join in on the mocking. It's just like grade school. When you kids grow up, see the miracle of having a child, watch life's amazing moments unfold before your eyes, and then get close to time to realize you are about to meet your maker, you will know in your heart you were wrong all along.

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

      That's why it's important to do your own research, seek reputable sources, and come to your own conclusions. That's the problem, we listen to charasmatic speakers and take their word on blind faith.

      September 13, 2011 at 9:26 am |
    • Pastafarian

      Again, as I've posted 100 times, just because *YOU* don't understand how something works doesn't mean *WE* don't. Nor does it mean that the only explanation is some god. Science doesn't require indoctrination or brainwashing. It doesn't care what you feel or what you believe. It just goes by the facts, regardless. Religion does its best to either ignore the facts and evidence, misstate it, or "adjust" their dogma to try to fit the data as it overwhelms their belief system. It's just silly and shocking that people still believe this stuff.

      September 13, 2011 at 10:12 am |
  61. observing

    People dismiss all the small changes necessary to evolve from one kind of creature to another which would in fact yield death. At the speed of change that we see in species today, if evolution on a full scale were true we would see astronomically more species. All origins are "scientific assumptions" or "beliefs" whether God or goo. We should all open our eyes to creation and to scientific evidence not pushed upon us by the scientific community's reputation.

    September 13, 2011 at 9:10 am |
  62. Chris

    Evolution is a readily observable phenomenon. It is a fact, not a theory. The "theory" part is about natural selection, the mechanism that is presumed to drive it. Even the "theory" part is rock solid, thanks to our modern biochemical knowledge of genetics - knowledge that didn't even exist in Darwin's time. Anyone who still scoffs at the notion that humans emerged from apes simply chooses to ignore facts, and that willful ignorance is not a function that faith was ever intended to serve. Faith, at its best, fills in the holes in our knowledge. Using faith to reject knowledge is a perversion of faith, and could not possibly please any supposed deity.

    September 13, 2011 at 9:06 am |
  63. Stephen Charchuk

    For those who want to believe that evolution negates the possibility of a god;

    "I see no good reasons why the views given in this volume should shock the religious sensibilities of anyone." - Charles Darwin, The Origin Of Species, 1869.

    Darwin didn't coin the phrase "Survival of the Fittest" either. It was an economist of the time who did. When Darwin heard the phrase he said that "Survival of the Fittest wasn't survival of the strongest nor of the most intelligent, but survival of the most responsive to change."

    Also, with enough changes an organism can became a new species, not a different species. i.e. Cats can't evolve into dogs. They may evolve into a dog-like creature, though given the right conditions.

    The sad fact is that no matter how many times one counters and refutes every argument a creationists may use they always come back with the same stupid arguments as if you didn't say anything at all. They choose to be thick.

    The main difference between a scientific theory and a religious belief is that when new evidence comes along that contradicts the old theory it is changed to to fit the new evidence while when the same thing happens to a religious belief the new evidence is either changed to fit the belief or completely ignored and the belief is kept.

    September 13, 2011 at 9:03 am |
    • Read-Darwin

      Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

      September 13, 2011 at 9:15 am |
      • Pastafarian

        and??? So what? The eye is an amazing structure. But nobody on the Darwinian camp would ever suggest that it just came into being. It's much more likely that it evolved from early photoreceptor cells, and gradually developed into the eyes of modern day organisms. none of that does anything to weaken the argument for evolution.

        September 13, 2011 at 10:16 am |
      • Stephen Charchuk

        That is an example of quote mining.

        I'm going to save both of us a lot of time and effort. You're retarded.

        September 13, 2011 at 10:21 am |
      • Read-Darwin

        Or it is called sharing information. Not everyone has all the answers like you do.

        September 13, 2011 at 10:39 am |
      • Read-Darwin

        Ok so here is the whole quote: [Funny he says reason tells him – well that is surely not subjective! – He says if can be shown to exist – it hasn't.]
        To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
        Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.

        September 13, 2011 at 10:51 am |
      • Stephen Charchuk

        Then he goes on for 4 pages explaining how he thinks it happened.

        You are using a dishonest tactic from a dishonest man. You are only proving just how retarded it truly are.

        September 13, 2011 at 11:02 am |
      • Stephen Charchuk

        Your only recourse is to use fallacies as arguments. That is an automatic fail on your part, READ-DARWIN. I feel sorry for you.

        September 13, 2011 at 11:05 am |
  64. Astrikabe

    History, biology, and the eschatological examination of religious texts consistently provide evidence FAVORING evolution. Creationism provides NO evidence. Creationism=ignorance, often of the willful variety, and perpetuated by believers in fairy tales. I've studied numerous religious texts as well as historical and scientific. How many PEER-reviewed historical and scientific texts have creationists read? It must be zero, since even a cursory reading easily and clearly makes the case for evolution.

    September 13, 2011 at 8:53 am |
    • Read-Darwin

      What evidence in religious text proves evolution?

      September 13, 2011 at 9:05 am |
  65. Read-Darwin

    Darwin anticipated that by now we would have found ample amounts of fossil evidence to support his theory – that has not happened. If creatures were evolving over millions of years then how come we can not find any of the fossil remains of these 'intermediate' creatures? I encourage everyone to do a little research on Darwin and his motivations for his theory and remember it is still just a theory.

    September 13, 2011 at 8:52 am |
    • Pastafarian

      Clearly you don't understand the use of the word "theory" by the scientific community. You should really google it before making such ill-informed statements.

      September 13, 2011 at 10:18 am |
      • Read-Darwin

        Ok. Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law based on the definition:
        'A scientific law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation.' We have not observed evolution.
        It is a scientific theory based on this definition:
        'A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.' His empirical data observation was limited and then broadly applied and then wildly exaggerated.

        September 13, 2011 at 10:46 am |
      • Stephen Charchuk


        September 13, 2011 at 11:22 am |
  66. scientificpoetry

    Evolution is only a theory in the purest sense. It's as much of a theory as gravity. For all intents and purposes – it is a FACT! Creationism, on the other hand, is based on belief in the supernatural – i.e., faith – and faith, by definition, is believing in something without evidence. I would rather believe in something based on factual evidence than on nothing. Those that believe in someing based on no evidence whatsoever are deluding themselves.

    September 13, 2011 at 8:49 am |
  67. Alan

    @sue-helen what in the world does this mean Alone the development of a human embryo is evidence of the evolutionary process. Please explain what you mean here.

    September 13, 2011 at 8:46 am |
  68. Bob

    We all look exactly the same. Why is that? Because we are all made in God's image. How is that possible? Because we are all souls living in a body, not a body that happens to have a soul. Our bodies evolved over millions of years. Our souls have never changed and never will.

    September 13, 2011 at 8:42 am |
  69. australpithacus

    Evolution is the best fiction story I've ever read!

    September 13, 2011 at 8:40 am |
    • Stephen Charchuk

      No, the bible is.

      September 13, 2011 at 11:23 am |
  70. berucem

    Are ape babies born with an umbilical cord? and if so who ties and cuts the cord? what collage do apes go to, to get their medical degree?

    September 13, 2011 at 8:29 am |
    • pirate

      Your intelligence level shines here! Collage? You mean a pretty piece of artwork comprised of many cutouts, for example? LOL.. They usually chew them off after birth. What does this prove anyways? They have umbilical cords too, so what?

      September 13, 2011 at 8:34 am |
  71. richard

    Evolution Is real and ongoing. It’s extremely funny when the Religious whack-job now have to change ideology from “GOD said so” to Intelligent design”, because they ran out of options of “Simon-say’s”. Scientific evidence fairs far better than “Some deity sayings in a book written over 20 thousand years ago”. Yes you are right we DID not evolve from Apes, but we are they are very close relatives. Of all the Great Apes, the Chimpanzees is our closest relative with 94% non-coding DNA. Leave Religion were it belong…In the realm of Fantasy and Mythos’s

    Stephen F Roberts: “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.”

    Atheism is not a religion nor is it a Religious belief.

    September 13, 2011 at 8:24 am |
    • Read-Darwin

      Scientist say that, "the human and chimpanzee genetic codes are essentially 99 percent identical, a testament to how fundamentally similar the two species remain. At the same time, it is powerful evidence that seemingly modest changes in molecular code can lead to very different stations in the web of life." [Source: So just because a designer uses a design multiple times does not mean there was no designer at all. If a creator made an eye and used it in all the creatures because it was a good design then that makes sense to me rather then saying if was randomly created by chance over millions of years.

      September 13, 2011 at 9:02 am |
      • Stephen Charchuk

        who designed the designer?

        September 13, 2011 at 11:25 am |
  72. Massive Marbles

    As Carl Sagan stated, "We are star stuff". What we call GOD is a omnipotent force which even now transforms the universe. The force has a consciousness on all dimensions. Our fragile biosphere here on Earth created the conditions in which we developed. Just as life has developed on other worlds under their biospheres. But inside of us their is a element which never dies which is how we were made in the image of the creator. It seeks out the light of omnipotence when frail hosts die.

    September 13, 2011 at 8:19 am |
  73. Willow

    There is more than enough evidence of evolution out there. To believe it's not true is to stick your head in the sand, plug your fingers in your ears, and sing "la la la la la la la."

    Now, evolution does *not* necessarily disprove the general concept of a deity. It just proves that a lot of the old stories in specific religions are untrue. The general concept of a deity cannot be proven or disproven, but a specific religion can, and no religion has yet to be proven true beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is a deity, he, she, it, or whatever is completely unlike anything that's been written about so far on this planet.

    September 13, 2011 at 8:08 am |
    • australpithacus

      There is more than enough eveidence out there to prove there is a creator as well. Open your eyes and take a look around. Works both ways there sweetie.

      September 13, 2011 at 8:47 am |
      • Pastafarian

        That statement screams of an ignorance that is mind-boggling. What evidence is there for your fact-dismissing beliefs? Because you think a flower is beautiful, it must be a miracle created by god? We are doomed.

        September 13, 2011 at 10:22 am |
  74. peick

    CNN, how has evolution been "tested," exactly? You can't reproduce it in a laboratory, although I guess there are some tests on fruit flies and bacteria. But that is really not the same thing, I don't think. Most of evolution is story on top of story, not testable at all. Please define what a "scientific" test is, and then demonstrate that evolution has been scientifically verified. Please note: consensus and stamping one's foot is not proof. If evolution is so clearly proven, then the facts ought to speak for themselves. Please note: plausibility is not proof. Show us something repeatable that can be tested to "prove" this theory.

    September 13, 2011 at 8:03 am |
  75. Danielsan

    I believe in evolution. I'm not a biologist, so I can't speak on behalf of genetics and mutations, nor do I care to hear the ramblings of creationists who are also ignorant on the subject of biology. However, when I see the strata in relation to the fossil record, evolution makes sense to me. The deeper we go, the longer ago it was. The longer ago it was, the more primitive the life forms. If the Bible was compiled today instead of 500-ish years ago, I'd think that based off of current scientific knowledge, the book of Genesis would not have been included.

    September 13, 2011 at 8:03 am |
  76. doug

    If we truly evolved from a common ancestor, frequently referred to in several replies as apes or chimpanzees, then why are there still apes and chimpanzees? Why did they not evolve as did there ancestors?

    September 13, 2011 at 8:03 am |
    • Anon

      This is akin to asking "if you have a cousin why are you still here?" When you connect the dots let us know.

      September 16, 2011 at 3:06 pm |
  77. Puzzled

    Evolution in undeniable and continues to occur as you read this. Those who choose to believe in unintelligent design will never believe in evolution because they have not evolved sufficiently to understand science.

    September 13, 2011 at 8:01 am |
    • australpithacus

      Intelligent design is undeniable and continues to occur as you read this. Those who choose to believe in evolution will never believe in intelligent design because they have not evolved sufficiently to understand omnipotence.

      September 13, 2011 at 8:51 am |
      • Stephen Charchuk

        Dr. Behe (Primary supporter for ID) was found to have falsified evidence in regards to ID in a court of law under an openly Christian judge. In other words to had to admit, under oath, that he lied and made the whole thing up.

        September 13, 2011 at 1:10 pm |
  78. pirate

    A "god" who expects his followers to believe in him on faith alone, and giving us thousands of conflicting reports on his existence and which one he really is, sorry, but he's found a very sloppy way to run a universe. Especially – what a dirty trick – giving people 2000+ years ago miracles of turning 5 fish into enough to feed thousands, in zombie dudes coming back from the grave, parting seas, etc.. Give all the reason in the world to people who can't scientifically analyze the supposed miracles.. Now, when we have science, none of these style of miracles ever occur in front of thousands of witnesses.. Really sloppy! And unjust! Not to mention – ok here I will give credit to the source, yeah its biased but its 100% logical.. This supposed god should be 100% just, right? NOBODY should have to spend an eternity in hell, you CAN'T justify it! -– from evil bible daht kahm: Infinite Punishment for Finite Sins

    God is perfectly just, and yet he sentences the imperfect humans he created to infinite suffering in hell for finite sins. Clearly, a limited offense does not warrant unlimited punishment. God's sentencing of the imperfect humans to an eternity in hell for a mere mortal lifetime of sin is infinitely more unjust than this punishment. The absurd injustice of this infinite punishment is even greater when we consider that the ultimate source of human imperfection is the God who created them. A perfectly just God who sentences his imperfect creation to infinite punishment for finite sins is impossible.

    September 13, 2011 at 7:55 am |
    • australapithacus

      It is possible to believe in a God without believing in hell. Just saying you might want to rethink.

      September 13, 2011 at 8:57 am |
  79. farie710

    If anyone denying evolution has had even a single decent anatomy course you'd notice the similarities in the skull of a 'monkey' and your own skull. Obviously, since there are such similarities, somewhere down the line there was an ancestor that we have in common...
    Evolution is a fact in my eyes, and I don't understand how people can deny science but believe in god... It's not difficult to have faith and trust in the scientific method. I sure don't believe in god, but I don't believe in anything that can not be found statistically significant or 'proven.'

    September 13, 2011 at 7:49 am |
  80. LetsGetEmperical

    Some of these religious fanatics would be funny if they weren't ruining the future of humanity. It seems like different religions are just large groups of people agreeing to be insane in the same way.

    September 13, 2011 at 7:38 am |
    • Nix68

      Have you ever seen the movie "Idiocracy"? Stupidity breeds more stupidity. The same with the religious.

      September 13, 2011 at 12:16 pm |
  81. Barking Alien

    Yes we evolved from a common ancester. The evidence for the theory of evolution keeps growing stronger. The creationist are the ones not evolving. THey still are dragging their knuckles and don't walk upright. I can tell the way they type they don't have opposable thumbs.

    September 13, 2011 at 7:16 am |
    • australapithacus

      What a sad miserable upbringing you must have had to have so much anger. I feel really bad for you.

      September 13, 2011 at 8:59 am |
  82. beelzebubba

    When you think about it, science-deriding fundamentalists have a point. If the god they imagine really exists, then god favors inbred, uneducated, blindly obedient robots... which obviates any need for evolving into something useful to future generations. My prosperity ministry: "Gaaaaawd Wants You To Be Rich" axxepts love gifts in multiples of 100.

    September 13, 2011 at 6:54 am |
    • SCAtheist

      I would just like to add "lazy" to your list.

      September 13, 2011 at 7:00 am |
  83. SCAtheist

    Intellectual dishonesty is the main characteristic of religion.

    September 13, 2011 at 6:39 am |
    • beelzebubba

      And isn't there a commandment about not lying? Pure cosmic irony that fundamentalists prove with their own dogma that they are invalid.

      September 13, 2011 at 6:56 am |
  84. Robert Sud

    The problem with the stance religious people take saying there is no such thing as evolution and that we are the product of "intelligent" design is religion is a belief and a belief is subjective in nature, it is something that can not be proven or disproven. Evolution is fact and has been proven. The question I would like to ask those people who believe in religion over evolution is, if you believe the world was created and began with Adam and Eve, then wouldn't you have to believe in evolution, how else can you explain all the other races?

    September 13, 2011 at 6:38 am |
    • australapithacus

      So sad that people actually think evolution has been proven. Better get back to school and do some more reading and find where exactly or who exactly has proven it.

      September 13, 2011 at 9:02 am |
  85. TampaMel

    Let me see. One side shows me physical evidence of evolution and the other side shows me a book as their proof of evolution not being correct. The physical evidence must be false and the words on pieces of paper must be true because someone told me God wrote those words. I just have one question, how come no one has come up with evidence as to who wrote the words in that book?

    September 13, 2011 at 6:38 am |
  86. cody

    religion is going to be the cause of our extinction....its not going to be the plague, or some big rock flying in from outer space...its going to be someone with just enough balls and the right amount of religion to destroy the world.

    September 13, 2011 at 6:27 am |
    • Robert Sud

      The problem with the stance religious people take saying there is no such thing as evolution and that we are the product of "intelligent" design is religion is a belief and a belief is subjective in nature, it is something that can not be proven or disproven. Evolution is fact and has been proven. The question I would like to ask those people who believe in religion over evolution is, "if you believe the world was created and began with Adam and Eve, then wouldn't you have to believe in evolution, how else can you explain all the other races of humans on this planet?"

      September 13, 2011 at 6:37 am |
  87. douglasjames

    We have not come to far! All we do is build on what someone else has designed. I am a "religious person" and I find that it is difficult to have a conversation with a rational evolutionist. We just see it from different points of view, that is all. I have no problem with science, none what so ever, but I also have a belief that there has always been a superior, master architect of whom created the universe and for an evolutionist, they believe what scientist have speculated. The proof is in what and whom one believes. I believe that naturalism has an evolutionary process. That is not a problem for me to understand and yet I hold to the Creation for it is order, and quite often science is random.

    September 13, 2011 at 6:22 am |
  88. Lolwut

    Glad all of you people who believe in a creator, have proof other than a book written by OH MY GOSH: MAN. Yah, lots of proof there. If you're asking for proof for evolution, I want proof of everything that happened in the bible. Good luck with proving everything in there actually happened.

    September 13, 2011 at 6:20 am |
    • douglasjames

      I would love to meet with you. I am living in Germany and it would be great to discuss with you the Biblical and Evolutionary concept that you prescribe that cannot be proven. Well, I will say that the Bible is not a book of Science it is a book that leads one on a spiritual journey. But we can meet and rationalize together. If you live in the states I will be there later this month and we can meet. I am open minded,are you?

      September 13, 2011 at 6:26 am |
  89. Allison

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

    September 13, 2011 at 6:17 am |
  90. Kaiviertel

    I would like to know how many of you that reject the theory of evolution use modern medicine? Evolutionary theory is no different than the slow search to learn about disease, sickness and treatment. If you reject HUNDREDS of years of scientific data and hold on to your 2000 year old book as your one source of information, then it seems to me fair that you should reject the "ridiculous science" of modern medicine.

    September 13, 2011 at 5:27 am |
    • fimeilleur

      Personally, I'd like to see them try and cure leprosy the way God instructed them to... too bad it'd be cruel to the birds.

      September 13, 2011 at 5:43 am |
  91. cubiche

    Natural Creation?-Faith fool ____NOT FACT

    September 13, 2011 at 5:25 am |
  92. Angel

    I don't believe we came from Apes or some big bang accident story. Just like Large Skyscraper Buildings just don't appear out of thin air, meaning somebody had to design and construct them, I think we were designed and constructed by a higher power. I also think we are here to serve a purpose. I don't know all the answers, but there is evidence of our existence here by reviewing books from 1000's of years ago like the Bible. Folks need to do some research on discover their reason for being here. I don't think life is only about going to school, get a career, get married and have a family, house and car, see your kids grow up, then grow old and then your done and die. There's got to be more to this life then that.

    September 13, 2011 at 5:03 am |
    • fimeilleur

      You don't seem to have ANY of the answers, let alone all of them...

      September 13, 2011 at 5:41 am |
  93. Bill in Anza

    Evolution is how it happened. It was guided by God (and there is only one God, whatever name you call him/her by). Creation in six days was a story told to shepards who wouldn't have understood the concept of multiple millions of years. Creationism and evolution are two sides of the same coin.

    September 13, 2011 at 4:36 am |
    • fimeilleur

      So, the Hindu's are wrong? Vishnu, Ram, Kali, Krishna, Durga and Kurma don't exist? Boy, the third largest religion in the world is gonna be pissed when they find out... O_0

      September 13, 2011 at 5:53 am |
  94. Southwest Jesse

    The Alien's are the missing link...

    September 13, 2011 at 4:32 am |
  95. mark

    Believing in God satisfies the human mind as it no longer has to try so hard to comprehend the very difficult concepts of infinity, billions of years, billions of light years, your own brain death, mass extinctions, etc.

    For a nice unbiased summary about everything you might want to read the book "A Short History Of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson. When all of you have read that book, the Bible, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, an authoritative book on Buddhism – then you can come back to this forum and have rational conversations.

    September 13, 2011 at 4:09 am |
    • Kaiviertel

      You are right, that is a fine book! (bill bryson of course, not the other ones)

      September 13, 2011 at 5:29 am |
  96. bwydeman

    Recently I talked to a man with a fantastic amount of faith. Not one shade of doubt crept into his animated description of man's origin and destiny. He was an evolutionist I met on an airplane. With incredible confidence he bridged the eons of prehistoric time to explain the existence of modern plant and animal life. His detailed description of human ascent from a tiny, one-celled monad was so vivid and convincing that one could almost believe he had seen the microscopic amoeba turn into a man.
    What is this evolution doctrine that inspires so much faith in its disciples? How has it turned great scientists into dogmatic opponents of any other viewpoint? Many evolutionary scientists have united their professional influence to forbid any classroom instruction contrary to their own views. Does the theory of evolution merit this kind of fanatical support, which would silence all opposing ideas? When religious people take such a position, they are called bigots, but scientists seem to escape that charge. In February of 1977, nearly 200 members of the nation's academic community sent letters to school boards across the United States, urging that no alternate ideas on origins be permitted in classrooms.
    This indicates that the evolutionists are feeling the threat of a rising revolt against the stereotyped, contradictory versions of their theory. Many students are looking for honest answers to their questions about the origin and purpose of life. For the first time, the stale traditions of evolution have to go on the defensive. But let's take a look at what they have to defend. Then you will understand why these evolutionary scientists are people of such extraordinary faith, and why they are so fearful of facing competition at the school level.

    1. Spontaneous Generation

    How does the evolutionist explain the existence of that first one-celled animal from which all life forms supposedly evolved? For many years the medieval idea of spontaneous generation was the accepted explanation. According to Webster, spontaneous generation is "the generation of living from nonliving matter … [it is taken] from the belief, now abandoned, that organisms found in putrid organic matter arose spontaneously from it."
    Simply stated, this means that under the proper conditions of temperature, time, place, etc., decaying matter simply turns into organic life. This simplistic idea dominated scientific thinking until 1846, when Louis Pasteur completely shattered the theory by his experiments. He exposed the whole concept as utter foolishness. Under controlled laboratory conditions, in a semi-vacuum, no organic life ever emerged from decaying, nonliving matter. Reluctantly it was abandoned as a valid scientific issue. Today no reputable scientist tries to defend it on a demonstrable basis. That is why Webster says it is "now abandoned." It never has been and never can be demonstrated in the test tube. No present process is observed that could support the idea of spontaneous generation. Obviously, if spontaneous generation actually did take place in the distant past to produce the first spark of life, it must be assumed that the laws that govern life had to be completely different from what they are now. But wait a minute! This won't work either, because the whole evolutionary theory rests upon the assumption that conditions on the earth have remained uniform throughout the ages.
    Do you begin to see the dilemma of the evolutionists in explaining that first amoeba, or monad, or whatever formed the first cell of life? If it sprang up spontaneously from no previous life, it contradicts a basic law of nature that forms the foundation of the entire theory. Yet, without believing in spontane¬ous generation, the evolutionist would have to acknowledge something other than natural forces at work—in other words, God. How do they get around this dilemma?
    Dr. George Wald, Nobel Prize winner of Harvard University, states it as cryptically and honestly as an evolutionist can:
    "One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation." Scientific American, August 1954.

    That statement by Dr. Wald demonstrates a much greater faith than a religious creationist can muster. Notice that the great evolutionary scientist says it could not have happened. It was impossible. Yet he believes it did happen. What can we say to that kind of faith? At least the creationist believes that God was able to speak life into existence. His is not a blind faith in something that he concedes to be impossible.
    So here we are, face to face with the first contradiction of evolution with a basic law of science. In order to sustain his humanistic explanation of the origin of life, he must accept the exploded, unscientific theory of spontaneous generation. And the big question is this: Why is he so violently opposed to the spontaneous generation spoken of in the Bible? A miracle of creation is required in either case. Either God did it by divine fiat, or blind, unintelligent nature produced Wald's impossible act. Let any reasonable mind contemplate the alternatives for a moment. Doesn't it take more faith to believe that chance could produce life than it does to believe infinite intelligence could produce it?
    Why did Dr. Wald say that it was impossible for life to result from spontaneous generation? That was not an easy concession for a confirmed evolutionist to make. His exhaustive search for a scientific explanation ended in failure, as it has for all other evolutionary scientists, and he had the courage to admit it. But he also had an incredible faith to believe in it even though it was a scientific impossibility. A Christian who confessed to such a faith would be labeled as naive and gullible. What a difference the cloak of higher education makes upon our easily impressed minds! How much simpler and sweeter the faith that accepts the inspired account: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1).

    2. Chance Life—A Ridiculous Improbability

    What would be involved in the accidental development of a single living cell? The fact is that the most elementary form of life is more complicated than any man-made thing on earth. The entire complex of New York City is less complicated than the makeup of the simplest microscopic cell. It is more than ridiculous to talk about its chance production. Scientists themselves assure us that the structure of a single cell is unbelievably intricate. The chance for a proper combination of molecules into amino acids, and then into proteins with the properties of life is entirely unrealistic. American Scientist magazine made this admission in January of 1955:
    "From the probability standpoint, the ordering of the present environment into a single amino acid molecule would be utterly improbable in all the time and space available for the origin of terrestrial life. "
    A Swiss mathematician, Charles Eugene Guye, actually computes the odds against such an occurrence at only one chance in 10^160. That means 10 multiplied by itself 160 times, a number too large even to articulate. Another scientist expressed it this way:
    "The amount of matter to be shaken together to produce a single molecule of
    protein would be millions of times greater than that in the whole universe. For it to occur on earth alone would require many, almost endless, billions of years" (The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe, p. 23).
    How can we explain the naive insistence of evolutionists to believe something so extremely out of character for their scientific background? And how can we harmonize the normally broad-minded tolerance of the educated, with the narrow bigotry exhibited by many evolutionary scientists in trying to suppress opposing points of view? The obvious explanation would seem to be rooted in the desperation of such evolutionists to retain their reputation as the sole dispensers of dogmatic truth. To acknowledge a superior wisdom has been too long cultivated by the evolutionist community. They have repeated their assumptions for so long in support of their theories that they have started accepting them as facts. No one objects to their assuming whatever they want to assume, but to assume happenings that go contrary to all scientific evidence and still call it science is being dishonest.

    3. Mutations—How Big the Changes?

    Now let's look at a second basic evolutionary teaching which is contrary to scientific law. One of the most necessary parts of evolution, which is supposed to provide the power for changing the amoeba into a man, is mutation. This refers to abnormal changes in the organism that are assumed to be caused by chemical changes in the genes themselves. The genes are the hereditary factors within the chromosomes of each species. Every species has its own particular number of chromosomes that contain the genes. Within every human being are 46 chromosomes containing an estimated 100,000 genes, each one of which is able to affect in some way the size, color, texture, or quality of the individual. The assumption is that these genes, which provide the inherited characteristics we get from our ancestors, occasionally become affected by unusual pairing, chemical damage, or other influences, causing them to produce an unusual change in one of the offspring. This is referred to as a mutation. Through gradual changes wrought in the various species through mutation, it is assumed by the evolutionists that the amoeba turned into an invertebrate, which became an amphibian, then a reptile, a quadruped, an ape form, and finally a man. In other words, the species are not fixed in the eyes of the evolutionists. Families are forever drifting over into another higher form as time progresses. This means that all the fossil records of animal history should reveal an utter absence of precise family boundaries. Everything should be in the process of changing into something else—with literally hundreds of millions of half-developed fish trying to become amphibious, and reptiles halfway transformed into birds, and mammals looking like half-apes or half-men.
    Now everybody knows that instead of finding those billions of confused family fossils, the scientists have found exactly the opposite. Not one single drifting, changing life form has been studied. Everything stays within the well-defined limits of its own basic kind and absolutely refuses to cooperate with the demands of modern evolutionists. Most people would give up and change their theory when faced with such a crushing, deflating blow, but not the evolutionist! He still searches for that illusive missing link which could at least prove that he hasn't been 100 percent wrong. But let's look at the vehicle that the evolutionists have depended upon to provide the possibility of the drastic changes required by their theory. Sir Julian Huxley, a principal spokesman for evolution, said this:
    "Mutation provides the raw material of evolution." Again he said, "Mutation is the ultimate sources of all … heritable variation" (Evolution in Action, p. 38).
    Professor Ernst Mayr, another leader of the evolutionists, made this statement:

    "Yet it must not be forgotten that mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation found in natural populations and the only raw material available for natural selection to work on" (Animal Species and Evolution, p. 170).
    Please keep this clearly in mind: Evolutionists say that mutation is absolutely essential to provide the inexorable upgrading of species that changed the simpler forms into more complex forms. BUT—the scientific fact is that mutation could NEVER accomplish what evolution demands of it, for several reasons. As all scientists agree, mutations are very rare. Huxley guesses that only about one in a hundred thousand is a mutant. Secondly, when they do occur, they are almost certain to be harmful or deadly to the organism. In other words, the vast majority of such mutations lead toward extinction instead of evolution; they make the organism worse instead of better. Huxley admits: "The great majority of mutant genes are harmful in their effect on the organism" (Ibid. p. 39).
    Other scientists, including Darwin himself, conceded that most mutants are recessive and degenerative; therefore, they would actually be eliminated by natural selection rather than effect any significant improvement in the organism. Professor G. G. Simpson, one of the elite spokesmen for evolution, writes about multiple, simultaneous mutations and reports that the mathematical likelihood of getting good evolutionary results would occur only once in 274 billion years! And that would be assuming 100 million individuals reproducing a new generation every day! He concludes by saying:
    "Obviously … such a process has played no part whatever in evolution" (The Major Features of Evolution, p. 96).
    Does this sound sort of confusing to you? They say mutation is necessary to make the changes required by their theory, yet they have to confess that it is scientifically impossible for multiple mutations to make the changes. This is too typical of the puzzling twists and turns made by our evolutionist friends in their efforts to uphold an exploded theory. So the second point of contradiction with true science has been established.
    Mutations, of course, do effect minor changes within the basic kinds, but those changes are limited, never producing a new family. They can explain many of the varieties of both plant and animals but can never explain the creation of basic kinds as required by evolution.

    4. Fossils Support Creationism

    Since we have discovered that the fossil record gives no support to the idea of species gradually changing into other species, let us see if fossil evidence is in harmony with the Bible. Ten times in the book of Genesis we read God's decree concerning the reproduction of His creatures—"after its kind." The word "kind" refers to species, or families. Each created family was to produce only its own kind. This forever precludes the drifting, changing process required by organic evolution where one species turns into another.
    Take note that God did not say there could be no changes within the family. He did not create all the varieties of dogs, cats, horses, etc., in the very beginning. There was only a male and female of each species, and many changes have since occurred to produce a wide assortment of varieties within the family. But please keep it straight in your mind that cats have always remained cats, dogs are still dogs, and men are still men. Mutation has only been responsible for producing a new variety of the same species, but never originating another new kind. Selective breeding has also brought tremendous improvements such as hornless cattle, white turkeys, and seedless oranges, but all the organisms continue to reproduce exactly as God decreed at Creation—after its kind.
    The "common ancestor" that evolution demands has never existed. There is not a "missing link." Man and monkeys are supposed to stem from the same animal ancestry! Even chimpanzees and many monkey groups vary tremendously. Some are smart, others dumb. Some have short tails and some long. Some have no tails at all. Their teeth vary in number. A few have thumbs and others do not. Their genes are different. Their blood is different. Their chromosomes don't jibe. Interestingly enough, apes only breed with apes, chimpanzees with chimpanzees, and monkeys with monkeys.
    But when we start comparing humans with monkeys, we get even more impossible differences than those among the simian types. In fact, these differences constitute another unanswerable support for the Bible rule of "after its kind." The fact that some monkeys can be trained to smoke a pipe, ride a scooter, or even hoist a test tube in a laboratory does not prove that scientists are evolved animals, or that monkeys are retarded, developing humans.
    It has already been stated that evolutionists expected the fossil record to support their theory of species changes. Their doctrine demanded vast numbers of scaly reptiles transforming their scales into feathers and their front feet into wings. Other reptiles supposedly should be changing into fur-bearing quadrupeds. Did they find those thousands of multi-changing creatures? Not one! No matter what particular strata they sifted through, all the fossils were easily recognized and classified within their own families, just as God decreed. If the evolutionary doctrine were true, the strata would be teeming with hundreds of millions of transition forms with combination features of two or more species. Not only so, but there would have to be millions upon millions of observable living links right now in the process of turning into a higher form. Darwin confessed:
    "There are two or three million species on earth. A sufficient field one might think for observation; but it must be said today that in spite of all the evidence of trained observers, not one change of the species to another is on record" (Life and Letters, vol. 3, p. 25).
    How interesting! Then why insist that it had to be that way? This is one of the marvels of those who cling to a traditional theory. Even the most ancient fossil forms in the lowest fossil beds have stubbornly retained the same features of their modern counterparts, and it is amusing to listen to the exclamations of surprise by the evolutionists. The creationist is not surprised at all. His Bible told him it would be that way, and he hasn't been forced to puzzle over contradictory evidence.

    5. The Mystery of the Empty Strata

    Another frustration for the poor evolutionist is the strange case of the empty strata. As one digs deep into the earth, one layer or stratum after another is revealed. Often we can see these layers clearly exposed in the side of a mountain or roadbed cut. Geologists have given names to the succession of strata that pile one on top of another. Descending into Grand Canyon for example, one moves downward past the Mississippi, Devonian, Cambrian, etc., as the scientists have tagged them.
    Now here is the perplexity for the evolutionists: The Cambrian is the last stratum of the descending levels that has any fossils in it. All the lower strata below the Cambrian have absolutely no fossil record of life other than some single-celled types such as bacteria and algae. Why not? The Cambrian layer is full of all the major kinds of animals found today except the vertebrates. In other words, there is nothing primitive about the structure of these most ancient fossils known to man. Essentially, they compare with the complexity of current living creatures. But the big question is: Where are their ancestors? Where are all the evolving creatures that should have led up to these highly developed fossils? According to the theory of evolution, the Precambrian strata should be filled with more primitive forms of these Cambrian fossils in the process of evolving upward.
    Darwin confessed in his book, Origin of the Species:
    "To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer … the case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained" (p. 309).
    How amazing! Darwin admitted having no way to defend his theory, but he still would not adjust his theory to meet the unanswerable arguments against it.
    Many other evolutionary scientists have expressed similar disappointment and frustration. Dr. Daniel Axeliod of the University of California calls it:
    "One of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution" (Science, July 4, 1958).
    Dr. Austin Clark of the U.S. National Museum wrote concerning the Cambrian fossils:
    "Strange as it may seem … mollusks were mollusks just as unmistakably as they are now" (The New Evolution: Zoogenesis, p. 101).
    Drs. Marshall Kay and Edwin Colbert of Columbia University marveled over the problem in these words:
    "Why should such complex organic forms be in rocks about 600 million years old and be absent or unrecognized in the records of the preceding two billion years? … If there has been evolution of life, the absence of the requisite fossils in the rocks older than Cambrian is puzzling" (Stratigraphy and Life History, p. 102).
    George Gaylord Simpson, the "Crown Prince of Evolution", summarized it:
    "The sudden appearance of life is not only the most puzzling feature of the whole fossil record but also its greatest apparent inadequacy" (The Evolution of Life, p.144).
    In the face of these forced admissions of failure to find supporting scientific evidence, how can these men of science continue to press so dogmatically for their shaky views? No wonder they fight to keep students from hearing the opposing arguments. Their positions would crumble under the impartial investigation of honest research.
    The absence of Precambrian fossils points to one great fact, unacceptable to the evolutionists—a sudden creative act of God that brought all the major creatures into existence at the same time. Their claims that creationism is unscientific are made only to camouflage their own lack of true evidence. The preponderance of physical scientific data is on the side of creation, not evolution.

    6. Uniformity or the Flood?

    The subject of strata beds leads into the interesting question of how these layers were formed, and why the evolutionists have guesstimated their age in the billions of years. The dating of those layers has been done on the basis of the theory of uniformity. This theory assumes that all the natural processes at work in the past have operated exactly as they do today. In other words, the creation of those strata can only be explained on the basis of what we see happening in the world now. Scientists must calculate how long it takes for sedimentation to build a foot-deep stratum. Then that age is assigned to any 12-inch layer, no matter how deeply located within the earth.
    Is that a valid assumption to make? Have all the natural forces of the past been just what we can demonstrate and understand today? How naive and conceited to compel ages past to conform to our limited observation and experience! We can assume what we please, but it proves absolutely nothing except our own gullibility. The Bible explains very graphically about a Flood that ravaged the face of this earth, covering the highest mountains and completely destroying all plant and animal life outside the ark. The destructive action of the Deluge is expressed by these words in the Bible:
    "The same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the
    windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights" (Genesis 7:11, 12).
    The existence of those strata can be scientifically accounted for in perfect harmony with the Bible record. The universal Flood of Genesis provides a much more reasonable explanation of the strata than evolution's speculations. As the waters receded from the earth, powerful tides and currents carved out the great canyons in a short time. Layers of debris, according to the specific weight, were laid down, compressing plant and animal life into a compact seam or stratum. Only thus can we explain the vast oil reserves and coal beds around the world. These are the result of vegetation and animal bodies being buried under extreme heat and pressure. No such process of fossilization is taking place today. No oil or coal is forming by present natural forces at work. Uniformity fails here.
    The fact is, there had to be a gigantic cataclysmic overturn of nature, killing and burying millions of tons of plant and animal life. The position of some fossils standing upright through one or more strata indicates that the process was not slow or age long. The material had to be deposited quickly around the body of the animal, or it could not have remained in its erect position. The flood buried millions of fish, many of them contorted as though suddenly overtaken by a phenomenal force. Marine fossils have been recovered from the highest mountain ranges, and a checklist on other scientific evidences points to a universal deluge over the entire planet.

    7. Survival of the Fittest

    "Natural selection" is a coined phrase of the evolutionist to describe the survival of the fittest. Simply stated, it is the natural process that enables the strongest of each generation to survive and the weaker, more poorly adjusted ones to die out. The assumption of evolution is that since only the strongest survive to father the next generation, the species will gradually improve, even advancing into other more highly developed states on the evolutionary scale.
    Darwin believed that natural selection was the most important factor in the development of his theory. Many of the top teachers of evolution today are hopelessly at odds on the question of how vital it is. Sir Julian Huxley believes in it, as this statement indicates:
    "So far as we know … natural selection … is the only effective agency of evolution" (Evolution in Action, p. 36).
    He is disputed on this by another one of the heavyweights in the field, Dr. Ernst Mayr:
    "Natural selection is no longer regarded as an all-or-none process but rather as a purely statistical concept" (Animal Species, p. 7).
    G. G. Simpson, who is regarded as the leading interpreter of the theory today, rejects these opposite views. He said,
    "Search for the cause of evolution has been abandoned. It is now clear that evolution has no single cause" (The Geography of Evolution, p. 17).
    By the way, when you read about the great unity and agreement that exists among the scientists regarding evolution, don't believe a word of it. Each one is busily experimenting with new speculative possibilities as to how the changes took place and then abandoning them as they appear more and more ridiculous. The one basic tenet they do agree on is that there was no divine fiat creation as described in the Bible.
    But come back a moment to the matter of natural selection. What is the evidence that it can actually reproduce all the changes involved in the transition from amoeba to man? Is there scientific proof that it can even make one small change? When it comes right down to answering those questions, the spokesmen for evolution do some of the fanciest footwork in semantics you ever saw and make some of the most amazing admissions. Even though Simpson supports natural selection as a factor, he recognizes the scarcity of evidence in these words:
    "It might be argued that the theory is quite unsubstantiated and has status only as a speculation" (Major Features, pp. 118, 119).
    But listen to Huxley's circular reasoning on it. He says:
    "On the basis of our present knowledge natural selection is bound to produce genetic adaptations: and genetic
    adaptations are thus presumptive evidence for the efficiency of natural selection" (Evolution in Action, p. 48).
    Did you follow that gem of logic? His proof for natural selection is adaptation or change in the organism, but the change is produced by natural selection! In other words: A=B; therefore B=A. His “proof” proves nothing. Were the changes produced by natural selection, or did he invent natural selection to explain the changes? It is just as likely that the changes produced the natural selection theory. The ludicrous thing is that even the changes from species to species have never been verified. As we have shown already, there is not one shred of fossil evidence or living evidence that any species has changed into another. So Huxley's proof for natural selection are changes which never happened, and the changes which never happened are offered as proof for natural selection. Surely this is the most vacuous logic to be found in a science textbook.
    But let us continue with Sir Julian's explanation about the reliability of this natural selection process:
    "To sum up, natural selection converts randomness into direction and blind chance into apparent purpose. It operates with the aid of time to produce improvements in the machinery of living, and in the process generates results of a more than astronomical improbability which could have been achieved in no other way" (Evolution in Action, pp. 54, 55).
    Don't miss the force of that last sentence. The evolutionary changes wrought by natural selection are "astronomically improbable," but because our friend Huxley sees no other way for it to be done, he believes in the astronomically improbable. Poor man! He is wrong when he said the complex order of life today could have been achieved in no other way. God created the wonders of cell and gene and all the millions of processes that leave the Nobel Prize winners baffled.
    But since Sir Julian doesn't believe in a divine creation, he has to invent a miracle-working process to explain the existence of these complex creatures—obviously got here somehow. To illustrate the omnipotence of his "natural selection" god, Huxley computed the odds against such a process. The computations were done on the likelihood of every favorable evolutionary factor being able to produce a horse. Now keep in mind that this is all a chance development through the operation of nature, time, mutation, and natural selection. In his book, Evolution in Action, Huxley gave the odds this way:
    "The figure 1 with three million naughts after it: and that would take three large volumes of about 500 pages each, just to print! … No one would bet on anything so improbable happening; and yet it has happened" (p.46).
    We commented before about the faith of evolutionists to believe in the impossible. Since this figure of compound probability is effectively zero, how can a scientific mind, in the absence of any demonstrable evidence, be so dogmatic in defending his theory? Why did Huxley employ a mathematical formula to illustrate the impossibility of his theory working? Perhaps he used the figures to accent his personal testimony. Just as born-again Christians seek occasions to bear their personal testimony of faith in Christ, Huxley demolishes the scientific possibilities of his theory in order to magnify the personal faith aspect of his personal testimony for the god evolution.
    Marshall and Sandra Hall in their book The Truth—God or Evolution? share their reaction to Huxley's absurd faith in the chance production of a horse. It will provide a fitting climax of proof that evolution indeed flunked the science test.
    "And, let us remind you who find such odds ridiculous (even if you are reassured by Mr. Huxley), that this figure was calculated for the evolution of a horse! How many more volumes of zeros would be required by Mr. Huxley to produce a human being? And then you would have just one horse and one human being and, unless the mathematician wishes to add in the probability for the evolution of all the plants and animals that are necessary to support a horse and a man, you would have a sterile world where neither could have survived any stage of its supposed evolution! What have we now—the figure 1 followed by a thousand volumes of zeros? Then add another thousand volumes for the improbability of the earth
    having all the necessary properties for life built into it. And add another thousand volumes for the improbability of the sun, and the moon, and the stars. Add other thousands for the evolution of all the thoughts that man can have, all the objective and subjective reality that ebbs and flows in us like part of the pulse beat of an inscrutable cosmos!
    "Add them all in and you long ago stopped talking about rational thought, much less scientific evidence. Yet, Simpson, Huxley, Dobzhansky, Mayr, and dozens of others continue to tell us that is the way it had to be! They have retreated from all the points which ever lent any semblance of credibility to the evolutionary theory. Now they busy themselves with esoteric mathematical formulations based on population genetics, random drift, isolation, and other ploys which have a probability of accounting for life on earth of minus zero! They clutter our libraries, and press on the minds of people everywhere an animated waxen image of a theory that has been dead for over a decade.
    "Evolution has no claim whatsoever to being a science.

    "It is time all this nonsense ceased. It is time to bury the corpse. It is time to shift the books to the humorous fiction section of the libraries" (pp. 39, 40).
    These examples of evolutionary folly are only the tip of an iceberg, but they reassure us that we have no cause to be embarrassed for our creationist faith. Millions of Christians have been intimidated by the high-sounding technical language of educated evolutionists, many of whom are vitriolic in their attacks on special creation. What we do need is more information on exposing the loopholes in the evolutionary theory; its base is so riddled with unscientific inconsistencies, often concealed under the gobbledygook of scientific jargon.
    To follow our ancestry back through the sons of Adam, "who was the son of God," is so much more satisfying than to search through dismal swamps for bleeping monad forebears. The human race has dropped, even in our lifetime, several degrees deeper into moral perversion and violent disorder. Humanists cite our animal ancestry as an excuse for much of this bizarre behavior. Why blame people for action dictated by their bestial genes and chromosomes? This rationalization, like a temporary insanity plea, provides license for further irresponsible conduct. The true cause for evil and the true remedy for it are found only in the Word of God. Sin has defaced the image of God in man, and only a personal encounter with the perfect Saviour will bring a reversal of the problem of evil. Check out

    September 13, 2011 at 3:47 am |
    • fimeilleur

      Utter dribble and tripe. Wow... 20 minutes of my life that I will NEVER get back. There are numerous problems with your post: Paragraph 1: "because the whole evolutionary theory rests upon the assumption that conditions on the earth have remained uniform throughout the ages". from whose rectum did you pull this information from? Evolution happens regardless of conditions on earth... Ice ages, droughts, mild temperates, high oxygen content, low oxygen content...

      Paragraph 2: You do realize that your personal existance, that became from the specific sperm cell that conceived you is a mathamatical improbability? That sperm that fertilized your mother's egg was but 1 of 100 Billion, and the fact that it came from your father on the specific day that they had sex, considering your father's testicules produce 100 million sperm / day, out of the 50 years of viable sperm production... you shouldn't exist either... the probability that you were born is astronomical... but the probability that a child was born was inevitable... because your parents had "the sex". That's the problem when calculating probability from the wrong end of the equation.

      3. Ever look at the evolution of the whale? Thewissen et al. have a beautiful collection of whale fossils and their ancestors. The fossil record is so extensive that over the millions of years, you can see how the nasal holes in the skull move further back to the present location of the blow hole... from Sinonyx, to Pakicetus, to Ambulocetus, to Basilosaurus, to Dorudon and all the forms inbetween. From land dwelling to sea dwelling... all changes gradual and chronological. Feel free to do your own research, though.

      4. Probably the biggest load of verbal diarhea, but how does the creationist explain the phenomena of ring species? (observed in birds and reptiles) The wikipedia example talks about the Larus gulls... A can beget B (same kind) B can beget C (same kind), C can beget D (same kind) D can beget E (same kind) but E cannot breed with A (not the same kind)...

      5. Stromatolites which are biogenic soft body -structures (fossils) after algae or algae like organism are reported from rocks as old as 3500 million years. But earliest undisputed fossils are reported form rocks some 600 million years old and distinct shelly invertebrates are reported from rocks about 550 million years old which marks the initiation of Cambrian period. You would appreciate before the Cambrian Period much of the fossil records indicate evolution of soft bodied simple life forms that gradually evolved into more complex organism either with endoskeleton or exoskeleton during the post-Cambrian Periods. I would give a caution here – it is quite possible that the 'fossilisations' conditions were not conducive for preservation of life forms prior to ~ 600 million years ago hence absence of fossil records necessarily does not mean absence of distinct life forms in rocks older than 600 million years, may be we find still older fossil signatures somewhere with better resolutions and better out crops some day. (AllExperts dot com)

      6. You tricky fellow you... talking about fossils (implying animal) standing up through different stratta... but the evidence is of trees, standing up in stratta of volcanic activity... (polystrate fossils) Geology answers this question quite well.

      7. "survival of the fittest"... how about the being that is best adapted for the changing environement will inevitably have the greatest chance at success in passing off it's genes to the next generation.

      your whole "novel" of a post is a complete waste of everyone's time. The only reason to respond to it is to attach the answers that you falsely claim science has no answers for... just to show how wrong you are.

      September 13, 2011 at 5:39 am |
      • richard

        Me wonders if he is capable of breeding, one can hope not! Nice reply, well wrttien.

        September 13, 2011 at 8:30 am |
    • Calm Dog

      While I don't agree with your post, I applaud the fact that it is, at the very least, thoughtful. By that I mean, it shows more than a knee-jerk "because it is and that's all" argument. Blind faith has absolutely nothing to do with reason. The two are mutually exclusive.

      September 13, 2011 at 10:32 am |
      • Calm Dog

        Sorry. This is a reply to bwydeman.

        September 13, 2011 at 10:34 am |
    • erich2112x

      We didn't ask for a dissertation.

      September 13, 2011 at 12:29 pm |
  97. monsters

    Ancient Humans evolved and split from apes not monkeys and continued to evolve into present day Humans. Originally all animals evolved from simple single celled animals. DNA is included in all living things... always has been. The start of life may have been planted on earth... but everything since then, evolved.

    September 13, 2011 at 3:17 am |
  98. FU wait seriously...BWAHAHA!!

    September 13, 2011 at 3:00 am |
  99. Yuveth

    When I was growing, every Sunday my parents would make my brothers and sisters myself included... dress in are Church clothes, they would load us into the car and off to Church we would go. I didn't question it, this was what we were supposed to do. When I was 13, I was baptized, along with a sister.. yea my parents were a bit slow with that in coming. But I didn't question it. It was was we were supposed to do. Although, as I was growing up.. I did have questions.. things that really confused me about God. Things that my Sunday school teachers could not answer. When I grew up, and noticed how religious folks are.. very hypocritical.. not all but many.. I stopped going to church.

    I came to realize that there was a part of me that did believe in God but also a part of me that questioned and I realized that

    In University, I realized that Science, for all its good will and wonderful brilliance in trying to explain evolution.. they really could not disprove that God exists. They work on very best guess. Religion I have learned, breeds hatred and I don't need that in my life. It's not because of "God".. its because of man. People are wonderful creatures.. we have the ability to do such awe inspiring things...we can save lives.. we can build the tallest buildings.. we can fly.. go into space.. but those are not the rule.. those are the exceptions. We are greedy..jealous.. some can even kill at the blink of an eye.. instead of aspiring to do wonderful works.. most just wanna make a buck. We lie .. we cheat.. we steal .. knowing this .. the Bible was written by men.. religious men at that.. so I have a real problem .. believing men wrote it without any type of bias.

    In life..things happen in everyone's life that make you take a step back and puts your faith to the test. In the end.. it doesn't matter what we as a collective believe or think.. it's what you and I believe as individuals. That is the wonderful thing about being a human being.

    September 13, 2011 at 2:43 am |
    • fimeilleur

      It is not science's job to disprove god, it's religion's job to prove him... and they fail repeatedly... all 38,000 Christian faiths, all muslim faiths (different sects), I have yet to see an six armed woman waling around India, or an elephant headed one either.

      So, believe what you want, but when the religitards want to pass social laws based on unfounded beliefs... that's when it becomes our (atheists, agnostics, pagans, heathens, and "people of other religious beliefs" to step up and remind the polititions of the constitutional seperation of church and state.

      September 13, 2011 at 2:52 am |
    • beelzebubba

      It isn't possible to prove something does not exist. Religion is based on this fact. Religion is the only business that can get away with fraudulent claims that believers will be richly rewarded after they die.

      September 13, 2011 at 7:48 am |
  100. Ken

    If you want to believe at one time there was nothing and then it exploded and evolved into life over millions of years all on it's own, be my guest. But I will stand firmly on what the Bible says, In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

    September 13, 2011 at 2:35 am |
    • fimeilleur

      Just so long as you don't try to cure leprosy using your Bible... you may want to refer to medical science for that, and please don't try to take a slave, current laws look down on that practice... as well as taking your brother's widow... or stoning your child for disobedience... I'm not too sure about shellfish though... can you eat it on the sabbath? And those pesky linnens... don't mix and match...

      Your Buy Bull is laughable... seriously.

      September 13, 2011 at 2:41 am |
    • UncleM

      Stand firmly on what the bible says? It was made up by scientifically ignorant tribesmen. It would be laughable if religious ignoance weren't dragging down the whole country.

      September 13, 2011 at 10:52 am |
      • Stephen Charchuk

        The entire world.....

        September 13, 2011 at 11:27 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11


  • Elizabeth Landau
  • Sophia Dengo
    Senior Designer