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. more

    Usually I do not read article on blogs, however I wish to say that this write-up very forced me to try and do it! Your writing taste has been surprised me. Thanks, very nice article.

    July 23, 2012 at 3:08 pm |
  2. Prentis

    Becoming aware does not make one knowledgeable or give one a prestige box seat at this unknown table of events where passing shades of hope have mutated with no meaning ... Becoming aware speaks from witch hologram? Becoming aware only allows one enough control to sit down and shut up bound totally and helplessly by insanity as the mechanical process spindles around the illusionist's on going nightmare provoking one to believe the right to a reflection while caught in this reoccurring void of an ever fading dream state where death is even obtainable.

    December 25, 2011 at 9:34 am |
  3. Anon

    Funny, university studies have just finished the human to pig genome comparison in the recent past and found it's similarities are more complete in some ways than the ape. Most creatures in nature share geometrical simliarities on the cellular level to some degree. Why is it we used pig organs to develop insulin and not apes?
    Read that and open your mind to all possibility.
    It's funny how man thinks he finds the answers to everything before finishing all available research, a lack of humility perhaps.
    That genome comparison makes the ape 98 percentile proof, extremely questionable in many ways for proof of?

    /Albert Einstein:
    "Time is an illusion"

    December 19, 2011 at 3:38 pm |
  4. Blake Reed

    Poor news – Syria's 'mutilation mystery' deepens...

    December 19, 2011 at 1:52 pm |
  5. Leon Olander

    Like many others, this is my first moment commenting here. I indead enjoy this website and check it quite often.

    December 10, 2011 at 3:52 pm |
  6. Jayna Gianunzio

    Hi there! Would you mind if I share your blog with my facebook group? Theres a lot of people that I think would really enjoy your content. Please let me know. Cheers

    December 8, 2011 at 1:09 am |
  7. Sergio Student

    It's really a great and useful piece of information. I'm happy that you simply shared this useful information with us. Please stay us informed like this. Thanks for sharing.

    December 6, 2011 at 6:52 pm |
  8. Timothy Cannard

    Wow, I really loved your review. Never saw the movie, but you had me laughing at the indeed awful plots people sometimes come up with. Loved the mini-rant about 10.000 b.c. (which I did see and got into an argument with my bf and brother because "I should just enjoy movies, not analyze them nor their chronological accuracy"), loved the puns about the hair styling. Was not really happy that you said, I quote:

    December 5, 2011 at 11:44 pm |
  9. Willene Tomsic

    Just killing some in between class time on Digg and I found your post . Not normally what I prefer to read about, but it was definitely worth my time. Thanks.

    November 23, 2011 at 9:18 pm |
  10. Gerry Doire

    Evolution is reality, to dismiss reality is to live in a fantasy.

    October 5, 2011 at 2:59 pm |
  11. evoHOOT!!!

    When humans DO Fly OR when something goes "BANG" IN the corner or any space & something randomly or systematically appears. PERHAPS evolution will have SOME credibility...but right now, Scientist STILL have not proven any real EVOLUTION of mankind from one entity to another entity and Thusly evolution REMAINS solely a Theory. I really wish everyone would quit pretending evolution has been proven in any ASPECT. Thanks!

    October 4, 2011 at 3:45 pm |
    • Iowajoe56

      @evoHOOT!!!. I would suggest that you expand your knowledge base concerning the nature and purpose of science if you are going to comment intelligently. A scientific theory is the pinnacle of human understanding concerning the mechanisms of various systems in nature. A theory must be falsifiable to be considered scientific, which means it must be modified if new verifiable information is discovered that isn't explained or predicted by the current theory. If you want to put "just" in front of a process linked to questioning knowledge you should use terms like 'a assumption... an opinion... an inference... a belief... or just a hypothesis. Scientific theories are much more powerful assertions of the probable truth based on the best evidence available. Modern evolutionary theory is supported by thousands of lines of evidence from all disciplines of the natural sciences. Your own personal incredulity, and misuse of the term scientific theory, changes nothing about the elegant explainitory power of modern evolution theory.

      December 10, 2011 at 1:25 pm |
  12. Ryan

    I have a question... Walking in a desert by your self you come across your name written in the sand...

    how did it happen?

    A person did it? or the wind just so happen to get it right and spell your name after trillions of times....

    October 4, 2011 at 1:44 pm |
  13. Ryan

    For all we know were one kids science project...who put a eco system together for his class project....wonder when the science fair will end.... reality can go way beyond what we see...

    October 4, 2011 at 1:39 pm |
  14. Rajesh

    Q: Which religions and cultures support evolution?Ans: Indic religions, Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism.

    According to Hindu Upanishad scriptures, the Universe started out as small seed that expanded with a big bang around 18 billions years (current science estimates this to 13.7 billion and this number will hopefully be revised) ago. The Universe expands and crashes in a cycle and starts all over again as a big bang. All this is stated in the Hindu Upanishads.

    Evolution of life forms is predicted in the series of ten avatars (incarnations) of Vishnu called as "Dasavatars" that Hindus revere. The chronological order of god's incarnations to save the world are: Fish (aquatic), Turtle (Amphibian), Boar (Terrestrial wild animal), Half-lion and half-man (Narasimha wild animal), Dwarf (Vamana), Farmer but angry man (Parasurama), Ideal Man – but not wordly wise (IRama), Wordly-wise man (Krishna), Buddha and Future avatar Kalki. All these avatars portray evolution of life forms on earth from aquatic form to mordern man. This was noted by the famous scientist including JBS Haldane. Please check wikipedia links: and for more information.

    October 4, 2011 at 12:31 am |
  15. pirate

    First of all – you should have a modicum of intelligence to be able to post content on discussions like these! lol... "Why isn’t there any planimals" shows your grammatical ignorance. Following your logic of all descendants of one source having identical features down the line denies the very concept of evolution. That means no descendant branched off anywhere and we would be left with only the original source. Think things through logically before you open your ignorant mouth please.

    September 29, 2011 at 8:36 am |
    • Alan

      @Pirate, wow you have a dictionary cool "great job" the word planimals doesn't exist. All you have posted here is peoples misspellings and my "made up" word. And by trying to just throw insults as you really enjoy doing, sort of just proves you are not as smart as you "think" you are. You did make a good point use logic, all you are doing is spouting off about things you heard in class and accept them as 100% truth and fact. Logically just think of the complexity of it all, the many differences between all the animals and plants. I'm not bashing science at all actually I really enjoy science and marval at all the things we have learned. But, I will question things not just say ok Mr PhD over there said such and such, so it is true. Questioning things is really one of the main ideas behind science don't ya think....Ohh btw I know there are some misspelled words but I'm ok with it its a blog not a scientific journal

      September 29, 2011 at 8:55 am |
  16. pirate

    I wish only people that can use correct grammar and no how to spel would poast hear! "ape's" is the possessive form, did you mean "apes"? cercumstances? remnent? coorasponding? monipulated?

    I, for one, will listen to the physicists of the world, the scientists, doctors, etc. They have answered more questions about our universe in just the past several years, healed more people, in the past 10 days, than all the priests, witch doctors, shamans, rabbis, imams, holy men of the world have in the past 10,000 years!

    September 19, 2011 at 6:24 am |
  17. Mat

    You said eveolution is the fact, but Dawin did not say that... Hummm, your ancestors much come from something less than a worm at the beginning.

    September 16, 2011 at 7:56 pm |
  18. jess

    Evolution is fact. Religions are all instruments of mankind created to control masses and offer a respite from the fear of death.

    September 16, 2011 at 4:55 pm |
  19. CalgarySandy

    I will never as long as I live stop forget what these monsters did to me and continue to do to their children. I will never turn away from science, researched and compared to other views. I will certainly never give in to people who throw Lucifer, HeII and hatred at me. Why would I want to go back to such abuse with such stupid and ignorant people? I don't want these bottom feeders who have no education and no compassion anywhere near me. They would certainly kill people who teach facts if they were allowed to. Just look how this ilk laughed, cheered and clapped at the idea of a sick person being left to die because they had no health plan. I was told the same story about dinosaur bones. I put it in the basket with God deliberately setting us up so he could knock us down or use us in a bet against the Devil. Job.

    September 16, 2011 at 3:14 pm |
  20. Dr.K.

    Thanks to the author for pointing out the "missing link" fallacy, and thanks in particular for making a definitive statement that this is a science blog and will proceed with the understanding that evolution is accepted as true – theology discussions have an appropriate place elsewhere.

    September 16, 2011 at 9:08 am |
  21. Eric

    "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"

    If I were the type to say "amen", I would definitely use it behind that statement.

    September 15, 2011 at 7:11 pm |
  22. Michael Lohr

    Interesting to see some that think a lack of "transitional fossils" prove evolution does not exist.Well this is a new counter arguement. Mind you, one that is utter rubbish.
    What creationist fail to realise is the scope of both time and sheer number of different species. We have indentified over 2 million species on earth.. Even on a short time line, just back to the end of the age of Dinasours is 65 million years. This would mean. We would have to find, indentify, and sequence over trillion fossils for the current number of species we have, never mind the 100s of millions of species that no longer exist.
    We are still trying to find how early mankind tranisitioned. For instance it appears the last traces of the neanderthals disappeared about 35,000 years ago. This alone proves that mankind can transistion from one root form.
    What we do know is there are transistions. Way before the Dinosours, in one of the earlist periods of earth the lowly trilobyte populated the entire earth. Being simple creature, we have a clear records of their transistion and evolution. They were untterly wiped out which gave rise to entire new sets of species. Heck just study the 100 plus million of years of the dinousours and one can see how they changed over periods of time.

    September 14, 2011 at 5:12 pm |
  23. Elvill

    The Big Secret of Paleontology is this: If Evolution were fact (Macro as discussed here) We would have thousands of fossils of transitional forms for us to observe – say from fish-to-amphibian or bird-to-reptile. The simple fact is there are none – no examples of intermediate forms ('links' if you will). Famous Darwinist Stephen Jay Gould stated “the lack of transitional fossils is the trade secret of paleontology”.

    Extrapolating Macro-Evolution from observable micro-evolution is about as scientifically accurate as saying ~ Columbus "Discovered" America. Do your homework! No single fossil group can claim to belong to the ancestor of another major group – overwhelming paleontological evidence contradicts Gradualism and Macro-Evolution!

    September 14, 2011 at 4:22 pm |
    • Alan

      Elvil nice post that totally makes sense, I would also assume that they havn't found the link between plants and animals as others have posted here.

      September 14, 2011 at 4:35 pm |
      • Acromyrmex-versicolor


        *This* is why people don't believe in evolution – they don't even have the most rudimentary understanding of it. Animals didn't evolve from plants, and no evolutionary biologist would say otherwise.

        September 15, 2011 at 8:35 pm |
      • alan

        Actually there have been people telling me that here, that plants and animals came from the same "soup" if you will, I even looked it up and found places that agreed with him. I think it's absurd myself but you know.

        September 15, 2011 at 10:21 pm |
      • Acromyrmex-versicolor

        Well I can't imagine you're still reading this but I thought I'd post anyways.

        To say that plants and animals have a common ancestor (the "soup" you refer to) is not the same thing as animals evolving from plants. They are two different products of one distant ancestor. To use a small-scale, non-evolution example – the "soup" can be though of as the grandparents while plants and animals are cousins. Different lineages, but form a common source.

        September 27, 2011 at 8:00 pm |
      • Alan

        You just said the same thing I had said, you called it grandparents I called it soup, evolutionists think all came from one "source" right. If plants and animals are related, why isn't there any planimals, like green creatures that use photosynthesis like plants that can walk around and do things like animals do?

        September 29, 2011 at 8:28 am |
      • fimeilleur

        Maybe there was, 100's of millions of years ago... but they didn't survive the evolutionary process... hard to tell 'cause soft tissue doesn't fossilize very well.

        My question to you is why can't your version of God cure an amputation?

        September 29, 2011 at 10:41 am |
      • Alan

        I know there is a lot of maybe's in evolutionary theory.
        Not sure I get you amputation question. I don't have a version of God that would imply there is more than one. Amputation isn't a disease so isn't "curable" in that sense. And if God wanted to have an amputee regrow the limb then there's nothing stopping that. After all if He created everything surely regrowing a limb would be well within his power, right...
        Flip side question there are lizards that can regrow tails, and in "theory" we are all related, so why wouldn't humans genes keep this very useful ability?

        September 29, 2011 at 11:19 am |
      • fimeilleur

        At least science is honest when they say they don't know something... and isn't there more than one god? Your assertion of one god is highly offensive to the 950 million Hindus worldwide. And quite honestly, there is as much evidence for there many gods as there is for your version of your god. (that is to say... none at all).

        Your claim that God can do anything he wants... does this make him cruel for never, ever, even once in recorded history, caused the spontaneous regrowth of an amputated limb, or even a limb that was never developped in the mother's womb at birth, regardless of how much that person, his family, or his friends (even complete strangers for that matter) may have prayed for this to happen? Being blind is not a desease either.. but he's "cured" blind people? If this makes him cruel, why would you adore such a beast? If he can't do it, he's not all powerfull, If he won't do it, he's an a$$. If he can do it, as you claim possible, now would be a great time in history to update that old, dusty book with some current events and shut up, once and for all, all us pesky freethinkers and doubters, not to mention the Muslims, Hindus, Buddists, etc. and it sure would give us mere mortals one less thing to fight about... don't you think?

        Or maybe... there IS no god and all these old accounts are just stories told to impress the gullible and naive. Kind of a bluff that went too far... Science has more answers than religion and what it can't answer yet, we use the word YET, for a reason. Time and research will better answer your questions than blind aligeance to an archaic desert sky daddy, ever will.

        Your silly question about the regenerating tail... why don't we have it if we're all related... Assume for a second that your nephew is a mathematicien... why is your daughter not good in math? Apply that same logic you used to answer my question to answer yours and you'll see, there is no error in reasoning. I traced my ancestry back to the 1730's... why don't I look, act, or think like all the other relatives that are decendants of that same ancester? Because we have ONE common ancester and many other divergences in between... I don't know if I can explain it any better than that... otherwise, you'll just have to open a science text book and do some actual learning.

        September 29, 2011 at 3:13 pm |
      • Alan

        My point exactly, about the tail, I brought up a silly question, in response to yours about amputation, which has nothing to do with the topic of evolution. I'm not sure but it seems like you, or someone you know might be an amputee. You seem very bitter about it, like your wanting to blame God for it. Anyway, this isn't a religious blog , and I know that trying to get you or many of the other ant-God people here to understand anything about my beliefs is pretty much impossible. One odd thing that I've seen is someone will question evolution, and then all the atheists will bash the post even if that person didn't bring up God at all. Seems like atheists bring up religion all the time. Just sayin, example you brought up God before I did.

        September 29, 2011 at 3:34 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        When your posts don't regurgitate creationist BS, we won't treat you like a creationist... but you are what you are. I'm not about to dance around the subject... if you're not a creationist, then you are severely undereducated in the theory of evolution.

        September 29, 2011 at 4:47 pm |
    • Jarin Udom

      That is completely wrong. There are tons and tons of transitional fossils, not to mention living transitional species.

      What you're asking for is a continuous line of transitional fossils, which is like asking what the length of the British coastline is (it changes depending on what scale you're using to measure). Not to mention that the majority of dead animals do NOT get fossilized, and that we have not dug up every square meter of the Earth's crust.

      September 14, 2011 at 4:36 pm |
      • Elvill

        micro not Marco besides... Who are you to contradict Gould?

        September 14, 2011 at 4:42 pm |
      • Alan

        by tons and tons of transitional fossils do you mean the ones where there like well that little bone there could be that fishes new leg popping up? Hey here's another idea maybe its just another animal. Whole point you cannot prove evolution happened or is happening or whatever. You were not there so in reality you believe in the "religion of evolution" you have faith in what scientists have made arguably descent guesses on, but there still guesses nonetheless.

        September 14, 2011 at 4:45 pm |
      • Dr.K.

        Elvill, that is a "quote-mined" statement from Gould and you know it...or you should at least – I doubt you have read the original piece in which it appeared or you would know you are misrepresenting him.

        September 16, 2011 at 9:12 am |
    • YourWrong

      First off, the creation and preservation of fossils is a rare occurrence and despite this fact we still find tons that directly support evolution. We haven't even hit the tip of iceberg in discovering fossils considering the number of creatures that have inhabited this planet in the past. Second, there is no macro/micro evolution. There is just evolution. Small adaptations leading to large ones over vast amounts of time is what evolution is. There is no distinction between the 2 except for creationists who have invented the distintion so they can hold on to their outdated superstition and still acknowledge the observed data that disputes it. Finally, your so called macroevolution, one species becoming another, has been witnessed first hand and repeated. The findings can be found here

      September 14, 2011 at 5:37 pm |
    • ReasonableXX

      Every species, fossil or currently alive, is a transitional species. That's how evolution works. Everything is constantly changing. You will never see a difference when comparing the parent and child of any particular species. It is not like one day a fish had a baby fish with legs and lungs. They change are so gradual that they can be seen from one generation to the next. It is only when you look at the big picture and the generations are separated by thousands and millions of years that you normally see significant change. It is a constant and gradual flow from one species to the next and not situation where one distinct species simply arises from the previous one.

      September 14, 2011 at 6:12 pm |
    • Dr.K.

      To say there are not transitional forms is a lie you have been told and obviously one you are happy to perpetuate. There is no nice way to put it. It is simply a lie.

      Fossil record aside, every individual is a "transitional form." We are all transitions between our ancestors and our descendants.

      September 16, 2011 at 9:15 am |
  24. Anthony W Allsop

    We atheists cannot marry Evolution with Creation as outlined in the holy books. The Old Testament account rises or falls on the opening book of Genesis. If the account contained therein is PROVED false then the WHOLE "testament" is to be regarded as false. One cannot dismiss the main part – the intro – and yet accept the rest as gospel. And in any case, ALL the holy books are based on the accounts of dreams. Since when have dreams been sacrosanct?

    September 14, 2011 at 1:42 pm |
  25. ReasonableXX

    Sorry, bumped the post button -
    Every single source you produce is from the same Christian scientist (oxymoron) who is controverisal at best and known to operate on the fringes of traditional science. I am familiar with Gentry's work on halos and while he has had some legitimate and interesting findings on the subject it is nothing that remotely constitutes a proof of creationism. His opponents has suggested numberous other possible explanations for his findings. You need more than a single, lone wolf "scientist" who makes some very large logic leaps from his actual conclusions to relate them to his religious beliefs. My sources are from multiple scientists in varying fields of study in varying countries and the multitude of other papers I can produce would also have just as much variance. One man against the rest of scientific community is hardly convincing. However, let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say that evolution or the big bang theory were definitively disproven. That would not automatically mean that creation was correct. Creation is not automatically the only other option. Disproving X never automatically proves Y. That is just bad reasoning.

    September 14, 2011 at 1:04 pm |
  26. Animus89

    "If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science, they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition. Unquestionably there must be agreement between true religion and science. If a question be found contrary to reason, faith and belief in it are impossible, and there is no outcome but wavering and vacillation" – 'Abdu'l-Bahá

    September 14, 2011 at 10:54 am |
    • Paul

      All true science is in full support of all true religion or faith. The key word being "true" and not biased opinions or the imagination of men or political manuverings. Genuine science shows much evidence of creation and the young age of the earth. The hard part is getting those who hate God to be unbiased.

      September 14, 2011 at 12:02 pm |
      • YourWrong

        Please give one example of your "genuine" science that supports creationism or stop claiming that such evidence exists.

        September 14, 2011 at 12:26 pm |
      • Paul

        Here is a sampling of reports to consider:
        Gentry, R.V. 1968. "Fossil Alpha-Recoil Analysis of Certain Variant Radioactive Halos." Science 160, 1228.
        Gentry, R.V. 1970. "Giant Radioactive Halos: Indicators of Unknown Alpha-Radioactivity?" Science 169, 670.
        Gentry, R.V. 1971. "Radiohalos: Some Unique Pb Isotope Ratios and Unknown Alpha Radioactivity." Science 173, 727.
        Gentry, R. V. 1997. "A New Redshift Interpretation." Modern Physics Letters A, Vol. 12, No. 37, 2919.
        Gentry, R. V. 2003. "Discovery of a Major Contradiction in Big Bang Cosmology Points to the New Cosmic Center Universe Model." CERN Preprint, Ext-2003-021.
        See also:

        September 14, 2011 at 12:37 pm |
      • REa

        Every single source you produce is from the same Christian "scientist" who of I am familiar with Gentry's work on halos and

        September 14, 2011 at 12:53 pm |
      • Eyedoc

        Indeed, articles from one person ONLY as proof is not science. Think, listen, see, science takes many different people, not all of them necessarily scientists, doing the experiment over and over AND getting similar or the same result. Only when many different people agree both with data and results does this become evidence that things are as we think we see them. If Mr. Gentry disagrees with the majority of geologist and physicists then he needs other people to replicate his work or, like Cold Fusion, he either is misinterpreting his results either from bad data, bad experiments or just lieing or he is completely and utterly a bad person using any arguments to "Prove" his point. God gave you a Brain, think. God gave you eyes, see. God gave you ears, listen. God gave you Reason, use it. To assume God cannot do anything, including Evolution or any other science Theory, is arrogance of the first order. I believe in a God who can do anything and I know I am a fallable human, my faith in God is firm and my belief in science is as well. As many people has said before, Science is one way Man can try to see the amazing world, universe we live in. Personally, I believe our understanding is limited and we will probably never "prove" some things that science has found out. However, Science is still our best tool to find out what, who, how, and why things are the way they are. "Take a look, It's in a book."

        September 17, 2011 at 3:40 pm |
  27. Danielle

    I do not believe in the Theory of Evolution, as theorized by Darwin. I do believe in natural selection, but there is very little to no evidence that truly supports the Theory of Evolution. I am a Christian, but that's not the main reason I don't believe it. I don't believe it because of a huge lack of solid evidence.

    September 14, 2011 at 10:39 am |
    • ReasonableXX

      You have things pretty mixed up and backwards. There is tons of data to support evolution to the point where it is an undeniable fact. Natural selection is the part that is up for debate although that seems to be the most likely explanation at this time for how evolution works. Please do some homework so you can avoid future erroneous cliams.

      You can start with these studies detailing direct observation of evolution in various settings with various species. These are peer reviewed papers which means that they have been examined by multiple independent experts with nothing to personally gain or lose by lying. They have confirmed that all data, methods, and conclusions are valid and reproducible. There are many more where these came from.

      Rice, W.R.; Hostert (1993). "Laboratory experiments on speciation: what have we learned in 40 years".
      Jiggins CD, Bridle JR (2004). "Speciation in the apple maggot fly: a blend of vintages?".
      Boxhorn, J (1995). "Observed Instances of Speciation"
      Weinberg JR, Starczak VR, Jorg, D (1992). "Evidence for Rapid Speciation Following a Founder Event in the Laboratory"
      Kirkpatrick, Mark; Virginie Ravigné (2002-03). "Speciation by Natural and Sexual Selection: Models and Experiments"

      September 14, 2011 at 10:50 am |
      • Paul

        These papers only speak of microevolution which is in no way related to macroevolution. They are a variation within a species which is daily observable. Dogs vary, cats vary, etc ... but reptiles don't become humans, fish don't become birds, etc. Variation within a species is not Evolution as taught in the text books. The great Creator made all species to be able to adapt or vary according to climate, location, etc. Nevertheless there is no evolution from one species to another and it does not take long periods of time to accomplish microevolution variations.

        September 14, 2011 at 11:56 am |
      • ReasonableXX

        They do not. Please actually read them. They talk of new species arising. Micro and Macro evolution are not really legitimate terms. They are misused by creationists to acknowlege some aspects of evolution will denying others and continuing to cling to their unfounded beliefs of magic.

        September 14, 2011 at 12:00 pm |
      • Elvill

        Famous Darwinist Stephen Jay Gould stated “the lack of transitional fossils is the trade secret of paleontology”.

        September 14, 2011 at 4:32 pm |
  28. Michael Lohr

    You are correct, One species can not turn into another species. IE a dog can not turn into a cat. That is not how evolution works. Dogs are a good example. If you go back in time, say 200 years you will see less varieties then we see today. If you go say 2000 years there will be even less. There was a place in time, where wild canines, such as African dingos, figured out if they hung out by campfires they could get free scraps of food. Humans figured out these animals would provide a good warning systems. Even in this short time line as far the earth is concerned one can see radical changes. 10,000 years ago mankind was significantly shorter for instance. If one jumps back in larger increments of time, larger changes can be observed. 30,000 years ago, Dogs, as we know then would not exist. their ancestors would still be canines. Now we have to jump even larger increments of time. Going back 50 million years it is thought canines were evolved from small primitive carnivores known as miacids. As far as I can tell there is no evidence cats came from even this branch of the evolutionary tree. What we do know is mammals in general did not play much of a role in the age of dinosaurs. Most, if not all were as small or smaller then rodents. So the split, whenever it did occur, happened in a species that did not exist and would be unrecognizable in the sense of whether it had cannine or fekine type like features

    September 14, 2011 at 10:14 am |
  29. Paul

    YAHWEH (the eternal self-existent one) created all the worlds and those that inhabit them. Then comes fallen man who seeks to distort the plain evidence of God's creative power. Evolution is not in any way fact and no matter how many times someone says it is, that does not make it so. The solid scientific evidence for creation far outweighs any supposed or made-up evidence for evolution. Fact is that those who refuse to acknowledge God as their creator need a theory of evolution to escape inevitable conclusions that we are moral beings who will one day face a judgment day for our works. Bones of humans are just that. No missing link and no prehistoric mumbo jumbo. How can anything be pre-history? The dinosaurs existed alongside mankind and some remain to this day. The universe and planet earth itself may be billions of years old (pure speculation), but mankind is no more than 6000 years old (fact). See for real facts relating to our earth and the evolution/creation debate.

    September 14, 2011 at 6:06 am |
    • ReasonableXX

      Every single sentence in your post is a falsehood. Evolution is a fact but not becasue someone says it is over and over, evolution is a fact because there are mountains of data and first hand observations supporting it. The same can not be said for all the statements you made and claim to be "facts." That website that you listed as a reference is a pitiful Christian attempt at psuedo-science and almost laughable at its attempts to pass itself off as legitimate. The only reason it's not truly funny is because mindless, illogical people like yourself who don't understand scientific method and can't fathom complex concepts that exist beyond the teachings of their church are fooled into thinking that this information holds a shred of truth. You should be truly embarrassed by your belief in this nonsense. I know that I am truly embarrassed to be of the same species as someone so gullible. Hopefully, evolution takes care of your kind in the next few thousand years.

      September 14, 2011 at 9:25 am |
      • Paul

        Maybe you should review your mountain of data ... in my years of study I could not come up with one argument for evolution that could stand critical review. If you listen to your professor or school or the millions of evolution supporters you might think there is evidence but if you search it for yourself you will find it is a house of cards which crumbles upon serious investigation. Leave God and christianity out of the question and you still come up short with evolution. They date the fossils by the rocks and the rocks by the fossils. Around and around they go ... but no substance and certainly no real science. Blasting others is not the same as solid science. But I suppose when you have no real evidence you have to make a lot of noise. Kind of like the big bang ... lots of noise but no reality.

        September 14, 2011 at 11:44 am |
      • ReasonableXX

        In your years of study you must have missed these papers and many more like them detailing direct oberservation of evolution. These are legitimate peer review academic papers. Everyone of them has withstood critical review by people far more qualified then you. I hate to keep posting the same four or five papers but the deniers keep asking for some proof of evolution and these are the tip of the iceberg. There are many, many more where these came from so if you need more let me know or go ahead and do your own real research. I'd like to see one such academic paper produced by those on your side of this ridiculous argument.

        Rice, W.R.; Hostert (1993). "Laboratory experiments on speciation: what have we learned in 40 years".
        Jiggins CD, Bridle JR (2004). "Speciation in the apple maggot fly: a blend of vintages?".
        Boxhorn, J (1995). "Observed Instances of Speciation"
        Weinberg JR, Starczak VR, Jorg, D (1992). "Evidence for Rapid Speciation Following a Founder Event in the Laboratory"
        Kirkpatrick, Mark; Virginie Ravigné (2002-03). "Speciation by Natural and Sexual Selection: Models and Experiments"

        September 14, 2011 at 11:57 am |
    • Pastafarian

      Paul: You're either a worthless troll or possibly the dumbest person on the planet. I won't waste any effort even validating my obvious statements.

      September 16, 2011 at 10:59 pm |
  30. Questionable

    The way I look at it is if you do not believe in evolution then you either believe fossil records are a lie/falsified or that all existing species and extinct species (many of which were very similar but distinctly different species) lived together on Earth at one point in time a very long time ago and now 90% of those species are dead. Also that many of the 10% remaining species have no fossil records from millions of years ago. I just do not see how that makes sense.

    You can say well God just put them before and the Bible is not linear time as we understand it. You can contort your religious views around the evidence science brings forth, but in the end you are changing your religion. We do not change science, only discover better explainations to fit a phenomenon.

    At one time people were persecuted by the Church for claiming the Earth to be round and that the Earth is not the center of the universe. Yet these day to believe otherwise would be taboo. The Church remains to the claim that God did all of this even though their leaders and the Bible gave completely contradictory claims a few hundred years ago.

    Science just says, oh we were wrong back then. We didn't have the knowledge and technology to understand the phenomenon back then so we assumed what we could observe was valid.

    Go into the far past and show a man a flash light. Tell him god gave you this power. He will likely believ it because it is beyond his comprehension, but then show him how it works and explain it to him. Do you now say it is God and all engineering with the light bulb and batteries. Of course not, its just batteries, wires, and a light bulb.

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

      Batteries, wires and a light bulb. All elements that came from a supernova explosion, but then who created the supernova and who made it explode? I believe in God and I believe in science. There is room for both. I do not see how a scientist can be closed minded to theories that have not yet been explained, and I do not see how a christian can denounce science just because they cannot explain it. Why must there be an argument about who is right? So far, the world still turns with both theories on the table.

      September 14, 2011 at 2:31 pm |
      • pirate

        Why did someone need to make it explode? All you are doing is pushing the complexity one step further away from yourself. If the universe is too complex simply to have happened on its own, and has a creator which is even more complex, well, who created that creator? You are just pushing your answer one further step away and that is a non answer.
        The physicists of the world who are unlocking the seconds right after the big bang, who can construct the Hadron Supercollider and get it working, I'm sorry, but they are so much smarter than your average pope, imam, rabbi, priest, witch doctor, shaman, whatever, and I will take their word for it that there is no god, or at least that there is no proof that any of the numerous dieties man has made up through the millennia are real. Agnostics I can deal with – they at least admit that they don't know, which is a very wise approach. But religious fanatics that simply point to "its too complicated" when our supposed feeble minds are actually figuring it all out? well – I prefer to deal with my intellectual equals, and they are NOT people who believe in fairy tales, invisible men in the sky handing out constantly conflicting instructions wanting his people to believe in him on faith alone and sending us to hell if we don't.

        September 14, 2011 at 2:54 pm |
  31. kirankaphle

    if anyone thinks he or she was made in the image of god better look at urself in mirror. why do u look so different then the person right next to u. evolution is the best explanation about what we are. it may not be true but every evidence points to that. to understand just look at life. how you have evolved from a embryo to a boy and from a boy to a man and all the things u keep learning. u learn from ur sorroundings. thats called adaptation. people are constantly adopting to the surrounding. try drawing a straight line. give ur family to draw another line on top of that and see how much different lines you get. its all because of our genes copying the pattern of our DNA. but people think if we came frome ape then why is there still apes around. for those people the only answer is ' if u came from ur mother, why is ur mother still alive ?'. and to those who wants to see the proof of evolution and wants to see half crocodile and half chicken. just look for some adult with one leg and arm of baby . its a slow process. its like growing up. God didnt created us, WE created God. and remember, YOUR GOD dies with you.

    September 14, 2011 at 2:21 am |
    • Alan

      Wow I had to read that like 3 times, that post makes no sense at all, def not talking about evolution.

      September 14, 2011 at 1:06 pm |
      • kirankaphle

        it might not make sense to you because u dont want to understand it. you are too happy to keep your eyes closed and sleep inside a room with your JESUS blanket. like evolution u will not understand my meaning. u would have understood my meaning if u had evolved but u were just created (phoom) by god.

        September 16, 2011 at 3:46 pm |
    • Alan

      Really did you actually read your own post, your rambling, bad, what's drawing a line have to do with evolution?/??? I know DNA copies itself duh!! I say it doesn't make random changes spontaneously to produce a new creature!!! And a Jesus blanket I like the sound of that sounds comfortable indeed. And by your saying if you had evolved you would understand the dribble you wrote then you def make a great case for non-evolution.....

      September 16, 2011 at 4:21 pm |
      • kirankaphle

        September 16, 2011 at 7:23 pm |
  32. xoxo

    I was raised Hindu, A religion like centuries older than Christianity.

    A lot of Hindus accept Evolution for the facts that it comes with have proof.

    For this mirror image of god business where are the facts. and why does it have to be the right.

    A lot of hindu beliefs – like lunar and solar eclipses occurring due to daemons gobbling up the sun and the moon have now taken a backseat because of proof to the opposite. It would be stupid not to accept the scientific explanation.

    so why must one try to save a theory that has never been proven with any facts?

    September 14, 2011 at 1:59 am |
  33. jim

    Why cant there be both a god and evolution. Fine and dandy to be made in god's image but what if he made us to evolve.... i mean god is all knowing and all seeing, so is it not possible that he thought one day that we would need to evolve so he created us to evolve with however the earth changed. God built us to be dependent on ourselves, he is always there watching, but he gave our bodys and minds the power to evolve when needed.

    September 13, 2011 at 11:57 pm |
    • YourWrong

      Why make the totally unfounded assumption that there is a god in the first place? No reason whatsoever to make that giant leap in logic in the first place.

      September 14, 2011 at 9:51 am |
  34. Jarin Udom

    Next up:

    "Your thoughts on gravity"

    "Does the sun revolve around the Earth? You decide."

    September 13, 2011 at 10:18 pm |
  35. math is fact, science is the search for truth

    simple math and common sense prove the age of the world. the sun is a gas, gas is a fuel, that gas is being spent every second of everyday. how big would the sun be 10000 billion trillion years ago or whatever age people beleive the universe to be. mathematical the moon moves further away from the earth each year (google it). take that inch and multiply it to find out how many times the tides would destroy the earth daily.

    September 13, 2011 at 8:52 pm |
  36. Steve

    I was just checking the dictionary the(New world dictionary of the american language second college edition).The word THEOREM<theoros,a spectator:for IE.base see theater] As far as I know no one has witnessed EVOLUTION IE been a SPECTATOR of it THAT is EVOLUTION.Under #3 of theorem"something to be proved".And as far as I know NO ONE has proven evolution .It is still JUST a THEORY.Next in line the word THEORETICAL.#2 NOT practical or applied;hypothetical #3 tending to theorize; SPECULATIVE. NEXT in line the word THEORETICIAN"one who specializes in the theory of some art,science,ect' Is this person a speculator ? I think SO.NEXT in line the word THEORETICS" the theoretical part of a field of knowledge".NEXT in line the word THEORIZE "to form a theory or theories;speculate" HUMM.NEXT in line the word THEORY< GR.theoria, a looking at, contemplation, speculation, theory #1. orig., a mental viewing; contemplation #2. a speculative idea or plan as to how something might be done #3. a systematic statement of principles involved.#4. a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles 0f certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree #5 that branch of art or science consisting in a knowlege of its principles and methods rather than its practice; pure,as opposed to applied ,science,ect. #6. popularly,a mere conjecture, or guess SEE ALSO SYN.- THEORY/LAW UNDER THEORY SPECULATION raises its head once again. Under SPECULATE in the same dictionary as above<L. speculatus,pp. of specular, to view<specula, watchtower< specere, to see:see spy] Since WE,US ,YOU or I CANNOT or HAVE NOT SEEN EVOLUTION because it is supposed to have happened in the past -SPECULATION- THEORY-AND that is all it still is.AS a matter of fact according to the above same dictionary under SPECULATIVE reads "uncertain;risky"#5. reads"indulging in or fond of speculation" -NOT FACTS- As for me my faith is in FACTS not speculations or theories this is a fact Genesis 1:1 says matter of factly "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Notice God was already there.See also the gospel of John chapter 1:1-34. Another fact is found in Psalm 14:1 also Psalm 53:1also Proverbs 1:7 also 1st Corinthians 1:18-21,25 ,1st Corinthians 3:18-21 .One of the key words in these verses is " FOOL " I will take the meaning of this word from the AMERICAN DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE NOAH WEBSTER 1828 because it gives a better meaning of the word NOT the politically correct meaning in the newer versions.FOOL #1 n. {Fr. fol, fou; It. folle, mad, foolish; Ice. fol; Arm. foll; W. fol, round, blunt, foolish, vain; fwl, a fool, a blunt one, a stupid one; Russ. phalia. It would seem from the Welsh that the primary sense of the adjective is thick, blunt, lumpish. 1. One who is distitute of reason, or the common powers of understanding; an ideot. Some persons are born fools, and are called natural fools; others may become fools by some injury done to the brain. 2. In common language, a person who is somewhat deficient in intellect, but not an ideot; or a person who acts absurdly; one who does not exercise his reason; one who pursues a course contrary to the dictates of wisdom. Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other. 3. In scripture, fool is often used for a whicked or depraved person; one who acts contrary to sound wisdom in his moral deportment; one who follows his own inclinations, who prefers trifling and temporary pleasures to the service of God and eternal happiness. The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. Psalms 4. A weak christian; a godly person who has much remaining sin and unbelief. O fools, and slow of heart to believe all the prophets have written. Luke 14 Also, one who is accounted or called a fool by ungodly men 1 Cor. 4:10 5. A term of indignity and reproach. To be thought knowing, you must first put the fool upon all mankind. 6. One who counterfeits foly; a buffoon; as a king's fool. To play the fool, to act the buffoon; to jest; to make sport. 2. To act like one void of understanding. To put the fool on, to impose on; to delude. To make a fool of, to frustrate; to defeat; to disappoint. FOOL, v.i. To trifle; to toy; to spend time in idleness, sport or mirth. Is this a time for fooling? FOOL, v.t. To treat with contempt; to disappoint; to defeat; to frustrate; to deceive; to impose on. When I consider life, 'tis all a cheat; For fooled with hope, men favor the deceit. 2. To infatuate; to make foolish. 3. To cheat; as, to fool one out of his money. To fool away, to spend in trifles, idleness, folly, or without advantage; as, to fool away time.

    September 13, 2011 at 4:28 pm |
    • ReasonableXX

      Relatively recent studies witnessing full evolution in various environments and settings:

      Rice, W.R.; Hostert (1993). "Laboratory experiments on speciation: what have we learned in 40 years".
      Jiggins CD, Bridle JR (2004). "Speciation in the apple maggot fly: a blend of vintages?".
      Boxhorn, J (1995). "Observed Instances of Speciation"
      Weinberg JR, Starczak VR, Jorg, D (1992). "Evidence for Rapid Speciation Following a Founder Event in the Laboratory"
      Kirkpatrick, Mark; Virginie Ravigné (2002-03). "Speciation by Natural and Sexual Selection: Models and Experiments"

      I could produce these all day so let me know when you are finished reading and I will get more.

      September 13, 2011 at 4:33 pm |
    • Pastafarian

      Holy Carp! Do you really expect anyone to read that incomprehensible wall of text??? How about a paragraph return once in awhile. Jesus!

      God bless you ReasonableXX for wading through that BS.

      September 13, 2011 at 6:20 pm |
    • ReasonableXX

      Are you kidding? I couldn't make it all the way thru that incoherent babble. I just made it thru the first couple lines and was basically responding to the common position I see taken by many deniers where he states that nobody has ever witnessed evolution. Its been witnessed quite a bit in multiple laboratory and other controlled settings. There are tons of peer reviewed academic papers out there on the subject.

      September 13, 2011 at 7:50 pm |
  37. Indiana Jones

    It's funny that the Bible talks about other species walking the earth, but both "believers" and agnostics pass it off as figures of speech and fable. Read Genesis 6 and the book of Enoch that talks about the different types of beings that God created. There might not be other human beings in the universe, but doesn't mean that there are not other types of life and intelligent beings. Science is not anti-God but simply God revealing himself to man through nature.

    September 13, 2011 at 4:08 pm |
    • Questionable

      ok ancient astronaut theory

      September 13, 2011 at 4:14 pm |
    • ReasonableXX

      The bible was written by man. Actually by many men and has been translated countless times by even more men. It has been edited and modified numerous times throughout its history to fit the particular needs of those in power at the time. It is not a reference book or an infallible historical record so please stop treating it as such. Every argument initiated by the religious creationists starts with using the bible as some sort of factual reference. It is not! It is an ancient work of literature just like countless other works that we do no treat as absolute historical fact.

      September 13, 2011 at 4:24 pm |
  38. Questionable

    From "Another misconception is that the fittest variety must be increasing in number. Natural selection can still be acting on a population as its numbers are declining. There is no direction implied in natural selection—you can be the highest scorer (most fit) on the losing team." Wrong again, decline in population could be a bottle neck.

    September 13, 2011 at 4:08 pm |
  39. Animus89

    Its a pretty common belief that PORTIONS of the Bible (not the Bible in it's entirety) is historically accurate in it's recounts of events and people involved in these events. However, it is also commonly supported that the remaining portion of the Bible is a literary tool to teach the values of the time periods' in which the book is composed of. Taking the book for complete face value is just blind stupidity.

    I support that it is also blind stupidity to believe in nothing but scientific fact when "facts" can be easily redefined when new evidence is introduced. Was it not once a upon time a "fact" that the earth was center of all things and leeches could suck the toxin and illness from your body? That is, until information to the contrary was presented and the "fact" was proven to be incorrect.

    Not to say that science deserves less support than religion or visa versa. Its more to say that each serve a purpose. In my opinion, blindly supporting one or the other in entirety is as equally ridiculous of both sides as the HUGE amount of arguments in response to the article and their never ending cycle of "I am right, you are wrong." While you feel you are justly defending the truth, keep in mind that they do not perceive the truth to be what you do and your blind faith is equally irrational as they think yours is.

    September 13, 2011 at 3:57 pm |
    • Questionable

      what purpose do religion serve?

      September 13, 2011 at 4:02 pm |
      • Animus89

        Despite the obvious negative uses (Jihad), with all other ideology that governs morals it provides guidelines for which humanity can follow, faith, etc. Lets face it, not everyone can just be sound morally on their own and humanity needs something in which to cling to in times of crisis, when faced with a difficult decision and changing society. Religion provides the stability we all need, the faith to persevere, etc. Just in the same way you rely upon science for your answers and comfort, others rely on religion. It is THAT humans need. Don't get me wrong, not all religion is positive. Obviously ones promoting murder, etc. do more harm than good. However, it is undeniable that it indeed serves its purpose. From something as small as a child's prayer at night to make the boogy man go away, to providing a man with a moral boundary he would not have established on his own.

        September 13, 2011 at 4:30 pm |
  40. Questionable

    @ Alan this is from that website "Without God, there is no foundation for morality and each person can do what seems right at the time with no real consequences regarding eternity"........FALSE. Read the "Sociopath Next Door" it explains how morality benefits a species and is an evolutionary adaptation.

    September 13, 2011 at 3:57 pm |
    • Questionable

      from IDK why I put that at the end

      September 13, 2011 at 3:58 pm |
    • Alan

      Why would that statement be false? "Without God, there is no foundation for morality and each person can do what seems right at the time with no real consequences regarding eternity". Question do animals have morality or morals? Does the Lion feel regret when it kills an antelope? or feel sorry for the mother of the fawn he just made a lunch from? Let's say they don't have morals ok, If they don't where did ours come from? Admittedly, some of us do have less morals than others. Is it safe to say that you classify humans as animals? If that where true then its alright to kill others, with no regret right; hey we are just animals evolved. Animals do not have a conscience they do not feel bad if they see another dead animal, if its a dog he'll go over and rub all over it. Humans most of us see a dead body it's frightening or repulsive and you feel sorry for that person. My friend that's a key difference between us and the animals. God gave us the conscience to help us know "right and wrong". Animals don't know that. Back to original If God didn't exist then you have no conscience, and therefore no consequences when you do wrong aka what happens in eternity.

      September 13, 2011 at 4:25 pm |
      • Questionable

        What about a sociopath? They have no conscience, did God forget them

        September 13, 2011 at 4:37 pm |
      • Alan

        Mental disability would explain sociopaths, Through a genetic problem these people developed this way. What about everybody else who is not there is a lot more people who are not "sociopaths". What if they do have a conscience just choose; aka man "free thinking" not animals, not to listen to it. Can you answer why everybody else has a conscience?

        September 13, 2011 at 4:43 pm |
      • pirate

        True lack of insight, here. It was in the news a couple weeks ago about a dog that would not leave his owner's cask, a fallen soldier. That shows FEELINGS! When I come home, my dog gets so excited its not even funny, excitement is a FEELING! Missing someone is a FEELING! Dogs that give up their lives to save a human being drowning in a river for example, maybe not quite as advanced as morals of a human being but there is DEFINITELY something there akin to morals! Go get a dog, spend some time with it, you will see happiness, fear, excitement, love, submissiveness, dominance, anger, trust, anticipation, and almost any combination of the above. These are all valid feelings!

        September 13, 2011 at 4:44 pm |
      • ReasonableXX

        Conscience is simply a perceived consequence of our innate morality and compassion for others. These are evolved traits for the survival of our species. We would not be too successful as a species if we all walked around aimlessly killing and stealing from one another. We have evolved to live together and support one another for the betterment of all.

        September 13, 2011 at 4:54 pm |
      • Alan

        pirate is the dog just wanting some food or wanting to play, dogs are pack animals they follow the leader. Dogs are fun and yes at times it does seem like they do have feelings, Conscience no! Your puppy isn't going to feel bad cause he killed a mouse. They can appear to know right from wrong but that's the whole trained thing. Your dog pees on your carpet you get onto him whatever, he doesn't feel bad cause he did it, he is just trained pee on carpet=bad yelling pop on the butt ect. or whatever means you used to train him from doing that.

        September 13, 2011 at 4:56 pm |
      • Acromyrmex-versicolor

        Just because morality (at least on the level that we understand it) is unique to humans doesn't mean it was handed down to us by God. Whether or not you believe in objective morality, some sort of moral code is essential for a functional society of unrelated, intelligent animals to persist. Morality is just an evolutionary adaptation that followed our leaps in intelligence and sentience.

        Furthermore, if God did instill in us a sense of morality than he didn't do a very good job of it, since there is so much disagreement about human morality and there are many moral "grey areas." All the inane squabling over religion is a testament to what an awfully poor job he did in communicating his wishes to us...

        "Question do animals have morality or morals? Does the Lion feel regret when it kills an antelope? or feel sorry for the mother of the fawn he just made a lunch from?"

        Most humans don't feel bad about killing other animals for food, or for the offspring that animal may have had, so why should the lion? You're holding the lion to a higher moral standard than your fellow humans.

        September 13, 2011 at 5:48 pm |
  41. Stephen Charchuk


    We have something called a legal system here. Under Shar'a Law a woman can be blamed for enticing a man to rape her and if she gets pregnant from the rape she can also be stoned to death for adultery. Also, under Shar'A Law a woman's testimony is only worth half that of a man's. There is no justice for women under Islam. Muslim nations have a big problem with rape going vastly unreported because of this. A woman can practically go around naked in the West and not be assaulted, but a woman in a Muslim country can be raped even if she covers herself completely.

    September 13, 2011 at 3:45 pm |
  42. Alan

    here's a simple link that will argue most of the "evolutionist ideas" that have been brought up here read through it its long but has many examples and answers much of the debate that's been on this post

    September 13, 2011 at 3:36 pm |
    • Questionable

      I could pick that to pieces if I had the time, which I might.

      September 13, 2011 at 3:49 pm |
    • Earthling

      Lets learn about evolution from a site called answersingenesis. Great idea.

      September 13, 2011 at 9:00 pm |
      • Alan

        earthling, sure why not read from a site called answers in genesis, many of the sites pro evolutionists have posted here are labeled the same way. To really try and learn about something especially a topic like this that is hotly debated on both sides. You really should take a look at the other sides arguments. Are you afraid that site might get you thinking?

        September 14, 2011 at 8:17 am |
      • Stephen Charchuk


        The difference is that Evolutionary sites are based on science and have actual references while creationist's site usually only say evolution is wrong and that "GODDIDIT!" Bring some valid data and you may have a point.

        September 14, 2011 at 9:53 am |
      • Alan

        My question to you is this did you check the site out? If not why? Just like a judge when a case is presented to him in order to pass a fair judgement he must listen and examine both sides of the case, right? This is the same thing, most of us through schools have been taught about evolution big bang and all that. We were taught that that is that black and white. That's all we know. Well , if that is all you are taught then you going to believe it. All I'm saying listen to the other side of the story for once, and be a judge who takes in both sides, who tries to keep his own biases and beliefs out of it and, just think about it objectionably.

        September 14, 2011 at 10:26 am |
      • Jarin Udom


        I totally agree that we need to consider both sides of the story "objectionably". That is why I am pushing for the teaching of Stork Theory in Sex Ed class, as an alternative theory of human reproduction. We can call it "Avian Transport Theory" though, to make it sound more scientific.

        September 14, 2011 at 1:33 pm |
      • Alan

        Hey good luck with the stork thing, hey if you can get some evidence for it good deal I'll listen

        September 14, 2011 at 1:36 pm |
      • pirate

        Jarin Udom: Don't you DARE leave out the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster!!!!

        September 14, 2011 at 1:37 pm |
  43. pirate

    Why do all the bible thumpers believe in their god's graciousness. For those that say Jesus counters the evil in the Old Testament, how can you explain Jesus's own racism and name calling? See below bible quote!

    Matthew 15:22-28

    New International Version (NIV)

    22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.”

    23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”

    24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

    25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.

    26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”

    27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”

    28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.

    So Jesus admits her role as a dog eating scraps from the table????? NICE!

    September 13, 2011 at 3:02 pm |
  44. Pastafarian

    For some reason, this debate brings a song to mind..."...wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheefully out of obscurity into a dream..."

    September 13, 2011 at 2:32 pm |
  45. frespech

    If you were the creator you establish the rules not the created or as the bible states it- does the clay tell the potter what to mould. God was not created in our image.

    September 13, 2011 at 2:26 pm |
  46. MaybeAgnosticMaybeNot

    According to the Bible, at some point the entire earth was coverd by water. This means all bodies of water were mixed. Based on volume the world would have been one giant saltwater ocean. This means that all freshwter fish would have been killed. Without the posibility of a saltwater fish evolving into a freshwater fish, Christians can't explain how freshwater fish exist today.

    September 13, 2011 at 2:17 pm |
    • Pastafarian

      There are greater implications than just fresh water vs. salt. Like where did all that water go? What effect would that much water have on atmospheric pressures? How would that great volume of water effect the transmission of sunlight? It's nearly pointless to try to point these things out to the uneducated.

      September 13, 2011 at 2:24 pm |
    • frespech

      What makes you believe that it was all salt water- perhaps at that time it was all fresh water and a salt water fish had to evolve.
      The point is you don't know either and can't disprove niether.

      September 13, 2011 at 2:31 pm |
    • MaybeAgnosticMaybeNot

      The point is that the existence of both freshwater and saltwater fish contradicts the Bible.

      September 13, 2011 at 2:35 pm |
      • gene

        Ever hear of brackish waters. Both salt and fresh water fish survive in it.

        September 14, 2011 at 12:53 pm |
      • pirate

        gene: 97% of the earth's water is saltwater. 97% saltwater plus 3% fresh water does not equal brackish, it is practically the same as saltwater LMAO!

        September 14, 2011 at 12:59 pm |
  47. Pastafarian

    @Questionable: I commend your efforts here, but unfortunately, you are fighting a losing battle! Ignorance is going to take down our species.

    September 13, 2011 at 2:16 pm |
    • SeekTheTRUTH

      TRUE THAT!

      September 13, 2011 at 2:20 pm |
      • Pastafarian

        I said "down", not "done".

        See how that little typo changed the meaning of your reply? Now imagine the writing and rewriting and retranslations of your holy books, and then the blind ignorance it would take to base your life on those words which likely bare little resemblance to the original fabricated text?

        September 13, 2011 at 2:26 pm |
      • SeekTheTRUTH

        My mistake and I apologize for that mistake
        " Ignorance is going to take down our species."" BY Pastafarian

        Again The holy Quran is in the same original language, format, and form as it was revealed 1400 years ago.
        The reason it can not be change is 1) Because GOD himself says in Quran that he will protect it From Corruption.
        2) there are millions of people who have memorized the whole quran and therefore if anything change, they will know.
        NOW REGARDING TRANSLATION, Yes errors can be made but a translation mostly available that is done by will rarely have any mistake that will change the meaning.

        September 13, 2011 at 2:37 pm |
      • Read-Darwin

        Manuscript Evidence for the Old Testament
        The Dead Sea Scrolls prove the accuracy of the transmission of the Bible.

        In fact, in these scrolls discovered at Qumran in 1947, we have Old Testament manuscripts that date about a thousand years earlier (150 B.C.) than the other Old Testament manuscripts then in our possession (which dated to A.D. 900).

        The significant thing is that when one compares the two sets of manuscripts, it is clear that they are essentially the same, with very few changes.

        The fact that manuscripts separated by a thousand years are essentially the same indicates the incredible accuracy of the Old Testament's manuscript transmission.
        A full copy of the Book of Isaiah was discovered at Qumran.

        Even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea in 1947 were a thousand years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (A.D. 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The 5 percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling."

        September 13, 2011 at 2:42 pm |
      • Read-Darwin

        Another good link to info – too much to summarize here:

        September 13, 2011 at 2:47 pm |
      • Stephen Charchuk


        Its true that the Qu'Ran hasn't changed in 1400 years, but you can't say the same for its source materials though that Mohammed was suppose to have dictated. Soon after he died they collected up all of the manuscripts, but some would replace the original with their own versions instead and that went into making the Qu'Ran itself. Thus the source material is what is suspect. There are no original copies of these manuscripts in existence anymore to verify it. They thought that they had one in a museum, but it turned out to be a much later copy instead. Therefore the Qu'Ran is no more a reliable source than the bible is for science.

        September 13, 2011 at 3:18 pm |
      • Stephen Charchuk


        You are using the fallacy of False Dilemma.

        September 13, 2011 at 3:29 pm |
  48. SeekTheTRUTH


    "do not judge religion by looking at its followers. judge it by reading what they believe from their authentic sources."

    September 13, 2011 at 2:15 pm |
    • Questionable

      For those who do not believe in little women. Praise be to Jo

      September 13, 2011 at 2:19 pm |
      • SeekTheTRUTH

        BOOK that has nothing to do with GOD AND EVOLUTION?

        September 13, 2011 at 2:26 pm |
      • Questionable

        nor does the Bible or Quran. Get it?

        September 13, 2011 at 2:30 pm |
      • Pastafarian

        You may have to be a little less clever here. It would seem that your target audience has a below average IQ as well as education level. You're confusing them with your wit.

        September 13, 2011 at 2:34 pm |
      • Read-Darwin

        That was a lame post. The Bible clearly explains creation so it is relevant to this discussion whether you believe in it or not. Do you believe humans dominant the world through evolution, luck, random or design? Why can't we talk to animals if we evolved from them?

        September 13, 2011 at 2:36 pm |
      • SeekTheTRUTH

        1> IT TALKS ABOUT facts of EMBRYOLOGY that scientist have discovered recently.
        2> See people believed that Earth was flat but Quran reveled 1400 years ago that it has the shape of an ostrich egg ( sphere flat for top and bottom) .
        3. See people believed that Moon had its own light until recently, but QUran revealed 1400 years ago that it has a borrowed light that is it reflect the light of sun.
        I can go on and on but you will not read it. HOWEVER< I WILL POST IN MY NEXT COMMENT.

        September 13, 2011 at 2:44 pm |
      • Stephen Charchuk


        The Qu'Ran is not the real source of this, but from Ancient Greece instead. It was already know BEFORE the Qu'Ran was made up.

        September 13, 2011 at 3:37 pm |
  49. Questionable

    read and liberate your mind

    September 13, 2011 at 2:13 pm |
  50. pirate

    Sex Slaves (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

    When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

    September 13, 2011 at 2:06 pm |
    • Questionable

      please stop filling this page with unrelivant stuff

      September 13, 2011 at 2:10 pm |
      • pirate

        pleez lern too spel.

        September 13, 2011 at 2:13 pm |
      • Questionable

        spelling is not one of my strong points never has been never will be

        September 13, 2011 at 2:14 pm |
      • pirate

        Actually please use real words first... Did you mean irrelevant?

        September 13, 2011 at 2:14 pm |
      • Questionable

        If all you can contribute is your ability to spell and copy the Bible, become a secretary

        September 13, 2011 at 2:26 pm |
      • pirate

        Sorry but I have – the posts I wrote myself are here but buried in the thousands of other posts. Regardless – my intent is to thrust bible thumpers' own literature in their face as they are ignorant of the details found within which go counter to everything they have been taught. Bible is full of contradictions. I will add my comments to each reference as I see your point.

        September 13, 2011 at 3:00 pm |
  51. pirate

    Rape and the Spoils of War (Judges 5:30 NAB)

    They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil. (Judges 5:30 NAB)

    September 13, 2011 at 2:02 pm |
    • Questionable

      we are not debating that

      September 13, 2011 at 2:08 pm |
      • pirate

        I am showing the group how ignorant these bible thumpers actually are – few even will believe that this stuff is really in the bible. The bible is full of racism, murder, baby killing, rape, slavery, and war all sponsored by some invisible man in the sky. Any person with an honest conscience and some real brain cells would realize it was written by some bronze age power hungry person looking to exert his will on others, rather than some "just" god teaching his people how they should behave! LOL

        September 13, 2011 at 2:18 pm |
      • frespech

        Pirate quit showing your real ignorance of the bible which you suggest was written by some person. It was actually written by some 40 people over a period of some 1500 years with one message the comming of Gods kigdom and his right to rule. I just sort of paraphrased alot to get it all boiled down in 3 sentences.

        September 13, 2011 at 2:39 pm |
  52. pirate

    Rape of Female Captives (Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)

    "When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."

    Once again god approves of forcible rape.

    September 13, 2011 at 2:02 pm |
  53. pirate

    Death to the Rape Victim (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)

    If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

    It is clear that God doesn't give a damn about the rape victim. He is only concerned about the violation of another mans "property".

    September 13, 2011 at 2:01 pm |
  54. Questionable

    More reading for those who do not believe in evolution. Educate yourself please

    September 13, 2011 at 2:00 pm |
    • SeekTheTRUTH

      FOR those who do not believe in GOD.

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

        I can post books too

        September 13, 2011 at 2:17 pm |
  55. pirate

    Laws of Rape (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)

    If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
    What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker? Answer: god.

    September 13, 2011 at 2:00 pm |
  56. pirate

    Hark the message of god – preaching tolerance among all human beings! KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL!!!! Eat this bible thumpers, go grab your bibles and check!

    You must kill those who worship another god. Exodus 22:20

    Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own. Deuteronomy 13:6-10

    Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you. Deuteronomy 13:12-16

    Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. Deuteronomy 17:2-7

    Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. Deuteronomy 17:12-13

    Kill any false prophets. Deuteronomy 18:20

    September 13, 2011 at 2:00 pm |
  57. SeekTheTRUTH

    Why is there life and death? Do you know why you became alive and no one in his true mind wants to die.

    September 13, 2011 at 1:56 pm |
    • YourWrong

      You need to have the birds and bees talk with your mom and dad. As far as death, no one wants to die becasue all creatures are born with survival instincts. Not wanting to die and not being afraid of death are very different things. I want to live because I enjoy life and know that this is my only shot at it. That being said I don't live in fear of death because I know I am not facing judgement and possible eternal damnation in the afterlife. Why are the ones who are so convinced there is eternal paradise awaiting them the most fearful of death. If you know you lived a just and moral life (at least according to your twisted beliefs) then won't death be so much better than life?

      September 13, 2011 at 2:15 pm |
      • SeekTheTRUTH

        If there is no judgement day then,
        How will the a victim of rape and murder ever get justice if his murderer and raper is never caught?

        September 13, 2011 at 2:18 pm |
      • YourWrong

        Sometimes, in the real world, there simply is no justice. Whether you like that or not, it's a fact.

        September 13, 2011 at 2:20 pm |
      • Stephen Charchuk


        We have something called a legal system here.

        Under Shar'a Law a woman can be blamed for enticing a man to rape her and if she gets pregnant from the rape she can also be stoned to death for adultery. Also, under Shar'a Law a woman's testimony is only worth half that of a man's. There is no justice for women under Islam. Muslim nations have a big problem with rape going vastly unreported because of this. A woman can practically go around naked in the West and not be assaulted, but a woman in a Muslim country can be raped even if she covers herself completely.

        September 13, 2011 at 3:51 pm |
  58. pirate

    For all the bible thumpers, sorry, saying some invisible man in the sky created the universe because it is too complex to have just happened, well, you are only placing the origin one step further away. That does not answer anything. Who created your supernatural being? Moving the creation one step further away does not answer one single question, it only brings more confusion!

    September 13, 2011 at 1:56 pm |
    • frespech

      God is described in the bible as an abundance of dynamic energy the beginning and the end.
      Since it is absolutely impossible for something to come from nothing and it takes energy to create mass, I accept that explanation as being highly plausible.

      September 13, 2011 at 2:49 pm |
  59. Mike

    It is both naive and self serving to believe that the Earth is the center of the universe, that the stars and the planets revolve around the earth (as christians argued from hundreds of years), that man was created in "God"s image, and that there is a heaven where all the good people go after they die.

    I wonder if it will take discovery of alien life to finally get rid of religion. If we find the universe to be full of life, plenty of species much smarter than us, than how could one possibly still argue that humans are special? Special enough to believe that we were created in "God's image"? Unfortunately, I think religion will find a way to stay relevant and insist that all these aliens are angels or created before man and therefore imperfect.

    September 13, 2011 at 1:52 pm |
  60. Questionable

    More evidence

    September 13, 2011 at 1:52 pm |
  61. Questionable

    Here is some more stuff,r:10,s:0&biw=1280&bih=603

    September 13, 2011 at 1:50 pm |
  62. Questionable

    Explain this please

    September 13, 2011 at 1:36 pm |
    • SeekTheTRUTH

      A kind of fish that lives in water and can also survive for few hours on land.

      September 13, 2011 at 1:40 pm |
      • Questionable

        And you dont see any connection there? What have I been explaining: evolution is a very slow process and is survival of the fittest. This fish can survive and thrive because of it ability to go on land. Smoking f^#king gun.

        September 13, 2011 at 1:44 pm |
    • SeekTheTRUTH

      It is a fish and will not become a squirrel.
      SO you think that Frogs will eventually turn into Fishes?

      September 13, 2011 at 1:54 pm |
      • Questionable

        Did I ever say that. Please for your own sake watch these videos and read this material

        September 13, 2011 at 1:57 pm |
      • Pastafarian

        The thing that is most disturbing here is how you are against a body of scientific work that you clearly have NO knowledge of. I'm not trying to be rude, but your understanding of evolution is somewhere below my 10-year old's comprehension. You are unqualified to be involved in this debate until you do some learnin'.

        September 13, 2011 at 2:01 pm |
    • Read-Darwin

      Do you evolutionists here believe that humans have a soul and therefore different from animals?

      September 13, 2011 at 2:32 pm |
      • Stephen Charchuk

        What's a soul? Do you have any evidence that you have one?

        BTW, Humans are animals.

        If you didn't know this is what an animal is;

        any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli: some classification schemes also include protozoa and certain other single-celled eukaryotes that have motility and animallike nutritional modes.

        September 13, 2011 at 4:06 pm |
      • ReasonableXX

        If by soul you mean a conciousness that lives beyond the physical body after it dies, then no. There is no reason or evidence to believe that there is a soul. We are no different than animals in that regard. If there is any single overall theme that all scientific discover to this point in time has showed us it is that we are not special or unique. This is in complete opposition to everything religion wants us to believe about why god put us here and why he cares so much about our day to day lives. There is nothing particularly special or unique about our place in the solar system or our place in the galaxy or our place in the universe. Nothing has been found biologically or otherwise to indicate that we are any different from any other animals in a general sense. Obviously we are smarter but that is simply a consequence of evolution and nothing more. We see the same personality traits and behaviors that humans exhibit in many other species and are learning every day that the mental capacity and problem solving ability of many animals is much greater than we ever realized.

        September 13, 2011 at 4:17 pm |
  63. FreedomfromReligion

    Religion is the most damaging concept ever designed by man. It has killed countless people over absolutely nothing. None of it is true. Sorry, buddha, god, jesus, mohamed, holy spirit, devil. I dont believe in any of you.

    September 13, 2011 at 1:24 pm |
    • SeekTheTRUTH

      So what is the purpose of your life? Why do you exist to defend that there is no GOD?
      How can you not believe in GOD when ""GOD gave you life when you were dead (non-existent)"" and then GOD will take away that life and you will die,
      and then you cannot believe that GOD will give you life again after you die to Evaluate you. Did you forget that ""GOD gave you life when you were non-existent(dead)""?

      September 13, 2011 at 1:36 pm |
      • FreedomfromReligion

        One more time, THERE IS NO GOD...can't say it any plainer than that.

        September 13, 2011 at 1:40 pm |
      • FreedomfromReligion

        My purpose in life is just like yours.

        September 13, 2011 at 1:41 pm |
      • Questionable

        why do we have to have a purpose

        September 13, 2011 at 1:45 pm |
      • Pastafarian

        Why does there need to be some deep significant purpose to our lives beyond just being a positive impact on others and leaving the planet a better place than when you entered it? Why does anything YOU don't understand somehow a measure of proof that it must have been god? Why doesn't your god stop the senseless killing and suffering on this planet? Why does he allow bad things to happen to good people and vice versa??? I'll tell you why before you try some weak-minded lame rationalization: BECAUSE HE DOESN'T EXIST! It's really that simple.

        The ignorance on here is astounding to me. Seriously worried for our future.

        September 13, 2011 at 1:56 pm |
      • FreedomfromReligion

        We don't have to have a purpose, but religion would have it that way. If you don't believe their way, you automatically have no purpose in they do?

        September 13, 2011 at 1:57 pm |
      • SeekTheTRUTH

        The only way that existence of GOD will become apparent to you will be if you read the Revelation of GOD.
        And The only true revelation on this earth is THE HOLY QURAN (KORAN).
        THis is my last message to everyone and answer to honestly all your questions:

        September 13, 2011 at 2:10 pm |
      • Pastafarian

        F the Quran and all other books written to control the masses through fear, guilt, and intimidation.

        September 13, 2011 at 2:21 pm |
      • FreedomfromReligion

        SeekTheTruth......Go back to elementary school, and quit believing your religion. You only believe it because your parents told you, and their parents told them. What, you can't do you own research? If you did, you might really be able to "seek the truth" and quit your rambling about something you know absolutely nothing about. Religion is fake, simple as that. What that means is that you need to be seeking another avenue of thought, one that might make your life have a real purpose. You don't really have a purpose with religion. By the way, we are all born, and we all die. Simple fact for you.

        September 13, 2011 at 2:43 pm |
    • SeekTheTRUTH

      i have a very different purpose than yours.
      My purpose is to believe that there is only one GOD, to believe in his messengers, and his revelations. And after that to obey Gods orders. That is to Worship him alone and not associate any partners with him and not reject his divinity.
      He commands me to respect my parents and elders and love children. He commands me to feed poor and orphan by giving charity in any amount and to give a compulsory charity of 2.5% of your savings yearly. To help others and to stop evil and promote goodness.

      September 13, 2011 at 1:51 pm |
      • Pastafarian

        really? did he send you this message via email? txt? Did he inbox it to your facebook page? What??? HE didn't actually give you the message? Huh? You got the message from other mortal beings just like you??? Yet you blindly live your life following unsubstatiated messages from old moldy books written during the bronze age by uneducated men? Yeah, that makes sense.

        September 13, 2011 at 1:58 pm |
      • YourWrong

        Your purpose comes from nowhere. It is based on nothing but man made stories passed down your family line thru the generations. There is no reason besides that to believe anything you have stated. It's a very unfounded and close minded existence that you have and on some levels I pity you. It gives you some false sense of superiority over those who do not share your belief that you are somehow more moral and destined for eternal paradise while the rest of us will burn. It gives you the justification to falsely claim that you follow the teachings of Jesus while at the same time condemning anyone who does not live life the way you think they should.

        September 13, 2011 at 1:59 pm |
      • Pastafarian

        Yet you probably laugh at jihadist suicide bombers who are convinced they will be met by 72 virgins after they die. Their beliefs are no more ridiculous than yours.

        September 13, 2011 at 2:03 pm |
      • FreedomfromReligion

        Then you don't have a purpose, except to believe in ghosts and goblins? Get some education, please.

        September 13, 2011 at 2:05 pm |
      • Stephen Charchuk

        The meaning of life can be found in any good dictionary.....

        Purpose is what you make of it.

        September 13, 2011 at 4:01 pm |
  64. julianpenrod

    The discussion here involved little more than the "anointed ones" of the "science" community declaring what they insts everyone believe, followed by opponents sating the technically incorrect statement that Darwin said man descended from apes and pro-evolutionists correcting that statement. Nowhere an actual, verifiable, valid discounting of evolution. With official power behind it, evolution will not get the true test unless it can be faced with legitimate counters. Anyone who settles for just tweaking evolution's beard is like someone shouting they're free while being marched to the shift at the mill.
    In fact, evolution, from Lamarckian to Darwinian, has faults and failures, but they are never addressed by "science" and often are so subtle they are misseed by those embracing the shallow mentality the New World Order espouses. All evolution suggests minor changes accumulating over time in response to environment. But changes, whether willed or random, are represented by all evolution theories as small and, in the case of Darwin and similar theories, completely unregulated and undirected. Changes in the environment rarely are that limited and would always outp[ace at least Darwinian responses. Too, there can be many ways in which a species can change to adapt equally successfully to changes in environment, but evolution always parades one. Why are there no cases of multiple adaptations of the same root species?
    And, in a direct and concrete case, take creatures living in pellucid, lightless environments. They end up colorless and even without eyes. "evolutionists" prate that, 'They didn't need them so they lost them". But that's not what evolution says. Darwinian evolution says creatures respond in a way that is adaptively favorable. In an environment without light, how is a creature disadvantaged by even bright colors? It serves no purpose related to adaptation to blackness to lose color. A creature that is brightly colored would do as well as one without any color! Such creatures are as if programmed ahead of time!
    Of course, many claim there is evidence, but what evidence? Who has ever seen a real fossil? Not the resin replicas they put in museums, but the actual supposed fossils? "Science" demands proof, but they never provide the actual proof to the people! They say what they want them to think and order them to believe it!
    And take a good look at jusrt how reliable "science" is.
    Every few months, some "researcher" claims they found a "power law" governing everything from earthquake magnitudes to "terrorist" attacks. But a "power law" can be "proved" with antyhing. "Proving" one involves taking logarithms of data and showing they fall on a straight line. But logarithms are notorious for "squashing" data. The log of 10 is 1, the log of 100 is 2, the log of 1000 is 3! You can take any data, take the logarithms of the vues, and produce something close to a straight line!
    The fraudulent "educational" technique of "whole language" was based on some money mad "researchers" claiming that humans habe sound making as an inherent quality, which they fashion into speech y being around people who speak, so they should also have an inherent "recognition" of letter shapes as being related to certain sounds, which they can fashion into reading, just be being surrounded with lots of pictures of letters. THis, they sold to greedy and corrupt school boards, itching to skim some of the budget money for the new program off for thesmelves. But "whole language" didn't work, in fact, it coincided with the inset of "dyslexia", which is just an indirect way of saying "not being able to make sense of letters". Turning back to phonics has led to a diminishing of dyslexia to near zero.
    And the coroproate controlled "news" venues can't praise Gary Wells enough for his "strides in improving police work". Claiming that people's memories can't be trusted, Wells, the criminals' friend, said such techniques as mug book identification was flawed because people "combined images". He recommended the tedious, time wasting process of having a person stare at one picture at a rtime for e\several minutes then proceed to the next, for hour after hour after hour. The "news" proclaims that he "increased the number of right identifications", butm, then, buried in the articles they admit he only "decreased the number of false identifications", which is immensely different. And, face it, all Wells' technique does is tire witnesses out early, so they simply give up! They don't try to make an identification. And, if there are fewer identifications, there can be fewer false ones!
    ANd, face it, "Einstein's relativity" was never proved! The Michelson-Morley Experiment still gives seasonal variations in the observed speed of light. And no "prediction" was ever obsaerved by anyone not getting paid to say it works! Atomic power comes from atoms splitting due to the electrostatic force between protons in the nucleus. It's only the amount of mass change in the particles supposedly turned to energy that "relativity" "predicts", and only the "scientists" ever "measure" that! But everything from the Doppler effect to even time dilation has a classical explanation! It's only the magnitude that "relativity" challenges, and that, only "scientists" have eve observed! And "game theory" seems to be nothing more than a lot of charts and graphs followed by saying that someone decided to "go beyond the rules".
    "Science" cannot be trusted. They don't even admit that the conflict with Christianity isn't because Christians don't like knowledge, but the fact that "evolution" does not account for the development of a soul! If "science" would admit and then prove how soulks could suddenly come into beings in supposedly soulless animals, Christianity would be right on board! But "science" only wants to act like the wounded innocent at the hands of monolithic religion! Members of the "science" community never tell the truth!
    What few in the "science" community seem to ahve considered is the idea of challenging both "evolution" and "creationism" with a third system! Too many people are too willing to believe everything they're told, even that there are only two possible "explanations" for life!
    If you ignore the question of the rise of the soul, for example,or assume everything has a soul, only some can't easily express it overtly, or some other such explanation, you can use a "Kerala rain" explanation for life on earth at least. Kerala in India regularly experiences a red precipitation containing micro-organisms no one recognizes. What if life is "seeded" by means of the organism hardy enough to survive space travel, a microbe, chemically programmed to change over time. Mathematical systems can be devised that go from simple to complex forms automatically, like an expanding spring. Perhaps life on earth behaves that way. Where it came from can be another issue.

    September 13, 2011 at 1:24 pm |
    • SeekTheTRUTH

      I am definitely not going to read that.

      September 13, 2011 at 1:27 pm |
    • YourWrong

      What a jumbled mess of incoherent and fallacious rambling that goes nowhere and says nothing!

      September 13, 2011 at 1:32 pm |
    • Pastafarian

      There are so many false assumptions in this grabled wall of text that my eyes and head both hurt from reading it. I don't even know where to begin, but suffice it to say that your argument is filled with flaws, inaccuracies, and just plain bad assumptions.

      By the way, just to make the simplest of points, organisms living in complete darkness may lose eyes, color, etc becuase it is thermodynamically wasteful to put energy into developing structures that do not confer any selective advantage. Thus the organisms who do notwaste energy carrying these traits will have increased efficiency, and thus, an advantage. Just a theory, but a simple explanation to address your bogus assumptions.

      September 13, 2011 at 2:09 pm |
    • julianpenrod

      If it is "htermodynamically wasteful" to have bright colors, then it's equally useless in a lighted environment. Moreover, bright colors in a lighted environment draw the eye of predators! Too, "thermodynamic" effects can be at best extremely minimal. Which addresses the point of variation. No "evolutionary" variation is ever significnat. They are all minor in form and grow over the years. But that means that they can never be significant enough, in the earliest stages, to advantage a creature! And, too, when they are only minor variations in their structure, they are just as easily undone by other changes!
      And SeekThe TRUTH's reply is so characteristic of the synergy the New World ORder seeks. They want to breed a society who will forego the truth because it takes too much trouble to obtain it! Evidently SeekTheTRUTH and the dullards at which SeekTheTRUTH's message is directed are unaware of the fact, or don't want to advertise the fact, that Darwin's "On The Origin Of Species" ran to more than 100 pages! If length automatically indicates lack of value, then they must, as a matter of honor, say that Darwin sahould be ignored! But don't necessarily expect honor from them. Honor drives itself and someone driven by honor would realize already that the "argument" SeekTheTRUTH used to "condemn" my statement works even more on such as Darwin's books.

      September 13, 2011 at 3:26 pm |
  65. Rick

    Evolution, is happen now, seals for example one day they will not return to the water, and the fins will become feet, turtles,frogs, they are all coming out, we have fish that come out of the sea to lay their eggs they are coming out, we have iguanas that live on a island were there is no food what made them dive into the ocean when no other iguana will do that......EVOLUTION!

    September 13, 2011 at 1:06 pm |
    • SeekTheTRUTH


      September 13, 2011 at 1:13 pm |
  66. Questionable

    All of you people bashing evolution, if you have a dog, look up its lineage. so how far back it goes? Not very far in terms of how old the earth is, labrador retrievers did not exist hundreds of years ago, so where did the come from huh? selective breeding aka survival of the fittest. It is right in front of your face and you still refute it.

    September 13, 2011 at 12:58 pm |
    • SeekTheTRUTH

      see evolution within species that is dog becoming big and small, becoming mutated and non mutated is common and undisputed. or bacteria becoming resistant and non resistant.
      but saying that fish change into frog or other way round or saying humans originated from apes is dumb. How come we have not seen a single example like this because as you guys says its been occurring for millions of years. WHY DID IT STOP?

      September 13, 2011 at 1:11 pm |
      • Questionable

        It didnt stop, 16,000 years ago there were no elephants but some animals that are very similar, let me think hmmm a mammoth maybe. It is a very distinct species and def not an elephant. Ive never seen a star implode but I know that it happens all the time with relevance to the age of the universe

        September 13, 2011 at 1:21 pm |
      • Questionable

        remember 16,000 is very small compared to 4,500,000,000

        September 13, 2011 at 1:23 pm |
      • YourWrong

        It didn't stop, the change is very gradual occurring over thousands if not millions of years. The changes from one generation to the next are very small. If you look at any two consecutive generations of a species you would never see any differnence at all. The changes can only be seen when you have many, many generations in between separating the two specimens you are observing. It is a very slow and gradual process. Nothing happens over night or in a single human lifetime (with the exceptions of single celled organsims and small insects). I think this extraodinarily long time frame is why many people seem to have such difficulty grasping the concept. Even people that study this stuff for a living have trouble grasping these geological and evolutionary time scales.

        September 13, 2011 at 1:41 pm |
      • SeekTheTRUTH

        Where did I say that?

        September 13, 2011 at 1:58 pm |
    • SeekTheTRUTH

      "A mammoth is any species of the extinct genus Mammuthus. These proboscideans are members of Elephantidae, the family of elephants and mammoths, and close relatives of modern elephants. "
      See they are all elephants, you can call them anything you want.

      September 13, 2011 at 1:26 pm |
      • Questionable

        So are you saying that at the beging of time all existing and exstinct species were alive and now 90 percent are exstinct

        September 13, 2011 at 1:31 pm |
      • SeekTheTRUTH

        Where did I say that??

        September 13, 2011 at 1:59 pm |
      • Questionable

        It was implied when you said there is no evolution but there are extinct species

        September 13, 2011 at 2:03 pm |
  67. leggs

    But it's so easy to believe in magic.

    September 13, 2011 at 12:58 pm |
  68. Rick

    We all know one thing about this loving god, he believes in capital punishment!

    September 13, 2011 at 12:57 pm |
    • SeekTheTRUTH

      just ask a blood relative of a person who was raped and then brutally murdered. How do they feel?
      And then tell me the best punishment you can give to that raper and murderer? And tell me if that criminal is never caught how will the person who was murdered ever get justice?

      September 13, 2011 at 1:16 pm |
      • Stephen Charchuk

        Ever heard of DNA?

        September 13, 2011 at 3:59 pm |
  69. Rick

    If there is a God with all his powers. he really did a bad job!

    September 13, 2011 at 12:55 pm |
    • SeekTheTRUTH

      He sent you here for test; and you are astray and on path of failure. Therefore, your are bad that resulted in a bad world

      September 13, 2011 at 1:18 pm |
      • Stephen Charchuk

        My baloney meter just went off the scale.

        September 13, 2011 at 3:57 pm |
  70. retief1954

    "....readers who do not believe these new findings – or any evidence of human evolution, for that matter – because of their religious beliefs."
    Unlike faith, evolution is not a matter of "belief". It always amuses me to hear people saying they don't "believe" in evolution. I think it's because they simply don't understand science and how science works, because they don't have any scientific background. And, when you bring religion into it, you're talking apples and oranges. Evolution is not a "competing theory" alongside "creationism" or "intelligent design". But that's how anti-evolution "faithers" see it. It's because they lack understanding. And, their religious belief is so dear to them that they can't bring themselves to even consider an evidence-based explanation for how our world got to be the way it is.

    September 13, 2011 at 12:52 pm |

    You need to read a book other then the Bible. Evolution is a fact. We did not come from monkeys...rather we share a common ancestor. Your ignorance is shameful. I really hope your not an American...we dont need any more idiots in this country.

    September 13, 2011 at 12:51 pm |
    • SeekTheTRUTH


      September 13, 2011 at 1:21 pm |
      • Stephen Charchuk

        I pity you for your willful ignorance...

        September 13, 2011 at 3:56 pm |
  72. Rick

    Do me a favor all you religious scholars, if you don't believe in science, the next time you really get sick stay home and pray all the way to your death, while I have some doctor cure me with the science that is at hand!

    September 13, 2011 at 12:49 pm |
  73. erich2112x

    But what is the underlying force of nature that determines that a fish should grow a set of lungs and set off for dry land in order to survive? The fish certainly isn't making that assessment, it's just a fish?

    September 13, 2011 at 12:47 pm |
    • Questionable

      Survival of the fittest and time. A pond slowly dries up, resources become scarce so only the strong/fittest can survive and reproduce. If a gene mutate in favore of the fishes survival it will be stronger and reproduce more. It is survive or die off.

      September 13, 2011 at 12:51 pm |
      • Stephen Charchuk

        Actually survival of the fittest has more to do with response to change than being stronger or smarter.

        September 13, 2011 at 1:15 pm |
    • erich2112x

      But I have to ask again, where does that magical mutation come from? A fish doesn't have the slightest clue as to how it will change in order to survive, A force of nature unknown to us, knows just what the fish needs i order to survive.

      September 13, 2011 at 12:55 pm |
      • Questionable

        Mutations in genes happen all the time, thats what cancer is. Only mutation that benefit the species will be passed on bhecause the ones like cancer should keep the species from reproducing. 10th grade science taught me that.

        September 13, 2011 at 1:01 pm |
    • MaybeAgnosticMaybeNot

      I'll be happy to explain. But first tell me why your God gave whales leg bones.

      September 13, 2011 at 12:56 pm |
    • Read-Darwin

      If the pond is slowly drying up over millions and millions of years then the fish will not notice and by the time the fish realizes the pond is drying up – I don't think it has enough time to evolve into a land animal. Also, where are the fossils of these fish/animals that obviously existed for millions and millions of years – yet all we find are the fish and the animal!

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

        Holy crap! did i ever say anything about the fish's awarness. Pond drying up= scarce reasources aka food=strongest and most able to get food survive=pass on their stronger genes. If a mutation occurs that allows the fish to get more resources it will reproduce=more fishes with the mutated gene. We are talking about very large numbers

        September 13, 2011 at 1:10 pm |
      • Stephen Charchuk


        The first thing you should realize about READ-DARWIN is that he is retarded.

        September 13, 2011 at 1:17 pm |
      • Read-Darwin

        Funny – I don't have to resort to name calling to back my belief. The idea that a fish with less resources starts growing legs and looking for food on land makes no sense. We don't see fish growing legs when the wetlands dry up or a pond dries up now- oh but wait it all has to happen over millions and millions of years. Where are all the fossils of the dead fish with their half legs as they tried to crawl out of the pond and died because they didn't have full developed lungs yet?

        September 13, 2011 at 1:27 pm |
      • Questionable

        September 13, 2011 at 1:35 pm |
      • Alan

        I think your getting tadpoles growing legs and turning to frogs mixed in with fish just growing legs and taking off where's the fishes legs on the video? looks to me like he's just trying to get back in the water..

        September 13, 2011 at 2:10 pm |
    • Questionable

      The way I look at it is if you do not believe in evolution then you either believe fossil records are a lie or that all existing species and extinct species (many of which were very similar but distinctly different species) lived together on Earth at one point in time a very long time ago and now 90% of those species are dead. Also that many of the 10% remaining species have no fossil records from millions of years ago. I just do not see how that makes sense.

      You can say well God just put them before and the Bible is not linear time as we understand it. You can contort your religious views around the evidence science brings forth, but in the end you are changing your religion. We do not change science, only discover better explainations to fit a phenomenon.

      At one time people were persecuted by the Church for claiming the Earth to be round and that the Earth is not the center of the universe. Yet these day to believe otherwise would be taboo. The Church remains to the claim that God did all of this even though their leaders and the Bible gave completely contradictory claims a few hundred years ago.

      Science just says, oh we were wrong back then. We didn't have the knowledge and technology to understand the phenomenon back then so we assumed what we could observe was valid.

      Go into the far past and show a man a flash light. Tell him god gave you this power. He will likely believ it because it is beyond his comprehension, but then show him how it works and explain it to him. Do you now say it is God and all engineering with the light bulb and batteries. Of course not, its just batteries, wires, and a light bulb.

      September 14, 2011 at 3:10 am |
  74. Nolan Nelson

    Evolution should try joining mainstream science where best answers coalesce when one observes, measures, replicates by experiment, and computes formulas for a phenomenon. Examinations for many physical events have not reached this four-fold rationality.
    One example is String Theory, or the “theory of everything”; everything for atomic, micro-processes. Mathematical models utilize eleven dimensions to unify gravitational, electromagnetic, and nuclear strong and weak forces. Here is computation without experiment, measurement, or observation. Niels Bohr would say, “Yes, yes you have the mathematics. But does it make sense?” Notable critics say scientists utilizing mathematics inadvertently venture into philosophy and/or religion.
    The other extreme is Macroevolution, where all is observation. Rigorous measurements and experiments would require 1,000 to 10,000 times recorded history. Advocates contemplate observed phenomenon, and decide Macroevolution explains everything. Yet this theory fails computational testing, with vanishing small probabilities using Thermodynamics, which covers all macro-processes.
    Evolution advocates should consider natural processes in open systems, as required by natural selection, and note consistent increased disorder, release of energy, and increased entropy. Absent intentionality, even huge energy inputs result in Katrina, and not the Brooklyn Bridge.
    For just one hypothesis biased in their favor, assume that during a time span one minute short of eternity there are 182,000,000 steps through the vagaries of chemical reaction, environment, and predator events from the first one cell animal to man. If 181,999,500 steps have an absolute certainty of occurring, and the remaining 500 have a 90% probability of occurring, then the chance Macroevolution explains the presence of humans is 0.000000000000000000000013220708.
    Rigorous debate continues concerning String Theory, but debate is prohibited concerning Macroevolution. Theoretical Physicists fearlessly tread about areas of research others might intrude for their concept of god. Evolutionists rigorously defend their concept, and prohibit scientific inquiry because it might open untoward speculations by those in other campus buildings.

    September 13, 2011 at 12:45 pm |
    • Questionable

      Macro and Micro evolution are terms coined by Christians so they could believe in one and not the other. There is just evolution.

      September 13, 2011 at 12:48 pm |
    • scaredofstupidity

      Evolutionary scientists aren't frightened of scientific examination. What they hate is a pseudo-science based on
      NOTHING but faith trying to pass itself off as a valid scientific theory. ID, or creationism, or whatever you want to call it has absolutely non supporting evidence outside of wishful thinking and religious teachings. Calling creationism a scientific theory reminds me of the old joke that just because a cat has kittens in the oven, it doesn't make them biscuits.

      September 13, 2011 at 12:53 pm |
  75. Rick

    Alice in Wonderland, Santa Clause, Peter Pan, God, they are all fairly tales!

    September 13, 2011 at 12:44 pm |
  76. Steve

    People, let's not forget that both creationism and evolution are THEORIES. Neither can be proven so based on that, believe one or the other and shut up about it. Don't tell me one should be taught in schools and the other shouldn't because if you are teaching one THEORY, you better be teaching the other too. And all you scientists out there who claim evolution is fact, please remember your scientific methods...if you can't confirm your hypothesis via your experiment, it remains a hypothesis, period. Bellieve what you want...I'll be praying for the salvation of your souls!

    September 13, 2011 at 12:42 pm |
    • Questionable

      Scientific theory is way different than just theory, you dont know what you speak of.

      September 13, 2011 at 12:44 pm |
    • YourWrong

      Evolution is a fact with tons of evidence to support it. Please google the differnce between the term "scientific theory" and the everyday meaning of the word "theory." They are very different terms and educating yourself a bit more before you jump into the fray will help you sound less foolish next time.

      September 13, 2011 at 12:45 pm |
  77. scaredofstupidity

    It scares me how much the Taliban and Fundamentalist Christians are alike: Education must conform to religious teachings, fear of science and modernity, fear and loathing of homosexuals and the threat of making everyone else conform, either through force and bullets (Taliban) and yelling louder than anyone else and the ballot box (Xtians).
    Both fear a concept of the Almighty who is more powerful than their little minds can comprehend.
    LIFE is the miracle–how it got here is irrelevant to our day to day existence.

    September 13, 2011 at 12:40 pm |
  78. SeekTheTRUTH

    Evolution of humans –from human ancestor called Australopithecus sediba– is a dumb fact for those who cant believe in the undeniable fact that GOD EXIST.

    September 13, 2011 at 12:39 pm |
    • scaredofstupidity

      ah, the "facts are the enemy of truth" argument.
      Get it into your head Evolution and God are NOT mutually exclusive. One is the explanation of science, the other, the explanation through faith.
      If you're going to insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible, you have a lot of explaining to do about its inconsistencies–like its two creation stories, for starters.

      September 13, 2011 at 12:46 pm |
  79. Questionable

    For religious people: Why should I believe God created man when scientific evidence shows otherwise

    September 13, 2011 at 12:34 pm |
    • Read-Darwin

      You don't have the scientific evidence. Evolution has not been witnessed or re-created. Fossils have not been discovered showing a mouse with half wings as it evolved into a bird. We seem to only find fossils that show an animal as it was created by God.

      September 13, 2011 at 12:50 pm |
      • Questionable

        Well then were did labrador retrievers come from, they didnt exist hundreds of years ago, what about MRSA

        September 13, 2011 at 12:54 pm |
      • Read-Darwin

        I want to see a fish crawl out of the water and become a land animal and then grow wings and fly. I want to see an evolution to a new species not just a variant within one.

        September 13, 2011 at 1:00 pm |
      • YourWrong

        Evolution has been witnessed and re-created in a controlled setting multiple times. And for the Christian nit-pickers, yes to both kinds (as if there was really a difference) micro (adaptations within the same species) and macro (changes from one species to the next). Here are some studies for you to educate yourself:

        Rice, W.R.; Hostert (1993). "Laboratory experiments on speciation: what have we learned in 40 years".
        Jiggins CD, Bridle JR (2004). "Speciation in the apple maggot fly: a blend of vintages?".
        Boxhorn, J (1995). "Observed Instances of Speciation"
        Weinberg JR, Starczak VR, Jorg, D (1992). "Evidence for Rapid Speciation Following a Founder Event in the Laboratory"
        Kirkpatrick, Mark; Virginie Ravigné (2002-03). "Speciation by Natural and Sexual Selection: Models and Experiments"

        September 13, 2011 at 1:02 pm |
      • Questionable

        you are so simple minded it is unbelievable. No one said a fish just grew wings and if you think real scientists are then you need to read a bit further. We are talking time scales that you cannot comprehend and tiny mutation that cannot be seen in one generation. Look up MRSA because it did not exist 100 years ago.

        September 13, 2011 at 1:04 pm |
    • SeekTheTRUTH

      See the science just tell you that there is similarity in the structures and functions of those structures. and then tell you OMG– (even scientists sometimes use oh my GOD–lol) they all are same so they all have common ancestor and then all came to existence randomly in a big Bang without the need of GOD. Sound interesting but dumb.
      So the other day I was passing by a river and I wanted to get on the other side of the river but there was no bridge or boat or any source to get to other side. and then I heard a loud bang. then I saw a trees splitting and being cut in different ways and all of a sudden a nice small boat was created with paddles and I happily crossed the river. SIMPLE WAY TO EXPLAIN THE BIG BANG THAT RESULTED IN CREATION WITHOUT GOD.
      By the way, if you were to study science in detail yourself, you will realize that the complexity involved in all the natural things can not occur without someone supernatural creating and planning. JUST STUDY EMBRYOLOGY.

      September 13, 2011 at 1:04 pm |
      • Questionable

        I have studied it a lot and have come to no such conclusion. Big Bang is an abstract term to explain a point in time in which all the matter and energy of the universe came to be, we are slowly moving towards explaining how and why. How do MRSA and labrador retrievers fit into the God theory.

        September 13, 2011 at 1:14 pm |
  80. Read-Darwin

    Evolution basically says through varies processes life gets better. How come after millions and millions of years of evolution we still have babies that are born with their heart outside their body? You would think after that happening over millions and millions of years it would have evolved away.

    September 13, 2011 at 12:33 pm |
    • Questionable

      You have a very limited understanding of evolution, it doesn't evolve away. In nature babies bore with such a disfunction would die and not reproduce there fore limiting the transferance of that gene mutation. Thats not to say that the gene cannot again be mutated independently due to an error in DNA replication

      September 13, 2011 at 12:37 pm |
    • YourWrong

      Evolution says nothing about things getting better. In fact, imperfections are exactly what we should expect to see in evolution. Imperfections are not what we should expect to see if everything was created by a perfect, omnipotent, and omnicient being. God couldn't get things right the first time?

      September 13, 2011 at 12:38 pm |
    • Read-Darwin

      God did get it right the first time. Man fell captive to Satan and the Earth was turned over to Satan. God is returning to reclaim earth and destroy Satan creating a new heaven and a new earth which will be perfect.

      September 13, 2011 at 12:58 pm |
      • YourWrong

        ok, thanks! That is a reasonable and logical explanation of everything. I now see that I have been wrong all along and my trust of science was very flawed.

        September 13, 2011 at 1:05 pm |
      • Nix68

        Your response is completly without foundation or rational thought. Unfortunate mutations occur. The fact that they do is an argument AGAINST "intelligent" design. If there were a SATAN who caused it, he only exists because GOD allows it. Thus God is responsible for such events.

        September 13, 2011 at 1:39 pm |
    • Nix68

      better implies a moral judgement. Evolution/Natural selection is a function of survival. Over time natural selection adjusts the gene pool of the organism towards those characteristics which are more likely to survive and reproduce. Some argue this is a gradual shift. Some argue that rapid changes in environment may have significant long lasting impact. Mutation either due to environmental conditions or just random chance is bound to occur and yes reoccur over a long enough period of time or larger population. Nature is blind and will continue to act on our gene pool.

      September 13, 2011 at 1:31 pm |
  81. MaybeAgnosticMaybeNot

    Whales have leg bones.

    September 13, 2011 at 12:33 pm |
  82. sciguydan

    I just wanted to say that man did not evolve from monkeys....GREAT APES people....monkeys are small, tailed fruit eating, poo flinging acrobates of the rainforest. GREAT APES, like chimps, and gorillas,and orangutanes are more in line with our genetic markers then any other species on Earth....good day

    September 13, 2011 at 12:29 pm |
  83. William

    Religion is the opiate of the masses. As long as you keep the uneducated, poor and ignorant classes convinced there is such a thing as a deity, they will continue to do your bidding. It's time to evolve and break away from the chains of religion.

    September 13, 2011 at 12:28 pm |
  84. Lester

    Just a note on the Pythagorean Theorem: It is only true in "flat" space (see a topology textbook for the definition of flat.) Relativity predicts, and astronomical measurements verify, that space is not flat near massive bodies–like black holes. Since the Earth also has mass, the Pythagorean Theorem is therefore not true on the Earth. However, because of the small mass of the Earth, compared to a Black Hole, the variation is quite small.

    September 13, 2011 at 12:27 pm |
  85. Lisa

    Evolution, to me, is just a reason for man not to accept that he was created by God.

    September 13, 2011 at 12:27 pm |
    • YourWrong

      And god is a reason for man to not accept facts in general.

      September 13, 2011 at 12:30 pm |
    • Questionable

      God to me is religious people comforting themselves with what they do not understand

      September 13, 2011 at 12:31 pm |
      • Alan

        @questionable, There will be a day when you kneel down before the Lord Jesus Christ, hopefully it'll be before you leave this earth, Do you think satan believes in God? of course he does. As far as all of your rants about labradors, A dog is a dog is a dog. Labs came about through breeding which is breeding in the qualities the breeder would like to enhance or wants from a dog. They keep the traits they like and build on that. This my friend is NOT evolution!!

        September 13, 2011 at 1:45 pm |
      • YourWrong

        @Alan Where did domestic dogs come from? There were none about 15,000 years ago. Humans created all breeds of dogs thru selective breeding of wolves. It only took 15,000 years to turn a wolf into all the variety of dogs we see today. Wolves and dogs are totally different species not just different breeds of the same species. Humans were able to speed up and manipulate the process of evolution in a relatively short amount of time.

        September 13, 2011 at 2:38 pm |
      • Jarin Udom


        Haha that is ridiculous, that is EXACTLY what evolution is. Except in the case of dogs, 'fitness' is determined by qualities that humans desired, not by qualities that made survival more likely in the wild. You see the exact same thing in cultivated plants (have you ever seen a wild banana? you probably wouldn't want to eat it.).

        September 14, 2011 at 4:21 am |
      • Alan

        Right I know but differing breeds of dogs is not my argument. My disagreement against evolution is the example of "fish grows legs, crawls out of water, turns into a reptile" that sort of thing, that's the part that doesn't work. Alll these "different" dogs are still dogs they didn't turn into cats or some crazy thing like that. That's my point.

        September 14, 2011 at 8:23 am |
      • Stephen Charchuk


        You do know that Jesus never claimed to be god, only his messenger. It was the later Church that elevated him to godhead in order to explain away how a monotheistic belief system could have more than one god. The trinity is a lie to cover it.

        Also, a little known fact. If the Christ did exist his name wouldn't have been Jesus. That is a later Greek MISTRANSLATION. His name would have been something more like Yahushua.

        September 14, 2011 at 10:04 am |
      • Alan

        Here a just a few verses from the Bible where it says that Jesus is God
        Mathew 1:23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”(which means “God with us”). NIV
        Colossians 2:8-9 8) See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men,
        according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. 9) For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, NASB
        Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, NIV
        John 10:30 I and the Father are one.” NASB this is Jesus speaking.
        There are more instances in the Bible where it says Jesus is God.

        September 14, 2011 at 11:07 am |
      • Jarin Udom


        I think it's pretty clear that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution in general and the time spans involved. It took about 2.8 BILLION years to get from simple cells to cells with a nucleus to simple multicellular organisms like algae.

        Going on your example (fish -> reptiles), we're talking about around 200 million years of evolution. You're comparing that to around 10,000 years of domesticated dog breeding and expecting dogs to turn into cats.

        September 14, 2011 at 1:42 pm |
      • Alan

        time yeh I know it took time!!! Unfortunately you cannot reproduce all of this massive amounts of time to recreate the hypothesis of evolutionary changes from sudden creation of single cell–>collection of cell making a body–> this animal–> turning into totally different animals–> and all these different animals having different genetic makeup. Serious question. In the primordial soup that happened " along time ago", how many little cells or things where created? There had to be something different for plants, than the one that popped up for animals. And was there more than one little ooze created for the obviously different animals out there. If so how many? OR did all plants and animals come from the same slime bucket, if so we are related to plants right? See how silly it really starts to sound all this stuff just starts happening by itself. And look at the utter complexity of a simple cell, very complex indeed, then you get a body made up of millions of these, I mean this is super complex. What's the odds of all that just happening?

        September 14, 2011 at 2:14 pm |
      • Alan

        Sure takes a lot of Faith in man made theories to really believe all of that. Just use a little bit of logic on this is it really logical?

        September 14, 2011 at 2:17 pm |
      • Jarin Udom


        Um, yes it is completely logical to assume that humans and plants share a common ancestor if you go back far enough. I mean, humans and plants are both eukaryotes, we share the exact same DNA structure (even down to using the same 3-nucleotide codons), our cells use the exact same energy source (ATP), our cells use the same ion pumps to maintain the same sodium-potassium concentrations, our genetic code is expressed via RNA intermediates into proteins in the same way, etc etc etc.

        September 14, 2011 at 2:34 pm |
      • Alan

        @ Jarin
        ok could you explain why these differences between plant cells and animal cells exist, if they had a common ancestor?
        Plant cells contain different features that animal cells don't have. Plant cells have chloroplasts for manufacturing chlorophyll. Plant cells contain plastids - small structures that aid in photosynthesis. Additionally, plant cells have a cell wall and a cell membrane, while animal cells only have a cell membrane.

        So which came first the plant or the animal? And why on earth would it change its cell structure so dramatically? Just sayin

        September 14, 2011 at 2:45 pm |
      • Jarin Udom


        Yes, that is evolution. At some point, one line of organisms acquired chloroplasts (most likely by absorbing cyanobacteria into a symbiotic relationship, similar to what happened with mitochondria), and that line then further divided into protists and plants. The other line eventually resulted in animals.

        Why the dramatic differences? Because the Earth is not a uniform environment. If the Earth was a uniform sphere, with equal amounts of sunlight everywhere and with equal resources available at every location, yes it might be strange to see differentiation. However, since the Earth is very non-uniform and there is competition for limited resources, it's completely logical that organisms would adapt to fill the available niches.

        September 14, 2011 at 3:25 pm |
      • Alan

        In 1981, Sir Fred Hoyle complained in Nature magazine:
        "The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is [a number] big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence..."

        In 1982, Dr. Hoyle wrote:
        "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a Superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question..."

        Old school NASA Experts actually had it right. Robert Jastrow, founder / director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA wrote:
        "According to [Evolution] every tree, every blade of grass, and every creature in the sea and on the land evolved out of one parent strand of molecular matter drifting lazily in a warm pool. What concrete evidence supports that remarkable theory of the origin of life? There is none."

        Even Charles Darwin himself acknowledged:
        "The main conclusion arrived at in this work, namely that man is descended from some lowly organized form, will, I regret to think, be highly distasteful to many."

        September 14, 2011 at 3:43 pm |
    • Rick

      Not true evolution is a way to prove a bunch of nuts are running around giviing all there money to a church and in return you get nothing but hope there is some great god in the sky watching over us! What a SCAM, You really expect me to beleive in something ignorant people wrote thousand of years ago because they could explain, what was going on with the planet. Some people would sacrafice lives until the sun came back, we now know this as a eclipse, some women were burned at the stake, for witch craft....Wow, my point is god was there way of explaining things they didn't know about, but to believe it now is crazy!

      September 13, 2011 at 12:36 pm |
  86. Questionable

    Or it could be a flood of serotonin and dopamine in your brain when you think you are no longer mortal

    September 13, 2011 at 12:27 pm |
  87. Read-Darwin

    Science can never explain or prove the personal relationship a believer has with God. It is like our soul is living in this avatar body, but the Earth is not our home and our souls will return to their Creator – we want to be with our Creator like you want to be with your parents when you are a child. Science does not have to disagree with this.

    September 13, 2011 at 12:24 pm |
    • Rick

      How do you know that, has anyone died, really died not just for a few moments and been to heaven and back.....NO you just have to believe it or not, there is no basis to it!

      September 13, 2011 at 12:29 pm |
  88. Elisabeth

    I am a Christian and anthropologist. I believe in the facts of science and truth in evolution. God's way is evolution...

    September 13, 2011 at 12:23 pm |
  89. Wastrel

    There is so much evidence in favor of evolution (and natural selection) that it should be a criminal act (perhaps a form of religious terrorism) to deny that it happens.

    September 13, 2011 at 12:22 pm |
    • Rick

      I totaly agree!

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

        At the very least, it should be a question that everyone is asked before they are allowed to vote. No evolution, no vote!

        September 13, 2011 at 12:33 pm |
    • sciguydan

      Here here!....(raises beer)

      September 13, 2011 at 12:31 pm |
  90. JT

    It seems as though we keep having this discussion for the benefit of the C/D students.

    September 13, 2011 at 12:19 pm |
  91. c602206

    MotherFER said:

    "Lucifer is the great deciever, He has planted the bones to be found and false beliefs in science are the result. God made you, end of story. Believe it or not, he loves you and made you and without him you lose everything. Science can do great good, but can manipulated to do great evil for the father of lies"

    *choking with laughter*...That's HILARIOUS! You are HILARIOUS!!!!! So, what happend first; did religion steal your wits or were you witless before religion entered your life?

    September 13, 2011 at 12:19 pm |
    • Rick

      I love my kids, but I would never let them burn in hell because they didn't listen to me, that sounds cruel not loving! Plus the devil was once one of gods angels, so that lets you know he likes playing games with us! Religion is a scam!

      September 13, 2011 at 12:23 pm |
      • Anon A Mouse

        "the morning star" and " the bringer of light" were very old metaphoric code for "the sun". The mayans weren't the only ancient people to observe astronomical happenings and give them metaphorical connotation. .... Can lead a horse to water but can't make it "think".
        Look up the Latin translation for "Lux" and then "Lucifer". Then do your homework and take this back to ancient Greek.

        December 19, 2011 at 4:42 pm |
  92. Anon A mouse

    Physicists boost 'entanglement' of atom pairs
    "Particles can be quantum entangled through time as well as space"

    Is the measure of infinity a correlation to the spatial or time?
    – From one comes all and from all comes one.

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

      We should really bar the critically uninformed and delusional from discussing physics. It makes my head hurt to read comments like this.

      September 14, 2011 at 12:31 am |
  93. Aerin

    There is way too much backwards thinking in parts of this country. Religion seems to be at the core of it. Come on America, this is the twenty-first century. Get with the times.

    September 13, 2011 at 12:16 pm |
  94. Katherine

    As a Catholic schools graduate, we were taught explicitly that belief in evolution was okay, but to believe it as God's intention for human life to be created that way. We were never taught that it didn't exist, that it wasn't true and didn't have the pages on evolution ripped out of our textbook.

    What is the most fascinating to me is this: So many hard-core evolution supporters dismiss belief in God and describe His believers as ridiculous, foolish and stupid. Have they ever once thought: you can basically prove as much about the existance of evolution as you can the existance of God? And evolution is still a theory, NOT a scientific fact. Comparing it to the Pythagorean theorem is ludacris. Why can God and science never go hand-in-hand? It does for me.

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

      First you need to look up your terms, it is scientific theory like the Gravotation Theory, not a hypothesis. Second I can give you way more evidence that evolution is fact. Show me evidence of God

      September 13, 2011 at 12:25 pm |
    • Nix68

      Most evolutionists are nonbelievers, but they all aren’t. My favorite quotation on this subject, and often he is very quotable, is from Bertrand Russell. He was asked one time, “Bertie, suppose that you’re totally wrong about this? Suppose you die and there really is a God and you’re taken up to the Pearly Gates, what would you say?”
      Russell answered instantly, “I would say, ‘God, why didn’t you give us better evidence?’ ”

      September 13, 2011 at 12:40 pm |
  95. Rick

    If we were not related to apes why do we have remnats of a tail bone, what did we need that for?

    September 13, 2011 at 12:12 pm |
  96. GonzoG

    Anti-intellectualism is nurtured by the false notion that democracy means 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge-Isaac Asimov (paraphrased)

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

    Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve

    "Polls by Gallup and the Pew Research Center find that four out of 10 Americans believe humanity descend from Adam and Eve, but NPR reports that evangelical scientists are now saying publicly that they can no longer believe the Genesis account and that it is unlikely that we all descended from a single pair of humans. 'That would be against all the genomic evidence that we've assembled over the last 20 years so not likely at all,' says biologist Dennis Venema, a senior fellow at BioLogos Foundation, a Christian group that tries to reconcile faith and science. 'You would have to postulate that there's been this absolutely astronomical mutation rate that has produced all these new variants in an incredibly short period of time. Those types of mutation rates are just not possible. It would mutate us out of existence.' Venema is part of a growing cadre of Christian scholars who say they want their faith to come into the 21st century and say it's time to face facts: There was no historical Adam and Eve, no serpent, no apple, no fall that toppled man from a state of innocence."

    September 13, 2011 at 12:08 pm |
    • Alan

      Arthur, I have heard of this group, I myself am a Christian, and I believe the Bible period. Apparently this group only takes from the Bible the parts that it likes, getting rid of the rest. This type of groups actually do a lot more harm than good. Look at dogs for example look how much they have changed in a very short time through selective breeding. They come in all shapes and sizes colors everything. So why is hard for this group you speak of why can't humans changed I mean really there is not that may differences between us all.

      September 13, 2011 at 1:55 pm |
      • pirate

        What you are referring to is called a "cafeteria catholic" (or other christian) – one who follows part of the teachings and not the rest. The real problem is that probably the only ones who are not in reality such cafeteria christians are the ones killing homosexuals, going to wars to spread christianity (crusades), etc.. The god of your bible endorses, actually instructs his people to attack other cities, peoples, to rape their women, kill their children, etc. Read your bible and you will see hundreds if not thousands of such references, only one of which I post in this message:
        When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
        So, if as you say, you "believe the bible period", I am assuming you think it is ok to have slaves and beat them so they do not die the same day??? Again – this is just one reference out of the thousands of such nonsensical, unjust, cruel instructions your god has handed down to you through supposed divine inspiration!

        September 13, 2011 at 6:25 pm |
      • pirate

        Now I am double checking and I found the New International Version refers to the slave recovering after a day or two instead of surviving a day or two – but big whoopie do – both interperations are SICK!

        September 13, 2011 at 6:31 pm |
      • pirate

        All Hail the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster, I prefer beer volcanoes and stripper factories in our heaven! LOL

        September 13, 2011 at 6:34 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11


  • Elizabeth Landau
  • Sophia Dengo
    Senior Designer