Famed Scientist Predicts: Evolution Will Soon Be Accepted By Everyone
- Posted on May 29, 2012 at 8:38am by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
In this 2008 photo provided by the Turkana Basin Institute, paleoanthropologist Richard Leakey discusses the evidence for human evolution. (AP Photo/Turkana Basin Institute, Bob Campbell)
NEW YORK (The Blaze/AP) — Faithful beware. Famed scientist Richard Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history. Despite continued controversy surrounding the debate over life’s origins, the avowed atheist sees a light at the end of the tunnel.
Sometime in the next 15 to 30 years, the Kenyan-born paleoanthropologist expects scientific discoveries will have accelerated to the point that “even the skeptics can accept it.”
“If you get to the stage where you can persuade people on the evidence, that it’s solid, that we are all African, that color is superficial, that stages of development of culture are all interactive,” Leakey says, “then I think we have a chance of a world that will respond better to global challenges.”
Leakey, a professor at Stony Brook University on Long Island, recently spent several weeks in New York promoting the Turkana Basin Institute in Kenya. The institute, where Leakey spends most of his time, welcomes researchers and scientists from around the world dedicated to unearthing the origins of mankind in an area rich with fossils.
His friend, Paul Simon, performed at a May 2 fundraiser for the institute in Manhattan that collected more than $2 million. A National Geographic documentary on his work at Turkana aired this month on public television.
Now 67, Leakey is the son of the late Louis and Mary Leakey and conducts research with his wife, Meave, and daughter, Louise. The family claims to have unearthed “much of the existing fossil evidence for human evolution.”
On the eve of his return to Africa earlier this week, Leakey spoke to The Associated Press in New York City about the past and the future.
“If you look back, the thing that strikes you, if you’ve got any sensitivity, is that extinction is the most common phenomena,” Leakey says. “Extinction is always driven by environmental change. Environmental change is always driven by climate change. Man accelerated, if not created, planet change phenomena; I think we have to recognize that the future is by no means a very rosy one.”
Any hope for mankind’s future, he insists, rests on accepting existing scientific evidence of its past.
“If we’re spreading out across the world from centers like Europe and America that evolution is nonsense and science is nonsense, how do you combat new pathogens, how do you combat new strains of disease that are evolving in the environment?” he asked.
“If you don’t like the word evolution, I don’t care what you call it, but life has changed. You can lay out all the fossils that have been collected and establish lineages that even a fool could work up. So the question is why, how does this happen? It’s not covered by Genesis. There‘s no explanation for this change going back 500 million years in any book I’ve read from the lips of any God.”
Leakey insists he has no animosity toward religion.
“If you tell me, well, people really need a faith … I understand that,” he said.
Turkana Boy (Image Credit: Claire Houck)
“I see no reason why you shouldn‘t go through your life thinking if you’re a good citizen, you’ll get a better future in the afterlife ….”
Leakey began his work searching for fossils in the mid-1960s. His team unearthed a nearly complete 1.6-million-year-old skeleton in 1984 that became known as “Turkana Boy,” the first known early human with long legs, short arms and a tall stature.
In the late 1980s, Leakey began a career in government service in Kenya, heading the Kenya Wildlife Service. He led the quest to protect elephants from poachers who were killing the animals at an alarming rate in order to harvest their valuable ivory tusks. He gathered 12 tons of confiscated ivory in Nairobi National Park and set it afire in a 1989 demonstration that attracted worldwide headlines.
In 1993, Leakey crashed a small propeller-driven plane; his lower legs were later amputated and he now gets around on artificial limbs. There were suspicions the plane had been sabotaged by his political enemies, but it was never proven.
About a decade ago, he visited Stony Brook University on eastern Long Island, a part of the State University of New York, as a guest lecturer. Then-President Shirley Strum Kenny began lobbying Leakey to join the faculty. It was a process that took about two years; he relented after returning to the campus to accept an honorary degree.
Kenny convinced him that he could remain in Kenya most of the time, where Stony Brook anthropology students could visit and learn about his work. And the college founded in 1957 would benefit from the gravitas of such a noted professor on its faculty.
“It was much easier to work with a new university that didn’t have a 200-year-old image where it was so set in its ways like some of the Ivy League schools that you couldn’t really change what they did and what they thought,” he said.
Here’s more about Leakey and his work:
Earlier this month, Paul Simon performed at a benefit dinner for the Turkana Basin Institute. IMAX CEO Rich Gelfond and his wife, Peggy Bonapace Gelfond, and billionaire hedge fund investor Jim Simons and his wife, Marilyn, were among those attending the exclusive show in Manhattan’s Chelsea neighborhood.
Simon agreed to allow his music to be performed on the National Geographic documentary airing on PBS and donated an autographed guitar at the fundraiser that sold for nearly $20,000.
Leakey, who clearly cherishes investigating the past, is less optimistic about the future.
“We may be on the cusp of some very real disasters that have nothing to do with whether the elephant survives, or a cheetah survives, but if we survive.”
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 688 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 536 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 460 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 374 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 333 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 304 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 316 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 215 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 148 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 301 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 304 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (683)
Walkabout
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:15amGod created evolution.
Atheism is still robs the soul of life.
No problem here.
Report Post »SLOWBIDEN
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:33amIf evolution was real then why are humans the only species with higher intelligence. Out of the billions of different species in the animal kingdom we are the only ones. For example- alligators are still alligators. They were here before humans. But they haven’t changed in design. They have changed in size but not design. Evolution is a croc ( no pun intended ) of s h @ $%#t .
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:48amSLOW – the evolution of higher intelligence is a pretty rare and magnificent thing. it largely comes down to brain size. do you know why we have larger brains than other apes? an evolutionary change to our jaw muscles allowed for the continued growth of our skull plate allowing for brain growth into our early 30′s, as opposed to other apes who stop in their early teens. combine that with our physical traits and voila! compare that with Dolphins and Whales, which may be nearly as intelligent as us, but their physical limitations don’t allow for them to build things, etc. and why should they, they are perfectly adapted to their surroundings.
Report Post »mtcountrygrl
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 10:09amI suggest these folks read “Darwin’s Black Box”. It is a book writen by a Biochemist (who is not a creationist) and he explains through molecular science why Darwin’s theory is not possible. When Darwin came up with his theory the cell was thought to be the smallest part of our beings, now we know it is not. In the late 70′s scientists discovered this little thing called DNA. He went on to say that since changing a cell requires the addition of molecules to the DNA strand, macro evolution (the jumping of species) is the eqivilent of taking a bicycle and rearanging the parts and expecting to get a motorcyle. You can’t. You have to ADD parts. This does not occur in nature except in one case, CANCER. I loved his points because it was not that he was trying to prove that there is a God, but that he was tired of people teaching bad science out of fear that people might believe that there is a God. Since creationism is the only other theory out there, scientists ignor evidence of Darwin’s flaws. He was very frustrated and felt that there is another explaination out there that no one will even persue because people are stuck on Darwin’s theory. Very good book, tough read if you don’t have a science background, but I encourage you read it non the less.
Report Post »Dr Vel
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 10:12am“If you look back, the thing that strikes you, if you’ve got any sensitivity, is that extinction is the most common phenomena,” Leakey says. “Extinction is always driven by environmental change. Environmental change is always driven by climate change. Man accelerated, if not created, planet change phenomena”
Interesting. What heat and chemical polluting industry a half million years ago, or even a few thousand, caused this man created climate change? Still waiting for the SUV‘s buried in King Tut’s tomb to be put on display. As a scientist if honesty is something you claim, would not it be better to say this climate change occurs in cycles whether or not man exists? The heat is from the sun, surely you could accept it is the sun which cycles? Other planets are also warming yet you fail to show us the SUV’s and industry on Mars either. Could it be your dating science is equally flawed in vain attempts to justify your Godlessness while you promote murder of unborn children which you justify by your desire for population reduction. After all you claim mankind is responsible for all of this and to save the earth we need to leave. Of course You and your chosen believers of global warming and communist atheism deserve to stay right? My theory Leakey is your surname was derived by those observing your ancestors brains and to this day you continue the tradition.
Report Post »SLOWBIDEN
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 10:14am@phillyathesist – the blue whale has a brain that weighs an astonishing 12.5 pounds. It can communicate but not have intelligent conversations with other whales. They can not use scientific method. They can not create art or music. They can not build anything. They were and always have been whales.
Report Post »Anonymouse.
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 10:19amLife forms change (evolve) over time. That’s a fact. Religion is devoid of fact. Science has revealed that all Europeans/whites are 2-4% Neamderthal too. Why does the Bible and all other religious writings neglect Neanderthals if they are the words of god or allah?? Religion – Jewish, Christian – was created by bronze age people who had no science to explain the world. We have science now. Humanity needs to grow up and put away childish beliefs in the supernatural. It’s all bunk.
Report Post »mtcountrygrl
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 10:24amOnce upon a time, there was nothing. And nothing happened. And no one caused it. And then there were dinosaurs. Then a comet hit and there was nothing again. And nothing happened. And no one caused it. And then there was everything. Sorry guys you will have to do better than that. I will believe in God.
johnjamison
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 10:28amThere are way too many flaws and missing links in all species chains to amke evolution any thing more that what it is. An attempted at one man’s the destroy a God he grew to hate after his daughters death.And If you replace God with a hyper intelligent being from another universe you get less push back from scientist and atheist alike. Evolution ignore basic facts as well like why would be people lose their hair that lived in climates that were extremely cold. Just as the supposed apes lose their hair to reduce heat and better cool down on the african plains why did they one that migrated north not grow hair to insulate their bodies from the extreme cold.
Report Post »Intelligent design better explains life on this planet as each speices adpats to it‘s surroundings it just can’t explain how it started.
And that answer requires faith for the religious.
KrebsCyclist
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 10:35am“In the late 70′s scientists discovered this little thing called DNA.”
Missed it by 25 years.
Report Post »Anonymouse.
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 10:35amYou religious people are funny. You refuse to believe reality as stubbornly as you cling to your book of myths and spirits. Hilarious really.
Report Post »KrebsCyclist
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 10:44amMTCOUNTRYGIRL: “I suggest these folks read “Darwin’s Black Box”. It is a book writen by a Biochemist (who is not a creationist) ”
The author is Michael Behe, who believes in Intelligent Design.
Report Post »KrebsCyclist
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 10:48am“…since changing a cell requires the addition of molecules to the DNA strand, macro evolution (the jumping of species) is the eqivilent of taking a bicycle and rearanging the parts and expecting to get a motorcyle. You can’t. You have to ADD parts.”
Equivalent? Not even close. Not. Even. Close.
Report Post »dataweaver
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 11:10amMTCountryGrl: Thanks for that. Personally, I’m tired of every criticism of evolution being “answered” with some variation of “What are you, a creationist? Shut up!”
Report Post »Leader1776
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 11:12am@ANONYMUSE
Report Post »Your post is devoid of facts. DICK sides-steps one little FACT ………….. you can’t prove a theory without proper scientific methodology. They’ve been attempting proof of this theory for how long? DICK says another how many years? He’s beginning to sound like Holdren, Erhlich and that crew. “We’ll say its way in the future and maybe we can sling enough BS so people will believe us in a few years.”
mtcountrygrl
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 11:19amAt the time that Dr. Behe wrote “Darwin’s Black Box” he was not a creationist. He may now believe in God. And yes it is the equivalent. You have to ADD to the DNA strand molecules that were not there before in order to change species.
Report Post »bigpew
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 11:37amWhy are disease and inbreeding never discussed? Both can cause deformities in bone structure and shape.
Report Post »Anonymouse.
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 11:56amLeaker1776, here’s a fact: Science is the pursuit of truth. Religion is a collection of unproven myths used to bully and control people. Off you go.
Report Post »Pontiac
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 12:03pmmtcountrygrl
[Once upon a time, there was nothing. And nothing happened.]
Still in elementary school I see…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
Report Post »Thomas
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 12:03pmEvolution does not disprove the bible or God but only someones theological interpretation. On the idea of whether there is a God or not, good science yet remains neutral. Since God is tracing genes in the bible, doesn’t that mean that God new about evolution before science? Does Genesis 30:39 where Jacob is dealing with the flocks of sheep reveals that God had taught him something about genes and how they are passed from generation to generation? It doesn’t say that Cain went out to a land and named it Nod but that he went out to the land of Nod. Nod was already named before Cain went there and also so were all the regions surrounding the garden of Eden. God made sure that this evidence remained in the bible not just for a good story but to point out the existence of other human like creatures that were here before the Adamites.
The things spoken about in Genesis 1 that God did in an instant mentally/Spiritually is still unraveling in the progress of time and Genesis 2:1-3 from the point of view of the physical has not yet happened. It doesn’t take time for God to create but time actually is part of the creation. Now Adam was the start of a new segment of time called the Adamic age (of which the bible deals with) within a much older segment of time that could be millions or billions of years old. Adam was something new introduced to this world. Time is actually insignificant to the God. Genesis 6 speaks about Adam’s offspring (called the Sons of God) being mixed with t
Report Post »johnjamison
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 12:03pmmouse,
Report Post »you atheist are funny people you balk at people‘s faith in unprovable religious theory then swallow unprovable scientific theory as if it’s fact.
Firebrand
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 12:05pm@mtcountrygirl
1) DNA was discovered decades before the 70′s.
2) you can add and subtract DNA from the genome. Look up transposons, transduction, and homologous recombination. There are even more examples than this. If you would like a more exhaustive list, I can get you one.
3) The ability to grow viable GM foods and livestock shows that beneficial genes can be added and subtracted from living organisms. In addition, these genes are passed down through the germline.
4) In nature, cross-species gene insertion has absolutely occurred. Look up lysogenic phage for more info. The lysogenic phage are also passed through the germline.
Having a little more info is always great to have. I ask very politely that you look up the concepts and words above.
Report Post »mtcountrygrl
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 12:09pm@Mouse
Scientific problems to Darwin’s theory…
1. Origin – how did evolution start? How did nothing create nothing?
2.Time frame – The carbon dating used does not give enough time for Macro Evolution to have occured twice! Yes, twice. If you believe that the dinosaurs were wiped out by a global event, then all life would have to have evolved twice.
3. Molecular DNA – In order for one cell to changes in the body of an organism massive changes would have to have occured at the molecular level. Following Darwin’s theory these changes would have to be beneficial enough to be passed down to the next generation.
4. Extinction – Why did some species evolve while others became extinct? How do you know if the remains discovered are an evolutionary step or an extinctionary step? What makes one dead species a step, while another an extinct species? Who decides which is which?
Notice I did not mention God once. I am a science buff who came to be a Christian through science. You should try it sometime.
Report Post »Gold Coin & Economic News
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 12:12pmIf evolution were true, liberals would all become conservatives and eventually stop sucking off the government teet. Hasn’t happened yet.
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 12:13pmlibs will evolve to the point that they will kill or imprison those that do not believe in their fake evolution.
they keep pumping out the lies though. Still no “transitional” animals. Still that problem with the second law of thermodynamics, , still have not figured out who actually wound the clock and still takes more faith to believe in their fake science, than to believe the first four words of Gen 1:1
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 12:17pmScientists have spent years trying to create life in the laboratory
Report Post »with the most sophisticated equipment available in carefully controlled
and intelligently designed experiments. If life cannot be artificially
assembled under these conditions, how much more impossible it is for
molecules to naturally assemble themselves into living cells! The best
explanation for the origin of life is supernatural creation. There must be
a God
Firebrand
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 12:23pm@RangerRP
Report Post »There have never been any largemouth or smallmouth bass fossils found. Do they exist? There have never been any carrier pigeon fossils found. Did they exist?
mtcountrygrl
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 12:25pm@ Fire..
Report Post »I was speaking of the use of DNA in identifing individuality. Most of this research occured in the 70′s. I can do losts of things in a lab that do not occur in nature. Cross species breeding in nature does not make the kind of jumps that Darwin’s theory requires. Two different breeds of dogs mating does not give you a cat. Two different wheat plants bread together does not give you an apple tree. In Darwin’s theory we are talking about those kind of leeps. And they do not occur in nature. To add to a DNA strand in nature you would already need the existance of something carrying the missing DNA pieces. How does this happen when no one is around that carries those pieces (they haven’t evolved yet).
Firebrand
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 12:48pm@mt
Many people don‘t realize that the polymerase that replicates DNA isn’t infallible. In fact, it makes a mistake about every 1:10000 nucleotides. There are proofreading/editing enzymes and proteins that help take care of this problem in the cell, but it doesn’t always work. There are multiple editing enzymes. They operate in different ways, some of them switch a base on the newly made strand to match the wrong base on the parental strand. Another editing enzyme cuts out huge chunks of wrong DNA and just fills it in with whatever is available. In both instances, the new DNA can 1) fix the problem, 2) be detrimental and the cell commits “suicide”, or 3) the “corrected” wrong DNA can result in a new mutant.
Lets do a little math. In one cell in your body, you have 6.8 billion nucleotide bases. There is one mistake made about every 10000 bases. That means that there are about 68 thousand mistakes made for every complete replication cycle. The body replicates at about 50 bases per second. That means that there are about 1360 mutations made per second per cell in your body. There are 100 trillion cells in the human body, so there are approximately 73 billion mutations being made in your body per second. Obviously, in a gamete/zygote that is only comprised of 2-100 cells, a germline mutation would have a major impact on the look/function of the offspring.
Report Post »Firebrand
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 12:50pm@RangerRP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudskipper
Report Post »Firebrand
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 12:58pmcorrection: 680 thousand mistakes per replication cycle
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 1:00pmSLOWBIDEN
Who said God couldn’t created us via a process?
Orangutans, Chimps, & other animals are somewhat more intelligent than credit we give them.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 1:02pmCorrection create not “created”
Report Post »F.O.S. DIAPERHEAD
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 1:05pmNevermind evolution vs creationism. It’s all just arguments. The mind is a tool used to manipulate things. A person usually believes what he believes for a reason. But I ask you what does it mean to Know? Jesus didn’t question or calculate or ponder his next move -he just knew. He used words, stories, arguments to try to communicate what he knew. He basically said that knowing God is not what you Think. Reasoning, theorizing, arguments, math, scientific method, are all just tools we use to manipulate the environment. You cannot know Life/ God/ Nature by defining it. You live it, appreciate it, respect it, be it.
Adam bit of the fruit of the tree of knowledge and we’ve been kicking the can down the road ever since. The more you manipulate things the more you must manipulate things in order to keep manipulating things. Somewhere down the line you must let nature take its course …cause it will anyway.
Unfortunately we’ve been fighting evolution/ adaptation/ the natural processes that bore and sustain us to the point that the society we live in is somewhat adrift. We have separated ourselves from the continuum to the point that our survival depends entirely upon greater manipulations of our environment. We are approaching species integration and a “Whole Lives” degree of manipulation to sustain ourselves. Soylent Green (the new “food stamps”) cannot be far. You‘ll Know we’ve gone too far when beef from a cow is being replaced by proteins from human waste. Wher
Report Post »Firebrand
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 1:06pm13600 mistakes per cell per cycle x 100 trillion = 1.36 x 10^18 mistakes per sec.
Report Post »mtcountrygrl
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 1:11pm@ Fire
And how many of these cellular mutations are a) beneificial to the host and b) passed down to the next generation and c) create entirely new DNA strands in the host?
The reason we can tell who your parents are through your DNA is your strand is made up of the strands of your ancestors. You cannot create what is not put in through your ancestory line. Darwin’s theory jumps this line by adding DNA to the strand that supposed to not exsist at the time (DNA from creatures that have not evolved yet).
Report Post »George Patton
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 1:16pm@firebrand
you said this: “There have never been any largemouth or smallmouth bass fossils found. Do they exist? There have never been any carrier pigeon fossils found. Did they exist?”
The fossil record does not prove that largemouth bass exist, it also does not prove that transitional forms exist, it also does not prove that one eyed, one horned flying purple people eaters exist. The point is, that the fossil record provides zero evidence in favor of darwinian evolution. We have no fossils of minitaurs either, so they probably exist…right????
This colossally stupid logic goes like this: largemouth bass exist, we have no fossils of largemouth bass, therefore if we do not have a fossil of something it must exist/existed. Likewise we have no fossils of transitional species, therefore they must exist…….WOW.
The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record does not prove that they don’t exist, but to argue that their absence is proof that they do exist is ridiculous. I love the logic of liberals.
If you find intelligent design unscientific, evolution is a much less scientific alternative, so please find another theory.
Report Post »golfer8805
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 1:29pm@rangerp
What do you mean by transitional animal?
Report Post »Firebrand
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 1:33pm@george
That’s not the point I was making. The point is that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You’re putting words in my mouth. I never said that Minotaurs exist or any other thing. My point is that the absence of a transitional fossil doesn‘t mean it didn’t exist. In fact there is no scientific way to prove a negative. The point was to say that the logic of “we don’t have the evidence” so there’s no possibility is wrong.
On a separate note. The scientific method would weed out the Minotaur argument. There’s no physical evidence that Minotaurs ever existed, only stories.
Report Post »Firebrand
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 1:48pm@george
Another thing. I’m not a liberal. Is a requirement for conservatism being a creationist? I’m also not an atheist or agnostic.
Your logic is the following? No matter what, evolution doesn’t occur. You can’t prove a negative. If you are a creationist, what physical evidence supports your claim?
Where as my logic is this. The possibility of transitional fossils exists until something else is shown to be the case. If found, transitional fossils would support the theory of evolution along with the other evidence.
Report Post »The-Monk
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 1:52pmBoth sides of this argument are partially correct and also partially incorrect.
There is a third possibility that I came up with 22 years ago.
I have debated and discussed this theory with spiritual leaders and physicists over the last 20 years and this theory has not been proven wrong as yet. To the contrary, both sides say this theory is more plausible than the main two arguments by both sides. This is why I was given the name The Monk by spiritual leaders and physicists many years ago.
Report Post »commonsensefreethinker1
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 1:54pm@slowbiden
Report Post »What makes you think humans have the greatest intelligence? Just because you speak english and can communicate with other humans? I can’t communicate verbally with my dog but she can track a human, birds, or any other dead or living thing and smell or hear for over a mile. If I could ask her if she thinks she has a higher intellect I would think she would say yes. How about ants? can you carry 50 times your weight? Just because we drive these things called automobiles and have computers dos’nt mean we are of higher intelligence or supreme to every other living thing on this planet we are just another bug under the massive microscope.
Firebrand
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 1:55pm@mt
Report Post »At the same time, a wolf and a chihuahua aren’t the same type of dog, correct? Maybe you or George can answer a coupe questions. Why do creationists only see evolution as Darwinian evolution? That has been shown to be an overly simplified view of evolution for 100 years. Selective pressure can play a part in evolution, and most geneticists would tell you that the mass extinction of the dinosaurs would be a good example of a bottleneck event. With that being said, why Darwinian evolution? It’s such an outdated theory and has been for 60 years.
mtcountrygrl
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 2:08pm@ Fire
Report Post »Whatever new theory evolutionists come up with, their Achilles heal is and always will be Origin (or to use a scientific term, Catalyst ). Is their a new theory other than cellular mutation that creates new species and through survival of the fittest is passed down (Darwin’s theory)? I have not heard any evolutionist scrap the cellular mutation arguement which is a big flaw in the theory.
Jaycen
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 2:11pmYet ANOTHER Malthusian. If you wonder what that means, do a search for “Malthus” and read up on what the guy believed. Most of your prominent Progressive Socialists are Malthusians, and this guy is no different.
Contrary to scientific evidence AND historical evidence, these folks keep advocating their “end of the world” nonsense. Yes, yes…we know. The world is about to be over-populated, we’re all going to starve to death, or virus to death, or freeze to death, or warm to death, or….something to death. It’ll be our own doing and by our own hand.
Yada, yada, yada.
Report Post »mtcountrygrl
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 2:23pmYou see I started with no opinion on the issue and looked at ALL the evidence before deciding what I believed. Most people start with a belief and then set out to prove it. The problem with this is you tend to ignore logical arguments and evidence that goes against your pre-determined belief. I came to Christianity over all other religions the same way (most evidence supporting, only religion who was not authored by one individual, I could go on but this is a different topic).
Report Post »Firebrand
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 2:27pm@mt
Truly, thanks for your questions. I want to make sure that I‘m being clear that I’m not really discussing evolution as much as the scientific method (something I may not have been very good at conveying with George). Here’s a very simple logical progression:
1) People know that children look like parents in all living things
2) Mendel shows that the way the children look develops in patterns (phylogeny)
3) Darwin notices that there are different species with specialized characteristics for their environment and concludes that environmental forces cause species to differentiate
4) Arguments over what carries the hereditary information occurs (some think it’s protein, some think it’s RNA, and some thing it’s DNA)
5) Its found to be DNA
6) ALL living creatures to date have the same four DNA bases
7) ALL living creatures to date use the DNA to encode amino acids to make proteins from DNA codons
8) This causes scientists to ask, “If every living thing uses the same chemicals to pass hereditary information from one generation to the next in the same way, then why are there different species?”
9) this is where we are right now, on a quest to determine why speciation has occurred since every living thing uses the same four DNA bases and 20 amino acids.
10) At the present, evolution is the predominant theory for that explanation. Its extremely complex and could definitely change if something better (with better physical evidence) comes along.
Report Post »SJvet
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 2:29pmIs anyone sure this guy wasn’t born in Hawaii?
Report Post »Anonymouse.
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 2:36pmMtcountrygrl, nothing you have shared here has any merit. Your reasoning skills are under developed and your understanding of science is very unsophisticated. Religion is a man made creation – a collection of ancient myths and nothing more. The supernatural exists only in the imagination of people. If you want to pretend it’s all real, that’s your poor choice. Off you go.
Report Post »George Patton
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 2:46pm@firebrand. To answer your question… Creationist don’t see evolution only as darwinian. Darwinian evolution is simply the one creationist disagree with. So when discussing “evolution” it is commonly understood which type of evolution, macro or micro the word is referring to. Typically though in a discussion on evolution vs creationism it is understood that “evolution” refers to “darwinian evolution”…defined as animals evolving into new/advanced species. Creationist do not even disagree that animals evolve…just not into new, advanced species. Yes a chihuahua may have evolved from a wolf, but that is not the type of evolution that creationist disagree with….both are still of the canis genus.
Report Post »SLOWBIDEN
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 2:48pm@walk about. You asked, ” Who said God couldn’t create us using a process?
Report Post »Answer: God did. He said he created us in his own image .
mtcountrygrl
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 2:48pm@ Fire
Report Post »You seem like a smart individual, at least you will conceed that Darwin’s theory has HUGE flaws. My professors would not. I sugest you open your mind a little further and consider God, because like I said, evolutions ultimate flaw is Catalyst. And no one has yet to come up with an answer to that one. And please understand, I am not saying that DNA changes are not possible, I am saying beneficial DNA changes passed down to future generations that create whole new species (without adding new genetic material from sources that are supposed to not exsist yet) is not possible. And once again the question all evolutionists avoid like the plague – ORIGIN?
teddlybar
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 2:50pm@ Anonymouse “Religion – Jewish, Christian – was created by bronze age people who had no science to explain the world. We have science now. Humanity needs to grow up and put away childish beliefs in the supernatural. It’s all bunk.”
And yet no less a scientific personage than Albert Einstein said “Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind” [in a letter to Eric Gutkind 1954]. Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project wrote “I am a scientist and a believer, and I find no conflict between those world views.” [Posted to CNN.com 2007]
There is a myth, promulgated by some that Science and Faith are antithetical. They are not. In point of fact, they often validate one another.
Report Post »mtcountrygrl
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 2:53pm@ Mouse
Report Post »Great arguements – NOT! Lets see when you can’t argue your point throw in the insults. LOL I have always said if you cannot logically argue what you believe and have to slip into insults for your critics, you are saying more about yourself than your critics ever could.
SLOWBIDEN
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 2:58pmYou asked “What makes you think humans have the greatest intelligence? Just because you speak english and can communicate with other humans? I can’t communicate verbally with my dog but she can track a human, birds, or any other dead or living thing and smell or hear for over a mile. If I could ask her if she thinks she has a higher intellect I would think she would say yes. How about ants? can you carry 50 times your weight? Just because we drive these things called automobiles and have computers dos’nt mean we are of higher intelligence or supreme to every other living thing on this planet we are just another bug under the massive microscope.” Answer no I can’t carry 50 times my own weight but my truckcan. As for the intelligence of ants. I don’t live in a mound of dirt. Show me an ant that can paint a picture, use scientific method, reason, …. oh screw it , ur an idiot.
Report Post »glenp827
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 3:14pmAligators were successful enough as is and didn’t need change. Yours is the argument of a simpleton
Report Post »Firebrand
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 3:14pmSelective pressure definitively exists. The question is whether or not it leads to speciation. For instance, the American Buffalo no longer exists. It wasn’t able to adapt to the introduction of Europeans to the west. This is an extinction event. Cows on the other hand were just fine in the same area. As well as sheep. This isn’t an example of speciation, but of evidence of selective pressure pushing one species over another. As a scientist you could theorize that similar things could occur among members of the same group. So that type of selective pressure “could” play a part in speciation, but there are tons of other factors not just life or death. Some things (like bad eye sight) are being carried through a population regardless. The point is that there is no definitive answer, but that isn’t going to stop scientists from looking for one. It doesn’t have anything to do with disproving a higher being, just seeking answers. The problem is that atheists use evolution as tool to validate their beliefs, when in reality, it’s just another scientific question that people are constantly testing and experimenting on.
I like to say, there are no answers, only data.
Report Post »Firebrand
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 3:29pm@slow
Is there anything wrong with asking how something was done? Regardless of who or what you think started something, isn’t it fair to ask how you could get from point A to point B.
Scientists ask, “What possible path could have been taken?”
Creationist say’ “There was no path, everything was placed at the end by a higher power.”
Scientist: “Ok, but lets theoretically ask, “If there were a path, what would that look like, how would it start, and where would it end?”
Creationists: “You don’t have the right to ask questions. It happened one way and one way only.”
Scientist: “Yea, ok, I get that, but I’m just asking what it would look like and what experiments you could run if a path did exist?“ ”I have some data, it’s not complete or definitive in any way, but it at least may provide some more questions.”
Creationist: “You don’t have any evidence, or all your evidence is superficial.”
Scientist: “That could be true, but should I stop asking questions and then testing them every time they “may” make you feel like your beliefs are being challenged?”
Creationist: “Yes.”
Report Post »Firebrand
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 3:34pmScientist: “Evolution is a theory that shows organisms change over time.”
Atheist: “So then G-d doesn’t exist, right?”
Scientist: “That‘s not even the question we’re asking.”
Atheist: “Yea, but if things change on their own, then G-d can’t be involved”
Scientist: “Well there’s no way to test that theory.”
Atheist: “I knew it! G-d doesn’t exist.”
Scientist: “That’s not what I said. All I do is ask questions and then test the validity of the answers to those questions based on my data.”
Atheists: “Hey everyone! This guy says G-d doesn’t exist!”
Scientist: “Why do I even talk to these people? I’m going back to the lab.”
Report Post »George Patton
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 3:37pmThere is no observable data that shows one species turning into another species, that’s the point. Evolution takes a great amount of faith…..that amount of faith would make the most religious zealot jealous.
Report Post »Bryan B
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 3:45pmBook of Genesis 1:1 through 1:5
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
This is a very significant and scientific, by the order in which God created heaven and earth. This was writen around 5000 years, by nomadic sheep herders. But the order in which creation of the earth is described in the Book of Genesis exact science.
Report Post »mtcountrygrl
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 3:50pm@Fire
Report Post »I am a Creationist, and when scientists ask questions I don’t shut them down. I find only Athiests and the uneducated do that. Notice I responded to your questions and I asked some in return. This is how dialog works. My problem is Darwinian Evolution is taught as FACT in most of our institutions. And it is FULL of flaws. It is evolutionists fight to shove their theory down my throat (beyond question) that drove me to look for answers elsewhere. Now I have personal experiences to back up my belief in God. Started out as a journey for answers, ended in a personal relationship. Life changing.
George Patton
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 3:54pm@firebrand If that is what you think the creationists viewpoint is than no wonder you discount it. It is indeed stupid. The problem is that is NOT the view of creation scientist. It probably is the view of old Aunt May though…. The true creationist asks the same questions your scientist asked in your previous post. Both creationism and evolution depend on science to prove their theories. For a long time now evolutionists have tried to label creationism as not reliant on science to mischaracterize it. Take an honest look at both the evolution and creation accounts and then ask what data would you expect to find if evolution were true, and what would you find if creationism were true. And see which account matches the best with what you find.
Report Post »mtcountrygrl
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 3:56pm@George – well put.
Report Post »Firebrand
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 3:58pm@george
Report Post »That’s a main issue of contention between the people who do the science and the people who try to apply the data to some other area. All the theory of evolution tries to do is explain how you may get from A to B. Similarly, for thousands of years, people wanted to know how to get man to fly. Point A is man on ground. Point B was man flying. There were tons of “experiments” done and theorized and tested and adjusted. Until the discovery of the bowed wing, a skeptic could say that it wasn’t possible because there was no evidence to back up that point B should be possible. It wasn’t until that crucial piece of info was discovered that A to B was possible. Is there a piece of evidence out there for evolution? Who knows? But should we stop being curious and asking the questions?
mtcountrygrl
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 4:06pm@Fire
Report Post »PS. I have American Buffalo in my back yard. I could send you some steaks if you would like.
Kat Lady
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 4:09pmI agree with Walkabout that evolution and faith do not exclude each other. You do not have to be an aetheist to realize that evolution is factual. I am a person of faith, but it is not blind. Slowbiden, you would benefit from more study.
Report Post »Firebrand
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 4:16pm@ George
Right, except an issue with creationism is that if you get to a point where you can’t find an explanation, then it was obviously divine intervention. With the scientific method, it means something else must be going on (even if one other possibility is divine intervention). It has to be set up in such a way as to be tested. How do you test for the involvement of a higher power? What is the actual test? Since you can’t prove a negative, then the hypothesis is:
G-d created man and all beings in their current form.
That’s a great hypothesis. It’s short and simple. Now how do you test it? In science, you have to have positive and negative controls as well as experiments to test your hypothesis. What are they? What would the data look like for those experiments if they were true? What is an alternate hypothesis if it isn’t true (this is the question that most creationists and atheists alike think scientists are asking)? Since creationism is a science, what are your tests? It seems to me that creationism science is just anti-evolution science. Am I wrong? With that being said, it should make the theory of evolution develop a stronger hypothesis, as long as all parties are reasonable about the data.
Report Post »mtcountrygrl
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 4:24pm@Fire
There was a study done a while back in which scientists in Florida munipulated DNA of fruit flies and created a new fly (that grew legs out of it’s head instead of antennae), this trait was then passed down to the next generation. This was supposed to be further proof that evolution was possible. But I had two big problems with it…1)Humans munipulating DNA to create a new species is intelligent design. 2)they were the same legs just relocated. If the fly had grown ant legs, I would have been impressed.
Now if someone can show me an experiment where a species is placed in an environment and the species DNA mutates (macro not micro) through nothing more than environmental munipulation we can talk.
Report Post »Firebrand
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 4:31pm@MT
Report Post »I love Bison. Bison burgers, bison chili, and bison jerky are excellent.
Firebrand
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 4:33pm@MT
Report Post »Give me 350 million years, and I’ll get back to you. =o)
Firebrand
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 4:35pm@MT
Report Post »Do you graze, pellet, or hay feed bison? Or a combination?
mtcountrygrl
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 4:36pm@Fire
Report Post »I have to go but I felt the need to answer this one. The belief that Creation science is just anti-evolution science is to oversimplify it. As a creation science believer my “proof” is in the complexity of things. To look at any living organism and the make up of how it works, the complexity, the fragillity, to say that all this could happen by accident with no design. That is amazing to me. The bombadier beetle, any other configuration of the chemicals inside him and he would blow up. The complexity of the human eye. I am in awe of the world and it’s complexity. But the Bible actually addresses that, it says that God reveals himself through creation so that no man may have an excuse. Thank you for the discussion, I hope you continue to seek truth, because my friend I believe truth seekers always find God, if they are honestly seeking truth.
Cesium
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 4:55pmRangerP is one of the most uneducated commentors I see on here. He spent all his study time on a single book so he can quote it all the time and seem like he knows something he can use to argue with scientists on.. Calling our results lies. Our results are our results. Not our opinions.. get used to them
Report Post »Firebrand
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 5:04pm@cesium
Report Post »C’mon man. No need to insult the guy. Are there some books you like that discuss the evolution debate that you could suggest?
jerimiah41
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 5:59pmWhere does these “Famed” scientists come from anyway? They seem to come out of hiding behind their skulls and beliefs. Maybe they were an experient that went wrong somewhere a long the way. Things just don’t appear out of booms if they did we would have creation every day from sonic booms. The atheists just cannot explain away the creation and they actually find people that will listen to them from time to time. I pray for mercy on their souls for they know not what they do.
Report Post »katenga
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 6:04pmEvolution is a fact. Like it or not, it is. Religion is a nice little theory supported by no evidence, but it gets most people through the day and are probably able to sleep better at night. Those who accept evolution are most likely making a bigger and more lasting imprint on life on earth, because we know that once we die, that’s it. What we leave behind – our ideas, our offspring, our genes – is what matters most. It’s scary – that once we die, that’s it. But studying and understanding evolution makes you appreciate your time on earth with greater value.
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 6:12pmCesium
Come on now, I quoted a good bit of thermodynamics and biogenics.
you can do better than calling me uneducated, how about some debate.
Report Post »FoxholeAtheist
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 6:55pm“God created evolution”.
Congratulations. You are one more step closer to becoming a free-thinker by rationalizing your faith to fit the facts rather than the other way around. I know, because I’ve been there, and done that. Next step, Agnosticism. Give it a few more years of trying to reconcile and asking a few more questions that your faith can‘t answer and you’ll get there, I just know it.
Report Post »Tobias
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 7:37pm@MTCountrygrl.
Report Post »I suggest you read better books.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html
rangerp
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 8:20pmA very interesting debate indeed.
I find it funny how the “sceintific” crowd seems to need more faith in their science, than we christians need in our God.
It is also interesting at just how hard the athiest will debate on this topic. Generally folks will not debate a one sided argument that they already have in the bag.
It is an interesting debate, in that while I am not overly educated, it is not that hard to follow, and apply a little critical thought and logic to the whole thing. MTgirl lays it out concerning the DNA, and they just ignore the facts. Same goes for the mutations of the fruit fly. In the end, it is still a fruit fly, and it can only adapt withing the fruit fly DNA./ No new creature, just the same old fruit fly that eats my banannas when I leve them out on the counter. Kind of like finches, some have long beaks, some have short, but still a finch
yea, we can point to some strange animals, like the little fish that runs on land, but it is still a fish. God made some very interesting creatures for us.
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 8:24pmTobias
I suggest you learn how to debate. MTcountrygirl did a pretty good job. What is the matter? Got nothing to come back with?
Take your ball and go home, and hurry up, before it decides to evolve and become something else.
Report Post »KingGhidora
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:14pmIf whales are “perfectly adapted” to their surroundings why are they going extinct? Wouldn’t a perfect whale have the ability to fight back against whalers?
I know this is a cheesy example but it’s an accurate example of why it is that evolution is full of holes. Despite what Leakey has faith in (that the world will accept his beliefs and accept him as our savior for all the fine work he‘s done proving we’re all descendants of amoeba) the facts are that more scientists are rejecting evolution as the mechanism for speciation since Darwin came along preaching his gospel. The reason that’s true is because people see the holes in the evolutionary model. The extinction events do not explain the creation events known as punctuated equilibria. The sudden appearance of a vast number of new species totally voids the Darwinian notion that evolution occurs gradually over time. So a new and even wackier theory had to be invented. And when genetics proved that model incorrect they again moved on to another construct of the human brain. How many mulligans do they get before we’re supposed to believe what they say? Now they’re stuck on the idea that life evolved on other planets and was transplanted here. How wacky does it have to be before we chuck the whole of it in the dustbin of flat earth ideas. And just FYI a mass extinction does not mean life will end making the picture “not rosey”. What does it matter to you if we survive Ricky? Life will go on with new
Report Post »The-Monk
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:17pmI do not find it surprising that neither the Creationist or the Evolutionist failed to reply to my above post.
Report Post »teddlybar
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:17pm@Tobias “I suggest you read better books.”
You might want to follow your own advice. Keith Robison starts off his review of Behe with two glaring errors, one obvious at the time of writing, and one revealed with further research.
He posits that Behe’s mousetrap analogy is flawed because you can eliminate the wooden base. This entirely misses the point. In order for Robison’s analysis to be valid, you would need to eliminate the base of the mousetrap entirely. Substituting a different base for the wooden one doesn’t reduce the complexity of the mousetrap; it simply exchanges one part for another of similar function. You still have the same number of parts forming the same functions, just out of different materials.
His second error was not as obvious at the time, but has only recently become apparent. Robison contends that pseudogenes are “junk” having no purpose. There is a growing body of evidence that they in fact function as post-transcriptional regulators of the corresponding parental genes from which they originate . . . in other words, rather than being “junk” they perform a myriad of important functions many having to do with the regulation and proper replication of the genetic material.
This doesn’t bode well for the rest of Robison’s argument.
Report Post »teddlybar
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:19pm@Tobias “I suggest you read better books.” (Continued)
One further example is Robison’s treatment of the TCA cycle (or Krebs cycle). Behe never addresses the question of whether the TCA cycle is irreducibly complex. For Robison to address the non-existent claim that the TCA cycle was IC, and then to show that it wasn’t is simply making a straw man argument (claiming your opponent stands for a position that he never took, and then proceeding to refute the false argument.)
If you don’t agree with someone’s point, fine. That’s your prerogative, but though you have a right to your own opinion, you don’t have a right to your own facts. The fact is that Robison’s analysis of Behe’s work is flawed and shouldn’t be touted as a refutation of Behe’s hypothesis.
Report Post »teddlybar
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:30pm@Monk
It‘s also possible that both sides were sufficiently caught up in the debate with specific other posters that they simply didn’t reply to you because they were focused elsewhere.
I may have missed it, but I also noticed that your post implies you have a “third” theory, but doesn’t state what that theory is. It‘s a little hard to respond to something if there’s nothing to respond to. That could also be an explaination as to why no one responded to you.
Report Post »The-Monk
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:32pmI do not find it surprising that neither the Creationist nor the Evolutionist failed to reply to my above posts.
What if you both are wrong?
Report Post »teddlybar
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:43pm“What if you both are wrong?”
Then we will have had an interesting difference of opinion, but in the absense of another alternative, the debate over creation or spontaneous generation will continue.
Report Post »teddlybar
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 10:09pmAs to the viability of a third alternative I alluded to earlier George Wald, a winner of the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1967 said ““When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!” (George Wald, 1954, “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, 191 [2]: 48) (Please note that he was an atheist at the time)
I’m tending to believe there is no viable third choice, though I’m willing to entertain the argument if you can make a convincing case.
Report Post »rbsh_melb
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 10:47pmFirst argument from atheist evolutionists – only they believe in science, while creationists don’t! Wrong, we ALL have the same evidence-evolutionists’ worldview forces them to read it as the General Theory of Evolution when the evidence clearly supports creation/intelligent design. And the second argument….and this one is over the top….
from “Phillyatheist”… “but their physical limitations don’t allow for them to build things, etc. and why should they, they are perfectly adapted to their surroundings.” Then why did anything evolve at all – every being is “perfectly adapted to their surroundings”.
And evolutionists explain things – Well, we have a bigger brain because our jaw is situated differently and our jaw knew this because…….
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 11:12pmKingGhidora
well stated.
Report Post »The-Monk
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 11:19pm@teddlybar
“I’m tending to believe there is no viable third choice, though I’m willing to entertain the argument if you can make a convincing case.”
OK. Please list 10 or 12 attributes for God and also for Evolution. Or just the one you believe in.
Thanks!
Report Post »The-Monk
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 11:32pm@teddlybar
To keep the debate going we might want to save each others replies in a Word or text format so we can remember and go over each others statements. I will be doing that. And, this might take a few days depending on how much time we can devote to connecting me.
Thanks.
Report Post »The-Monk
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 11:40pm@teddlybar
Also, save a link to this article so we can keep referring back to it.
Report Post »RamonPreston
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 11:49pm“Mouse” wants to believe in evolution so her looks will evolve.
Report Post »Firebrand
Posted on May 30, 2012 at 1:17am@king
First off, thank you for joining the discussion.
A few points. George Wald received the Nobel Prize for his work on the eye, not genetics or biochemistry. When he received his prize, there was still debate as to the hereditary nature of DNA. The field has come a long way since then.
Whales may be adapting to hunting from humans. One could make a comparison to turkeys and do-dos. The bird that learned to be afraid of humans survived, and the one that didn’t went extinct. To say that the faster/smarter whales are the survivors is something that would need to be tested.
I would like to see your evidence for scientists abandoning evolution. As with all theories, they develop over time. It’s true that many scientists accept evolution as law and not theory (you can check this on pubmed, just search for evolution), but they may have egg on their face in the future. The fact is that evolution is a testable theory. I know that there are those that believe that there is a difference between micro and macro evolution, but one of the goals of evolution is to find a link between them. Think of the development of physics on atomic and macro bodies.
You prove the point of the scientific method. There hasn’t been a smoking gun that proves a testable alternative to evolution. For that, the theory develops and changes until a “definitive” theory is found. The question is “How many adaptations cause speciation?”
Report Post »teddlybar
Posted on May 30, 2012 at 2:47am@Monk
First of all, thank you for the suggestion about saving things. I usually do since it’s easier to compose something in Word and then copy/paste it to a post after I’ve had a chance to complete and edit whatever train of thought I’m pursuing.
We might also do better if you gave me some idea as to where you want this to go. If you want to have a conversation about our respective points of view, I’m happy to oblige, but I’m really not that interested in getting into an argument. That doesn’t mean that we won’t have differences of opinion, but at a certain point, I’ve found that no amount of arguing is persuasive if one or both parties aren’t interested in finding a deeper truth or understanding of their position, another’s position or some middle ground.
I’m somewhat reticent to outline what I think the evolutionist’s position is, not because I don’t have an opinion, but rather I think it would be fairer to them to represent their own position. Generally if I’m talking with someone, I’ll ask them to clarify or confirm a position that I think they’re taking so as to make sure that I’m not misrepresenting their point of view. I can’t do that if we don’t have a representative of that position participating.
Report Post »teddlybar
Posted on May 30, 2012 at 2:49am@Monk [continued]
Lastly, before we get started, I’d like to make the observation that, as I believe in a personal God and a personal relationship with Him, my point of view is that if you ask 10 believers to list 10 attributes of God, you may very well get 100 different answers and all of them correct. Consequently, I hope you understand that you’re going to get my personal point of view, which necessarily, if dealing with an infinite God must be limited in scope.
Report Post »“OK. Please list 10 or 12 attributes for God and also for Evolution. Or just the one you believe in.”
There’s really only one I care about; do I feel His pleasure when I enter His presence. Even that is an inadequate position to take as it says more about whether I turn my limited perception to an awareness of God’s presence rather than actually “coming” into the presence of one who is capable of being ever present. I guess what I’m saying is that I’ve never felt that it’s either necessary or possible for me as a finite being to fully grasp an understanding of one who by definition is beyond comprehension. That is not to say that I think ignorance is the goal in relating to him, but rather those discoveries made by scientists that I become aware of fall more into the category of “that’s interesting”, revealing more aspects of God’s thoughts and character rather than feeling like science is a threat to my faith. {Continued]
teddlybar
Posted on May 30, 2012 at 2:50am@ Monk [Continued "2"]
Those things that don’t seem to make sense then, IMO, are things I simply need to have the patience to wait upon understanding with the real possibility that for some things I’m just never going to know the answer.
You had said that you believed there was a different option other than either creation or evolution. Perhaps I missed it, but I’m not aware that you ever indicated what your position is. Care to clarify?
Report Post »bungal3
Posted on May 30, 2012 at 4:01amIt is interesting that every time one hears there is more proof it ends up as nonsense! Example: DNA proves we evolved because one primate has 96% of our DNA. Then one who investigates this finds out that if we evolved from a primate according to DNA we also must have a rodent as an ancestor with over 91% of our DNA. It simply did not happen and that is real science and facts to back that conclusion up. I will not believe it because I believe in factual science.
Report Post »Anonymouse.
Posted on May 30, 2012 at 8:42amBungole3, you‘ll have to be more educated on the science of genetics so you don’t continue to draw errant conclusions. You understand a small portion of the scince but then you draw false conclusions, Don’t fool yourself.
Report Post »johnalphaiam
Posted on May 30, 2012 at 9:10amthe evolutionist speaks as though he has uncovered all the evidence there is to recover. if he could replicate his theories like true science can he might garner more attention.the mounds of bones and artifacts covering the earth would provide more evidence than this gentlemens speculation and psudo-science.circular reasoning and quantum leaps of FAITH might lead you to believe in his theories. Theories is all they are. Over the years evolutionists have manufactured evidence, lied and falsified docuements much like our Global Warming friends.It’s the same old story only different actors.The story sounds leaky to me!
Report Post »TRUTHSENSE
Posted on May 30, 2012 at 9:54amSo PHILLYATHEIST, thanks for letting us know that you are an ape. Maybe we could make the case that in the future all apes will believe in evolution, but for we humans it may be a different matter, since we were created in the image of God.
Report Post »Freedom.Fighter
Posted on May 30, 2012 at 12:53pm@ FIREBRAND
Great discussion! You exemplify how someone should articulate their voews without resorting to insults like so many people in comment sections on websites, or even in face-to-face discussions for that matter. I am a Christian and I have found the most inspiration and humility through the wonders of science. I see know reason for people to be afraid of scientific data.
Keep it up!
Report Post »teddlybar
Posted on May 30, 2012 at 1:11pm“You understand a small portion of the scince but then you draw false conclusions, Don’t fool yourself.”
Anonymous, before you look down your nose at someone else’s knowledge of science, you might want to look in a mirror.
Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project wrote “I am a scientist and a believer, and I find no conflict between those world views.” [Posted to CNN.com 2007] I think it’s safe to assume that Dr. Collins DOES understand the current science pertaining to DNA
Report Post »Realist4U
Posted on May 30, 2012 at 4:38pmThis isn‘t somehow related to the fact that Obama’s new word happens to be “:evolved,” could it?
Report Post »teddlybar
Posted on May 30, 2012 at 5:23pmCareful Realist. I’ve been trying to figure out ever since Obama “evolved” how using the term isn’t considered “racist”. I guess he and his staff can use the term as relating to him, but if one of us uses it, we’ll immediately get “labeled.”
Report Post »rbsh_melb
Posted on May 30, 2012 at 5:23pm@slowbiden: slowbiden” @phillyathesist – the blue whale has a brain that weighs an astonishing 12.5 pounds. It can communicate but not have intelligent conversations with other whales. They can not use scientific method. They can not create art or music. They can not build anything. They were and always have been whales.”
Well said!.
@anonymouse ” Leaker1776, here’s a fact: Science is the pursuit of truth. Religion is a collection of unproven myths used to bully and control people. Off you go.”
Science is the pursuit of truth?….Piltdown over 50 years an example of human evolution even AFTER it was a known fraud – the list goes on. Religion is a collection of unproven myths???? What myth is unproven. “…used to bully and control people”….oh, come on…religion? What about communism, socialism and so on….not controlling. Religion gives people freedom – in controlled countries like Iran, China, North Korea where lives are really controlled – many people seek the freedom of the Christian religion.
Report Post »C-Delta Conductor
Posted on May 30, 2012 at 5:24pmSupporters of evolution, if you want to win me over answer the following questions:
1) Without invoking the supernatural what evidence would be sufficient to disprove evolution?
2) How was the first cell self aggregated?
2a) How can a complex protein form without preexisting R/DNA to code for it and a functioning ribosome-like protein to translate it (where did that ribosome come from)?
2b) What are the odds of a working set of randomly assembled translation proteins coming together with a randomly associated RNA molecule that codes for a working set of division and translation proteins?
3) Why did it take 3 billion years for prokaryotes (without protection from mutation that divided more frequently than animals in mutagenic environments) to evolve into eukaryotes, but it took less than 100 million years for every animal species-type in existence today to evolve (even though they reproduce less frequently and have anti-mutagenic mechanisms and were already environmental specialists)?
4) How could the brain evolve, most of neurological development is Hebbian and not based on genetics?
5) What of free will and consciousness?
Until evolutionist can come up with answers to these questions and evidence to support them, evolution should be considered neither true science (but speculative history) nor a convincing theory.
Report Post »teddlybar
Posted on May 30, 2012 at 9:28pmBravo C-Delta
I actually had to have my bio-sciences trained spouse translate your post for me, but it sounds like you’ve nailed some of the principle questions.
Report Post »barryswhitehalf
Posted on May 30, 2012 at 9:57pmThe fact is, the universe started with the big bang. Now, the big bang was an infinitely small point of energy which was setting in empty space………… no, wait, space is a product of the universe so there was no empty space…… hmmm. Well anyway, at a certain point in time the point of energy exploded ……….. well actually time is also a product of the universe so it couldn’t have happened at a point in time.
OK, skip that. You’ll just have to take my word for it, a countless number of impossible accidental coincidences occurred and a perfectly working universe was formed with no intelligence whatsoever to cause it.
Report Post »Thanks for playing, Leakey.
barryswhitehalf
Posted on May 30, 2012 at 10:04pmPeople do not believe in evolution because they have been led there by solid evidence. They are stampeded into the Darwinian community by superficial, emotional, and personal factors. They only delude themselves when they think otherwise.
Report Post »swift_driver
Posted on May 30, 2012 at 10:27pmScience the pursuit of truth, huh?
Report Post »I love it when people say evolution is proved by scientific evidence. Out of thousands of fossils that have been dug up over the years there is not one so-called missing link to prove that one form of life can evolve into another. Sure, they claim to have the missing link, but what they don’t tell you is that they reconstructed an entire skeleton from a couple of toe bones and one tooth (which may have come from a pig.) The lack of any transitional fossils is actually scientific evidence that evolution never happened at all.
All true scientists recognize that the question of the origin of the species has competing theories which have not yet settled into scientific law, and that the theory of evolution as an explanation of the origin of species contains many flaws and problems.
Covert1
Posted on May 31, 2012 at 3:42amThe only reason we have some civility is because of Christ-Like People! The only reason we are protected is by the Blood of Christ and The Word of our testimonies. I got up after I had no brain stem after 30 minutes lack of oxygen and aspirating bile in my lungs. DEAD, brain damaged, but GOD HEALED me! I will NOT bow to EVIL! I am so happy we did not evolve from a monkey!!!!! Atheists aren’t called……The Wisdom of Man is Foolishness to God! I Love You Glenn! I WILL STAND FOR THE CONSTITUTION! In Love With Christ! I JESUS FREAK ==that tis I!
Report Post »rbsh_melb
Posted on May 31, 2012 at 9:18pm@anonymouse“A creator” does not exist. The idea that some spiritual entity created everything is primitive and ignorant. It becomes more so with every passing year as science continues to unravel the mysteries of the universe
Actually you don‘t know a creator doesn’t exist—it is your wishful thinking there is no creator. You say it is “primitive and ignorant” to believe a creator created everything. How so? Is it because others you listen to have such great intellect and provide “sweet ear candy” to you with their “man” wisdom. Are you certain you are not the one being brainwashed and controlled? I’m sure you think you are not, but me, I’m not so certain. Brainwashed is evidenced by your statement “mysteries of the universe”…what mystery? Why should it be so mysterious – it’s here, it exists. A tiny atom collided with another atom and “BOOOM” – you have a Big Bang – no mystery to me…except for the fact this mystery is more mythical than a Creator and I wonder how anyone could believe that. So what are the ‘mysteries of the universe” to an unbeliever? To me a Christ Follower – knowing God created this wonderful beauty and provided the capacity for man to figure it all out – the mystery is Why did He do it?
Report Post »The-Monk
Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:07pm@teddlybar
As you can see, I’m still waiting for the Riff-Raff to go away. I’m still here. Check back at this link on Saturday or Sunday. If the a-holes are gone… we will proceed. : )
Report Post »ShortBusRuss
Posted on June 1, 2012 at 6:30pm@MTCOUNTRYGRL
Evolution does not occur from any “adding” to the structure of a cell. It occurs when replication of DNA suffers a copying error, thereby changing specific gene encoding. This can occur due to a chemical imbalance in the mother, change in mother’s diet, or any of a host of about 100,000 reasons. These new genes will either result in a harmful change int he body that impacts survival, some ineffectual change in the body, or in a positive trait that helps the animal survive in it’s current environment.
Please make the effort to educate yourself by learning the science directly rather than accepting the word of one person who wrote a book, and lo and behold, later turned out to have a religious agenda.
If the change is negative, the animal will not survive to child bearing age, and this DNA line will fail to reproduce. If the change is positive and allows the animal an advantage over competing animals, the DNA line survives through the mating of the animal. @SlowBiden, in the case of crocodiles, if a species is perfectly genetically adapted to survive in many environments, then it may effectively survive for millions of years without change.
Report Post »teddlybar
Posted on June 2, 2012 at 11:36pm@Shortbusruss
Since you’ve apparently learned the science directly, then you must be aware of examples of copying errors that have resulted in other than neutral or deleterious effects. Would you be so kind as to enlighten us with some examples that would contribute to evolutionary advancement? I am not aware of any DNA copying errors that have been clearly observed to confer a beneficial effect and to add genetic information to move the evolutionary process forward.
Report Post »teddlybar
Posted on June 2, 2012 at 11:47pmBTW Monk, still here.
Report Post »Brian Williams
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:12amThe Chinese who have some of the best fossil evidence in the world (best because it includes soft body tissue, and delicate organisms that don’t generally survive the fossilization process) and are honest enough to go wherever the scientific evidence leads, do not hold to the standard theory of evolution, because the evidence actually goes in a completely different direction. The “Cambrian” explosion evidence shows many different animals showing up all at once with all of the body types that we see today. The evolutionists candidly admit in their letters to one another that their reasons for holding so tenaciously to the theory are not scientific at all, but rather moral. They don’t want to admit the existence of a creator, and all of the moral accountability that would go along with that.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:54amSolid proof you offer there.
Report Post »Anonymouse.
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 10:23am“A creator” does not exist. The idea that some spiritual entity created everything is primitive and ignorant. It becomes more so with every passing year as scuience continues to unravel the mysteries of the universe.
Report Post »johnjamison
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 11:11amHey mouse,
Report Post »What if the creator wasn’t spiritual but intergalaxtic in nature. What if the tell of noah is actually the tell of another dying planet and an ark that brought the seeds to sow a new planet. Maybe that can explain the great wonders of the world like the pyramids and great tyemples of south america. Maybe that can explain how a people without telescopes could chart planets and create a calendar of the heavenly bodies.
usedCZARsalesman
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 11:30am@MOUSE…Any chance you will provide and EVIDENCE to back up what you say or you just gonna keep telling everyone else they are stupid? How can people like you continue to go around saying we are the ones that turn our back on science and “refuse to see the facts” when no FACTS have been presented, only theories. Most Christians (and a lot of us are the worlds leading scientific minds) tirelessly look for the TRUTH where ever they can find it. I believe that God used a form of evolution to put his plan together. Its a basic fact of nature that if you don’t adapt, you die. We are not nearly as close minded as your ilk, so how bout you try putting together a counter argument instead of acting like a child?
Report Post »Anonymouse.
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 12:02pmYou meat heads are free to believe all the silly nonsense that was crammed down your throats by others that you choose. I prefer reality. Science is the pursuit of truth. Religion is a pack of lies forced on people with threats and blackmail. It has no foundation in fact. It treats women like second class citizens. It bullies children with scary stories. It’s used by control freaks like Beck and his buddy John Hagee to boss others around. It’s used by ignorant people on the rest of the planet as an excuse to torture, stone, rape and make life miserable. The world will be a better place when people move on past these silly stories and false beliefs. It’s coming too. Less and less people buy into the nonsense of religion.
Report Post »mdeputy7
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 12:09pm@anonymouse,
Your anger toward any type of religion seems to indicate that you have been wronged by somebody who claimed to be religious. Whatever that is, I am sorry for your experiences, but you are showing such hatred concerning something you are so very wrong about. If you TRULY wanted to know the truth, you would study the Bible to find out what the truth is. To claim that there is no being that is superior to us is so arrogant it astounds me.
@usedczarsalesman,
Report Post »I can appreciate your appeal to mouse and the idea that maybe evolution was God’s way of bringing everything into being, but if you actually go back and study the Hebrew and Greek, the word used in Genesis that talks ab out the days in which God created the Earth and it’s inhabitants literally means a 24-hour day. I know the argument that people use in which to God a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day, but that unfortunately does not speak toward this specific instance. It would be nice because then there would be some compromise we could reach with atheists….but at the same time, aren’t Christians supposed to be different? I believe we need to stop trying to be more like the world to attract non-believers and start being completely different in every aspect. When people are truly searching for God, they aren’t going to a church where its people are acting the same as they always have and are just wasting their Sundays in church. They want something radically different. R
lukerw
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 12:12pmHumans & Vegetables… share DNA… and have some Identical Cells… because all life came from a Limited Resource. It is Irrational to call Vegetables as our Ancestors, Sister Species, nor Peers. Science is suppose to be looking for a Tree Structure of Relationships… but forming their Own Religion… they place Neanderthal as Human Related in KNOWN Err.
The Human Mind works in a Story Mode… where we learn from Stories, remember via Stories called History, and Judge upon Stories called Arguements In Trial & Debate. So, to condemn the Bible, historically confirmed in dating from Abraham onward… based upon PreHistory Stories is Irrational.
You do not know what happened… in PreHistory; before Writing… and you never will! You are not Gods… you can only attempt to Reason & Speculate!
Report Post »Sunnyy
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 1:15pm@mouse…what if you’re wrong?
Report Post »bigpew
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 1:28pmMouse, it is sad to read your posts. The truth of the matter is we are the spoken word and nothing else. God said poof then all came into existence. (There’s your big bang). The beauty from it all is that if you are in existence then God spoke you. Think about that God spoke you. He believes in you even though you don’t believe in Him. We all can know God because He spoke us. How great is that?
Report Post »commonsensefreethinker1
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 2:11pm@LEADER1776
Report Post »yea, and we have been waiting how long for a MAN called jesus to come back from wherever land. sorry, but you will be waiting for a long time which is an understatement.
Anonymouse.
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 2:45pmMdeouty7, you are wrong. Compelety and totally wrong on every count. Religion is a false set of beliefes based on a collection of stories and myths. It’s not fact-based at all. You really want to spend your life believing a bunch of nonsense ancient ignorant young men cooked up? Not me. The supernatural didn’t create your computer, electricity, or anything else you use and enjoy. It has created nothing because it does not exist. That’s not anger – that is a fact.
Report Post »Anonymouse.
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 2:48pmBigPew, what‘s sad is the way gullible people like yourself get sold a bill of goods when they’re kids and then spend their whole lives with a bunch of false beliefs rattling around in their heads instead of living in the real world. It’s really pathetic.
Report Post »Anonymouse.
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 2:53pmSunnyy, I am right. Where was your imaginery sky god for the 100,000+ years we modern people have been walking around on earth? Was he hiding? And why did he wait until just a few thousand years ago to make his presence known to a bunch of bronze age goat herders? And then we have the whole scpae-goating aspect of religion – and the blackmail – yes, it’s obviously a man made creation. Not a very good one either. Too bad people had to cook it up. If humanity knew back then what it knows now, religion never would have been invented in the first place.
Report Post »commonsensefreethinker1
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 3:22pm@SLOWBIDEN
Report Post »Oh, I’m so sorry I frustrated you.
No,did’t say anything about painting a picture. We all have our little things that we can do. Somewhere there is a higher intelligence than us that is saying
“stupid humans their little space ship can only go to the moon and back.” not in english of course mabey they bark for communication. Open your mind dude, jesus will not save you only you can save yourself!
bigpew
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 4:04pmmouse, honestly try and seek God then come back with your nonsense. God has placed in all of us the ability to know Him. Knowing Him is much more the the life experiances we have. It is a relationship. For some it take a lifetime to know Him and for some that time only comes at death. As I said He spoke you. Prove I’m wrong.
Report Post »johnjamison
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 4:14pmmouseboy wrote,
Report Post »You meat heads are free to believe all the silly nonsense that was crammed down your throats by others that you choose. I prefer reality. Science is the pursuit of truth.
Mouse perhaps you care to explain how scientist were pursuing truth when they fudge number to rig results. Or perhaps you can explain why America great invent fought tooth and nail to keep Telsa A/C system of electricity from every being used…I say truth is secondary to fortune,fame,and ideology in the feild of science.
Anonymouse.
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 4:23pmPew – the burden of proof is all on your side. You claim the supernatural is as real as a house or a rock. Prove it. You can‘t because it’s all fantasy. Off you go now.
Report Post »bigpew
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 4:42pmMore nonsense for your mouth. Just look around at all of creation. Only a fool says there is no God. Show me the diversity on this planet that would cause a single celled whatever to evolve into a blade of grass and a human being. Some kind of interaction had to cause the diverse split. Show me the forces that cause such a diverse world.
Report Post »Anonymouse.
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 5:07pmBigpew you’re attributing naturally occuring events and nature itself to the supernatural and then saying that proves god exists. That’s like saying piles of presents under the Christmas tree proves Santa Claus is real. Your position has no merit at all.
Report Post »Anonymouse.
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 5:11pmJohnjamison, your position that because you suspect that some individuals in the field of science fudge their numbers to falsify their research, the supernatural is real??? That’s an extremely illogical and weak argument. It has no merit.
Report Post »Anonymouse.
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 5:13pmBigpew, 97% of all life that has ever existed in now extinct. Some god you have there.
Report Post »bigpew
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 5:26pmmouse; use your little brain there paly. You’re stating no God but advocating evolution as the answer to the existence of life as we know it. I say that’s impossible because of the lack of diversity to cause such a wide range of living things on this planet. So if not by accident or natural causes then God must be the only option. Just because you are too afraid to seek him doesn‘t mean he doesn’t love you. He does even though you deny Him. Try it you might be surprised. Lord come
Report Post »bigpew
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 5:31pmThat’s all you got? seek and even you will find
Report Post »Anonymouse.
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 6:14pmBigpew, you resorted to the tried old trick of making up sentences in your mind and then attributing them to someone else. Huge fail. You do not have reason and reality on your side and it shows. God is not real. The supernatural is a figment of your imagination. Religion is all a fantasy land for the weak minded and gullible. I’ll happily pass on your delusional nonexistant world.
Report Post »bigpew
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 7:09pmmouse, all I am saying is stop being a coward. Step up and try.
Report Post »Anonymouse.
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 7:55pmBigpew, I’ve been on earth for over 6 decades. Crapped out all the religious nonsense the rest of you primates tried to inflict on me a while back. Remember one thing BPU, YOUR delusions are not MY burden. Off you go.
Report Post »teddlybar
Posted on May 30, 2012 at 12:02am“Religion is all a fantasy land for the weak minded and gullible.”
“It is the steady, ongoing, never-slackening fight against scepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition, which religion and science wage together. The directing watchword in this struggle runs from the remotest past to the distant future: ‘On to God!’” Max Planck, winner of the 1918 Nobel Prize in Physics
“The deeper one penetrates into nature’s secrets, the greater becomes one’s respect for God.” Albert Einstein winner of the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics
“Religion and science, then, in my analysis are the two great sister forces which have pulled, and are still pulling, mankind onward and upward” Robert Millikan, winner of the 1923 Nobel Prize in Physics
“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” Werner Heisenberg, winner of the 1932 Nobel Prize in Physics
“I strongly believe in the existence of God, based on intuition, observations, logic, and also scientific knowledge.” Charles Townes [Inventor of the Laser] winner of the 1964 Nobel Prize in Physics
“We are fortunate to have the Bible, and especially the New Testament, which tells us so much about God in widely accessible human terms.” Arthur Schawlow [Co-Inventor of the Laser] winner of the 1981 Nobel Prize in Physics
Yep! Weak minded and gullible men all!
Report Post »erxcwrestler
Posted on May 30, 2012 at 6:22am@Anonymouse
If you continually state that science is based on fact and religion is just myths and lies, how come science can’t produce facts to discredit accounts within the Bible?
The funny part is, science is viewed as “correct”, until further studies, or facts, or experiments prove that particular theory or method of understanding as wrong. Science continually disproves itself, yet religion stands the test of time. often, the more science advances, the more it agrees with religion.
Report Post »Anonymouse.
Posted on May 30, 2012 at 6:59amErxcwrestler, your comment is a load of rubbish and reveals your weak reasoning and logic skills. Science deals with reality. Religion is all make-believe and fantasy. That’s a fact. It’s not wishful thinking or tangled and tortured logic – as is your statement. You are obviously desperate to defend what cannot be defended and it shows. People make up stories to explain things when they have no facts. That’s how religion came into the world. I really have to say, you religious believers tap a bottomless well of nonsense in your efforts to boldter your belief in make believe and the supernatural. It really illustrates how the human mind works and how outlandish myths and stories can be woven into a belief system.
Report Post »johnjamison
Posted on May 30, 2012 at 7:39ammouse wrote Johnjamison, your position that because you suspect that some individuals in the field of science fudge their numbers to falsify their research, the supernatural is real??? That’s an extremely illogical and weak argument. It has no merit.
No my mention of fudge numbers and political pressure to supress science is to punch a giant hole in your statement“ that science is the search for truth”. Science of old perhaps but since the 20th century science has been used as a political and social tool the truth isn’t even an after thought.
Report Post »Easy to see when scientific theories like evolution,and global warming aren’t even open up for debate
Anonymouse.
Posted on May 30, 2012 at 8:48amJohnJamison, you’re still not thinking clearly. Science has produced everything you enjoy in your modern life and it has probably saved your life as well. To dismiss it because you suspect a few individuals falsify their work for politiocal reasons is folly. I‘m afraid you haven’t really punched a huge hole in anything – well, maybe your trailer wall after you read this. haha Just joking about the wall.
Report Post »johnjamison
Posted on May 30, 2012 at 10:28amMouse you’re confusing industry with science…you’re not thinking clearly. Medical science is actually an industry who goals are simple help people make cash. Where as paleontology,archeaology,evolutionary,socialogy,and climatology to a certain degree are theoretical sciences are the only way they can make capital is through fabrication generating crisis or by generating support through lobbist. Yes there are some cool aspects of those feild but most are as relevent and as provable as the fart I cut or didn’t cut yesterday when no one was around.
Report Post »teddlybar
Posted on May 31, 2012 at 12:30amMedical science is actually an industry . . . Where as . . . to a certain degree are theoretical sciences . . .
John, I wonder if part of the issue is that some of the folks in these “theoretical sciences” are not actually doing “science”. You know, the kind that we learned about years ago in High School, following the Scientific Method; formulating a hypothesis; making sure it’s falsifiable; testing the hypothesis to see if by repeated experimentation you can get reproducible results, etc. All too often it seems like the new scientists when they don’t get the results they want, instead of adjusting their hypothesis to fit the data try to change the data to fit their hypothesis; net result, what we call “Junk Science.” I’m sure you know the fields I mean.
I’d hate to lump theoretical scientists who are doing real valid science in the same category as those who have no qualms about faking their data just to make sure they continue to get Federally funded grant money like Mr. Gore’s favorite pseudo-scientist Michael Mann.
Report Post »erxcwrestler
Posted on May 31, 2012 at 4:49am@Anonymouse
Again, you offer no proof or facts to prove your side either. As others have stated, you just continue to heckle and belittle those with differing views.
God made us with a choice, so that we are not puppets. To give us un-refutable, obvious evidence of his existence would take that away. But again as I stated before, there is nothing that proves He does not exist.
Report Post »teddlybar
Posted on May 31, 2012 at 5:33am@Wrestler “Anonymouse . . . you offer no proof or facts to prove your side . . .”
That’s because he can’t. All he’s capable of instead of putting forth real arguments is shallow minded heckling, claiming that religion is a myth only engaged in by the gullible and weak minded. Yet, when confronted by example after example of REAL scientists, mostly Nobel Laureates, who acknowledge God, his response is . . . deafening silence.
You see, like the proponents of “junk science” he’s incapable of dealing with facts that don’t fit his fantasy. His only recourse is to ignore or change those facts that he finds inconvenient. That’s why for him, scientists like Max Plank, Albert Einstein, Robert Milliken, Werner Heisenberg, Charles Towns and Arthur Schawlow, just a few of the Nobel Prize winners who recognize and acknowledge God’s hand in the universe, can’t possibly be, so his only recourse is to ignore their existence lest the fantasy world he’s created for himself shatters like the fragile construct it truly is; his only refuge the delusion that he’s smarter than a myriad of Nobel Prize winning scientists. Sad really.
Report Post »RRFlyer
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:12amAnd in a few years when he dies, famed scientist Richard Leakey will know beyond any doubt that God is real.
hopefully by then he will have Accepted Jesus
Report Post »Docrow
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 10:09amamen
Report Post »oneshiner
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 10:42amYup! God didn’t make no junk. Sometimes we act like monkeys, but we aren’t from monkeys.
Report Post »HorseCrazy
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 11:11amhopefully he will wise up and see God’s truth. I am not sure how people can look around this beautiful Creation and not see the Creator
Report Post »HairRazor
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 3:29pmIf you admit to a Creator God, you are then held to the reality of accountability and Jesus Christ as being our only hope from condemnation. Many are extremely motivated by this to disbelieve.
Report Post »Anonymouse.
Posted on May 30, 2012 at 7:06amThat’s rubbish RRFlyer. Deleting my responses doesn’t change that fact. You fantasyland dwellers create nonsense very easily, which is understandable since you’re immersed in it constantly. You might rethink your false beliefs when the Muslim’s come after you with their brand of fantasy. At some point science will make all this religious voodoo irrelevant. Hopefully that will happen before Islam gets any stronger or before some nutjob who believes the end times are here tries to hasten things along by pushing the button.
Report Post »Dan_o
Posted on May 30, 2012 at 11:18amRegardless of so called evidence, I will not accept evolution because of this very statement:
““If you get to the stage where you can persuade people on the evidence, that it’s solid, that we are all African, that color is superficial, that stages of development of culture are all interactive,” Leakey says, “then I think we have a chance of a world that will respond better to global challenges.””
It is it’s own religion. The “scientists” refuse to separate their belief from science. They are just as blind as the Christian who doesn’t know his bible.
Report Post »swift_driver
Posted on May 30, 2012 at 10:32pmEvolutionary scientists date the earth at approximately 4.5 to 5 billion years old. Most folks are not aware that there is really no incontrovertible scientific proof to establish these fantastic dates. They are grounded in a series of assumptions that are based upon evolutionary premises. In other words, the clock is rigged to provide the long ages of earth’s history.
Why is this the case? Because, as everyone concedes, time is an absolutely essential ingredient in the junk Darwinian scheme. Dr. George Wald of Harvard called it the “hero of the plot.” Evolutionists need vast amounts of time for the millions of evolutionary changes to occur which would produce the amoebae-to-man phenomenon.
It has been demonstrated many times, however, that the evolutionary clocks are terribly flawed. Here is a somewhat recent example.
Remember the Mount St. Helens volcanic eruption? It occurred on May 18, 1980. As a result of that catastrophe, a new lava dome was formed on the site.
Not long ago, the lava dome was dated by the radiometric method. Guess how old it turned out to be? It yielded a date of 2.8 million years! If that does not demonstrate that the clock is broken, then what would?
Report Post »iguana
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:11amButterflies do lay eggs. Caterpillars (which come out of those egs) are larve which eventually become (grow, not evolve) into butterflies. Similar to how the Red Eft (salamander) starts life on land and then eventually grows to be a water animal. And I’m sure, yes, he could explain that much clearer than I did.
Report Post »shogun459
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:25amExplain please the platapus.
If man came from apes why didn’t the others evolve into something else.
Please show ONE ( 1 ) transitional skeleton.
*Sound of crickets*
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:51amArchaeopteryx, Australopithecus afarensis, Tiktaalik, Amphistium, Runcaria.
how’s 5?
Report Post »icecreamcake
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 10:06amShow one living transitional form.
Report Post »mtcountrygrl
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 10:27amSee the problem is they always get paleoanthropologists and such to argue for evolution. But have a honest conversation with a molecular biologist about evolution and some problems start to arise. It’s called DNA! And the only time DNA changes in nature is when a cell gets Cancer and it kills the host.
Report Post »KrebsCyclist
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 10:37am“And the only time DNA changes in nature is when a cell gets Cancer and it kills the host.”
Uh, no.
Report Post »Calm Voice of Reason
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 11:03am@Ice cream cake: All living creatures are “transitional” forms, as are every other creature.
Report Post »Infidelephant
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 11:09am@ cake…
YOU are a transitional form! People keep asking for the Missing Link and completely misunderstand evolutionary processes. The reason why there are no “Missing Links” is because EVERYTHING is.
How much would someone like to bet that this goes right over the head of most y’all…..
Report Post »mtcountrygrl
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 11:20am@Kreb
Report Post »Name a DNA strand that changes in nature that has possitive reaction in the host.
icecreamcake
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 11:37amNo one is debating micro-evolution. The problem is with macro. There are no transitional forms between two different species. We are not a transitional form. There has to be something between an ape and a human. If there was such a thing, they would be everywhere.
Report Post »BIgWheeler
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 11:39amSahelanthropus tchadensis
Report Post »Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi… and so on
icecreamcake
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 11:44am@BigWheeler
Report Post »Are you replying to me? Because none of those are still in existence.
Geiner
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 11:51am@Philly
5? 5 What? 5 different skeletons of 5 different species. I think you misunderstood the question. Shogun asked for a transitional skeleton.
Report Post »BIgWheeler
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 11:52am@mtcountrygirl, Mutations in the Foxp2 gene allowed us to develop language. Apes have an identical gene except for two point mutations, and through experimentation, scientists have determined that those mutations helped us to learn to speak.
Report Post »mtcountrygrl
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 12:02pm@ Bigwheeler
Report Post »Try extinct species! Why evolutionary steps? There used to be a saying, the simplest answer is usually the truth. Unless you are hell bent on proving a bad scientific theory. Are dinosaurs evolutionary steps to modern lizards? No they are a species that went extinct. Forget the HUGE biochemical problems in Darwin’s theory.
Anonymouse.
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 12:12pmIce creamcake, learn about neanderthals. If you are of european descent (white) then your DNA is 2-4% neanderthal. Funny how “god” left them out of the Bible huh? Your idea of a divine creator you call “god” – how does that work when considering the 3 new species of humanoids discovered over the past 20 years? Denisovans, Fores and a new species of extinct humanoid discovered in China. Looks like your “god” pulled the plug on them huh? They had thoughts and feelings, they buried their dead and made tools and art. Who knows? maybe they even had their own superstitious religions too. http://cstv.uwaterloo.ca/2012/03/human-prehistory-and-the-paradox-of-specialization.html
Report Post »mtcountrygrl
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 12:12pm@Bigwheeler
Report Post »Not theory, I asked for real mutations (with the addition of molecules to the DNA strand) that occur NOW (not in your unproven theory) in nature that does not harm the host.
icecreamcake
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 12:50pmAnonymouse
That whole article was full of speculation. I like how they know so much about Denisovans from a finger they found in a cave. Stay on topic. We aren’t talking about God killing off different species and their feelings and art.
Once again, there are no current living transitional forms.
Also, prove God doesn’t exist. If you can’t, then stop mocking others for believing in him.
Report Post »Anonymouse.
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 8:08pmicecreamcake – it’s you who asserts that god exists so you have the burden of proving that impossibility. Face it, you cannot and no one ever has. It’s all a load of dung and it shows.
Report Post »icecreamcake
Posted on May 30, 2012 at 11:41am@anonymouse
Report Post »I see you passed reading class with flying colors. I never said whether I believe in God or not. You are the one claiming he does not exist, so the burden of proof lies with you. That’s all you losers have to say is “duh, the berdun of proofe liez with yew.” It’s old, Actually have an intelligent conversation with people or shut up. Go back to chuck e cheese.
BigAl78
Posted on May 31, 2012 at 2:19am@MtCountryGirl
There’s actually a dramatic example of a beneficial mutation occurring in African elephants right now. Each year, more elephants are being born without tusks, due to the selective pressure forced upon the elephants by poachers. Who knows, in a few thousand years elephants might not have tusks at all.
But that’s just one simple, yet dramatic example. Species are still evolving (and they always will as long as there’s life), it just happens so slowly in most species that it‘s hard to tell it’s happening.
Report Post »jakartaman
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:10amMan’s wisdom vs Gods – humm
Report Post »Man’s track record is not too good – flat world, universe will collapse in – no it will keep expanding etc etc. What is keeping you sitting in that chair? what’s gravity – hummm
ModerationIsBest
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:59amYup, I mean God totally told us the world is round….
Yup, I mean God totally told us that the Earth goes around the Sun
Yup, I mean God totally told us what causes Earthquakes
TheBlaze editors are doing a great job in this article exposing the moronic people who go to this site.
There is no controversy surrounding evolution among people who actually study it.
There is only a controversy in the public arena.
I read that in 2007 only 50% of American’s answered correctly that the Earth orbits the Sun and that it takes a year to do so.
Is that a controversy? Since 50% of the people think otherwise, should we teach the counter argument in schools?
“The purpose of education is not to validate ignorance, but to overcome it.”
Report Post »icecreamcake
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 10:30am“It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth” (Isaiah 40:22)
Report Post »DarthMims
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 11:16amActually, even gravity has been getting reviewed in the last 20 years or so, to the point where some scientists have downgraded the “Law” of gravity to the “Theory” of gravity. And when you think about it, we really don’t have a good explanation for what gravity is, it’s not magnetism, it’s not centripetal or centrifugal force, it’s not really anything but a way for us to explain what we observe (i.e. the apple falls from the tree). Evolution is something that we can observe (i.e. people getting taller over the centuries) but we just don’t have a good explantion yet.
Report Post »johnjamison
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 11:24am“The purpose of education is not to validate ignorance, but to overcome it.”
Report Post »Problem with that is that most of the american students in class today aren’t being educated their being indoctrinated. And they have no interest in being educated they look at school as punching a clock. They swallow what they told and question very little and those who havea thrist for knowledge are attacked. Remember what TJ said Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.”
So the purpose of education and the purpose of our educational system are two polar opposites
Calm Voice of Reason
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 11:33am@Darthmims: You bring up that old misconception, again, that a “Law” is “downgraded” to a “theory”…there is no such distinction in the context of science. There is no hierarchy, a Law is a specific thing, just as a theory is a specific thing, they have no other relationship to each other and one does not turn into another after meeting a certain set of requirements. You are correct in that we have observed Evolution in progress, but you are mistaken about not having a suitable explanation, or theory, to describe it; Darwin’s Theory of Evolution BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION is the explanation and it is the most comprehensive, elegant, and complete description that we have.
Report Post »DarthMims
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 11:59am@ CALMVOICEOFREASON, True that there is no scientific hierarchy for these words, but in linguistic terms most people accept that once a theory is proven it becomes a law. The downgrade is just to help explain in popular terms that is has not been proven. And while I agree that natural selection is a legitimate process by which we evolve, the theory of evolution from microscopic organisms to the different species on earth cannot be explained by natural selection.
Report Post »Anonymouse.
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 12:18pmModerationisbest, you are right on target. The people that Beck attracts are superstitious, weak-minded and dangerously delusional. Why else would they be attracted to a fear mongering delusional end times nutter like Beck in the first place. Enough of this train wreck for today. Freeak show is over.
Report Post »domb12
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:07am“Evolution Will Soon Be Accepted By Everyone” oops he forgot to say or else
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:40amActually phillyatheist, you have that backwards. It is the old farts, those immersed in the 20th century modernism where science is king and religion is blind faith, that try to separate the world from God. But science HAS made great strides in the last 30-40 years and monkeys to man evolution is fast becoming scientifically impossible. It is the younger generation, those learning the REAL science, and who are not tied to evolutionary worldviews, that will use science to show the truth:
That the theory of biological evolution is the biggest, and most impossible fairy tale ever created.
And putting God and creation aside for the moment, with what SCIENCE now knows, you have to be the world’s biggest and most blind fool to believe you came from a monkey, or even share a common ancestor with one.
Report Post »javasport
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:41amhttp://www.whatyououghttoknow.com/show/2008/05/01/darwins-intelligent-design/
Report Post »sWampy
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:42amBut evolution isn’t science, it’s a fantasy that completely violates the laws of physics. There are zero evidence to back it up, we’ve tried simulation billions of generations of fruit flies and not a single one has ever evolved. We have searched and searched through ancient dna looking for evidence of evolution, and every trait that exists in modern animals is also present in the dna of the most ancient dna we have been able to extract. The evolutionists today are the flat earthers of the past, they latched onto a flawed theory, and will do anything to keep from admitting they are wrong. It’s as bad as some guys I work with that sampled 4000 trees looking for evidence of global warming, 3996 of them showed the opposite, they took the 4 that did prove their theory and published papers about just them.
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:55amwow, it‘s telling that you people honestly believe what you’re reading from people who aren’t even considered Scientists. it’s great that you are so passionate in your ignorance. keep on believing that the “real” science refutes evolution. i promise you it does not, but in the circles you reside in and the sources you trust this evolution thing is a fairy tale. you obviously don’t deserve my input, as it would be like talking to a wall. so goodbye to you.
Report Post »Anonymouse.
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 11:20amTrolltrain, are you still here spreading lies and falsehoods with that devious mind of yours?
Report Post »johnjamison
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 11:33amPA wrote, wow, it‘s telling that you people honestly believe what you’re reading from people who aren’t even considered Scientists
Report Post »Yeah now tell that to the millions and millions of dumba55es following Algore…That man that got a D in natural science at Harvard….LOL
swift_driver
Posted on May 30, 2012 at 10:43pmThe theory of evolution is so besieged with problems that it’s amazing it is so widely believed. But then, most people do not investigate. They simply believe what they are told—especially when it has the fumes of “science.”
Many scientists have a vested interest in pushing evolution. Why is that? Because the only other alternative is creation. And that, of course, points to God—and a responsibility to him.
So for the elite narcisstic personalities out there that is simply out of the question.
Report Post »DudleyDoRight
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:06amWhat a sad, sad little man.
The only reason people would believe in evolution is becuase they were brain washed to believe it. Any scientist worth his weight knows, the more we discover in EVERY field of science, the more obvious it is that there is a creator. Take my field, for instance, physics and astronautical engineering. Lets look at SNRs (super nova remnants). There are 3 stages of an SNR.
The first stage lasts about 300 years. Evolution models and Creation models say we should see about 2 of these. We have observed 5.
The second stage lasts about 120,000 years. Evolution says we should see about 2,260 of these. Creation says about 125. We see 200. Real close to the Creation model.
The third stage lasts billions of years. Evolution says we should see about 5,000 of these. Creation says we should not see any (0) since the third stage doesn’t start until the SNR is 120,000 years old and the universe is not that old. And, wouldn’t you know it, we have not seen any.
This is just one example out of multitudes where a creationist model of the universe gives a more accurate model than evolution.
The great fathers of modern science believed in a literal interpretation of the Bible. There are many great scientists today that believe the same. Jesus Christ is the Creator God. And only a little man would try to deny the obvious.
Report Post »golfer8805
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:29amThe fact that we see star light from millions and billions of light years away strongly disproves the young earth model. Sorry.
Report Post »Anonymouse.
Posted on May 30, 2012 at 8:57amHAHA! Holy shmoley guacamole there Dudleydorag! That was one fantastical false fantasy you spun. You should look into getting deprogrammed and then find a good attorney to sue the people who placed all that hogwash into your mind. And I thought I’d heard everything. W O W !! !! !!! !!
Report Post »swift_driver
Posted on May 30, 2012 at 10:45pmMousey,
I noticed you said nothing to refute the information, just the typical left wing slander that has zero value.
Report Post »You lose.
abbygirl1994
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:06amSince I was a child and was taught this hogwash my question always to the teacher was, “if man came from ape, then why are there still apes”?? No one, no matter how educated, will ever ever make me believe man evolved from a monkey into a man! Not until God or his son Jesus tells me any different! Man was created in the image of God Almighty! Period!
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:16amyou know, if you just did the tiniest bit of research you’d find out just how ridiculous your question is. i’ll give you the Cliff Notes version – it’s called common ancestry. we share a common ancestor with apes – keep in mind, we are still apes as part of the primate family. it’s really not that difficult a concept to understand if your IQ is above 60 or so.
DoseofReality
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:27amPhilly….Its really not worth arguing with these people. Most grew up in an environment very different from you, probably VERY poorly educated and completely bat sh*t crazy and brainwashed. I know its very tempting to try to understand how adults can believe the crap they do but its no use….just accept some people will never change, dont want to change, dont want to read and research and are happy with thier mind boggling ignorance. Just let it go man….it can drive you crazy if you dont.
Report Post »sawbuck
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:28amHey Philly.
Where did the “god particle” come from..? Rhetorical question… I know aliens right..!
Yeah …Them aliens had such great ability to form a world..with infinite circles of life…
And then go hide somewhere in the universe , so we couldn’t find them.
Me thinks… if you want to see a fool …Go look in the mirror .
Report Post »flipper1073
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:33am@ PHILLY
You want to be related to an Ape
be my Guest
But I prefer to be a child of GOD.
By the way I have a few Apes in my family tree
Report Post »as Well.
golfer8805
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:34am“If Americans came from Europe then why are there still Europeans?” Like Phillyathiest said, its not that hard to understand.
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:43amDOSE – i know, but it’s almost cathartic. mostly i find it funny, but sometimes it does upset me.
SAWBUCK – i have no idea what in you God‘s name you’re even talking about. i can only assume you’re speaking about how life started on Earth, which is a different conversation entirely.
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:58amFLIPPER – we ARE apes you insane jackhole!
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 10:35amphillyatheist
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:58am
FLIPPER – we ARE apes you insane jackhole!
——————————————————————–
ROFLMAO, Frustrated?
YOU might be an ape. I am not. I am a man, created in God’s image.
You are using circular logic to try to prove your points. Here and elsewhere. You use a faulty system to classify something then use that classification to try and prove the faulty system. You point at a fossil fragment of an extinct ape, call it an ancestor of man, then try to use that conclusion as proof that man evolved from that ape ancestor.
Then, to top it all, you get frustrated because people do not buy this faulty reasoning. You start using ad hominem against not only the lay people in here you are debating but also the qualified scientists who hold creationist views. The biggest irony here? You try to claim science is on your side but you are the least scientific of anyone!
Maybe it is YOU who should do some research?
Report Post »flipper1073
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 11:17am@ Philly
Report Post »Why the hostility ?
All I said is if you want to believe
you evolved from Apes feel free.
I Believe in Divine Intervention.
I’m not going to change your mind
an You are certainly not going to change Mine.
But there is no reason to be Hostile.
phillyatheist
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 11:17amTROLL – then i guess you have a problem with how our species, **** sapiens are classified:
“Along with the Great apes, humans are members of the family Hominidae. Of all living species, people are genetically and evolutionarily closest to the African apes. Subsequently, we have been placed into the same subfamily, the Homininae.”
you can say that you aren’t an ape, but that does not make it so.
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 11:27amPhillyatheist,
What grade are you in? Slow down and read. I posted this:
“You use a faulty system to classify something then use that classification to try and prove the faulty system.”
What part of that do you not understand? You cannot use faulty taxonomy as proof of evolution. I can classify myself as a car. I may very well believe that I am. But really…Just between us…I am really not a car! It is circular logic. What you need is PROOF. You have none.
Report Post »johnjamison
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 11:54amCan you imagine an ape that evolved bringing home his girlfriend to his unevolved parents….Talk about embarrassing.
Report Post »Anonymouse.
Posted on May 30, 2012 at 7:16amPhilly, Trolltrain says there’s no proof that we are related to apes. But it’s been established through DNA analysis. If that old goofball can’t accept that truth, he‘s a lost cause so tightly tangled in his delusions and false beliefs that’s it a wonder he doesn’t get carried off by fairies when he goes outside. lolol
Report Post »The Gooch
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:05amHoly crap. This article is all over the place on what this guy is pontificating about at any given moment. Hell, there’s even a nod to Paul Simon. Why? Because who isn’t wondering what Paul Simon holds sacred?
Report Post »Activist ~ scientist? Seems to be a melding of professions here that could be coloring this guy’s opinions (which he wants to sell as science).
This is one man’s professed wet dream. That does not mean it will come to pass. He loses me when he alludes to the church of man-caused climate change. Yeah, there‘s some sound ’science‘ that’s not ideologically or emotionally tainted.
Preach on my fat, white brother. In a free and open society, you’re allowed to practice your religion in peace.
SPOT_OF_TEA
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:04amWhy doesnt this donkey go peddle his ideology in the middle east…Maybe he could take some of his gay friends with him because I’m sure homosexuality will soon be “accepted” by everyone also.
Report Post »v15
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:03amEvolution or Divinity (implied: or both) I certainly do not believe that the Earth is only 7,000 years old, nor do I believe dinosaurs hung out with Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden. We didn‘t come from monkeys but I’m sure we both came from a common ancestor.
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:45amSounds to me like you are hedging your bet! I once did too. I believed as you do.
Then I started thinking about it. Like it or not, evolution is incompatible with the belief in an inerrant Bible. Now, if you want to cut pieces out of the Bible you want to believe and ignore the rest that is fine…But my question is why bother? The Bible is clear that God created man in His image. If you cannot believe that then why believe in God? I would much rather be an atheist.
Report Post »v15
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 2:22pmWell, it’s not exactly that. I’m leaning towards evolution guided by a divine hand. I definitely believe animals can evolve, but not sure how much of a jump they can make in species. Maybe a lot, maybe not. Obviously some sort of evolution exists, because of the unique diversity of life on Madagascar and Australia.
Report Post »Brian Williams
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:02amChinese Scientists have a more honest approach. They have gone where the science leads. They have concluded that their is no fossil evidence to support the standard evolutionary theory. The “Cambrian” explosion (The Chinese have the best fossils in the world, of even soft body tissue) shows that if you are using the fossil record as your scientific evidence you must come to a vastly different conclusion. I have a book compiled from the letters of the top evolutionists, and in their letters they admit lacking scientific evidence for evolution. They candidly admit that their reasons for clinging so tenaciously to the theory of evolution are moral rather than scientific.
Report Post »Calm Voice of Reason
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 11:38amDo you have any way to support your statement that China’s scientists have disregarded Evolution? In which book do scientists admit to not having evidence for Evolution?
Report Post »Geiner
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:01amAll i got out of that propaganda piece was blah blah blah, one world govt, blah blah blah man-made global warming, blah blah blah, evolution is real (except there is NO proof whatsoever, just completely different skeletons), blah blah blah.
One fact that scientists will steadfastly defend is that life cannot come from death, or inanimate objects. What this means is that a dead animal carcass will not spring forth a new species of animal or a rock will not and cannot mutate into a living being. Period. End of story. However, these same scientists will conveniently ignore this scientific fact when speaking about evolution. They have to if they want to try and convince sane ppl into believing their B.S. Life CANNOT come from a dead hunk of rock floating in space. It had to be created.
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:19amthere is not a single scientist who thinks any of the ridiculous things that you posit. you either spend too much time at Answers in Genesis, or you are mentally retarded.
Report Post »Geiner
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 11:27amAhhh, the lib-tards! When they don’t have an intelligent reply, they revert to personal attacks in an attempt to silence you and the truth. I feel sorry for you Philly!
Report Post »kickagrandma
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:00amWHY do “they” all look and sound alike????? ARGHHHH! One would be too many in my world.
Report Post »SquidVetOhio
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:00amThere is no macro-evolution. Christians QUIT equivocating on this and learn some science! There is not 1 single solitary shred of evidence that one kind of animal, human or plant has evolved into another kind of animal human or plant. If you claim to believe evolution, you are admitting that the Bible is a lie! You CANNOT claim to believe the God of the Bible and evolution at the same time. There is NO scientific reason to not believe the Genesis acount of creation. There is going to be a lot of ‘splainin to do come judgement day as to why God’s people believed self admitting godless huminists over His Word.
Report Post »moussiagilda
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:04amDo you look like your icon?
Fascist. You’re as pretty as Hitler.
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:05amso how’s life in Stupidville? hot there?
Report Post »golfer8805
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:11amI would say the transition from wolf to chiwawa would count. As for the bible and god, they are most likely man made just like all the other thousands of religions.
Report Post »moussiagilda
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:14amHow’s life in Madison? Great. Wonderful weather. You’re doing your part in the plan.
Report Post »Gmd
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:20amI applaud your comments , I was just about to post a comment similar to that. Unfortunately this propaganda and mass brainwashing has permeated the church. The confusion with organism adaptations which is what you get when bacteria causing diseases develop resistance antibiotic is not evolution . What must be presented organism fossils in the midst of evolving from one species to another to give credence to the argument for evolution. Human beings were somewhat shorter in the past adaptation climate and environment as well as nutrition changed that. The concept of evolution dictates one species evolving to another which there should be millions of fossils “there isn’t”
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:26amMOUSS – my comment was directed at SQUID.
Report Post »SLOWBIDEN
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:51am@golfer8805 that’s not evolution thats cross breading. Kind of like when your father had sex with his sister and had you. OHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!! SNAAPPP!!!!!
Report Post »golfer8805
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 10:24am@Slow – It is evolution because its the selection of certain genetic traits over others resulting in change over time. Its called artificial selection (similar to natural selection). You must have skipped biology class.
Report Post »RJJinGadsden
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 8:57amFamed scientist and atheist has developed the desired outcome decades ago, and has since tried to use science to prove it to be true. No doubt this well educated man has his own personal agenda.
Report Post »BLACKDIAMONDSKIER
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 8:56amThe biggest disaster for all mankind will be living a life in direct opposition to God when He returns.
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:27amyeah, i’ll take my chances. have fun kneeling and waiting though.
Report Post »BLACKDIAMONDSKIER
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 11:25pm@ PHILLYATHEIST
“yeah, i’ll take my chances”
Hmmm….where have I heard that before?
“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.” – Abraham Lincoln
Report Post »Anonymouse.
Posted on May 30, 2012 at 7:18amWhen you’re on your deathbed, and Jesus has not returned, remember that you were warned.
Report Post »BLACKDIAMONDSKIER
Posted on May 30, 2012 at 10:14pm@ ANONYMOUSE
It is written….”No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” – Matt 24:36
Your “warning” means very little, but when that sinking feeling enters your soul at the end or your life, remember you were “warned” as well.
Report Post »bobbyjoe
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 8:54amwhen pigs fly
Report Post »MarianF
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 8:54amOK, and monkeys might fly out of my butt.
Report Post »Taquoshi
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:13amOoooohhhh, the flying monkeys! They were absolutely the worst in the Wizard of Oz. Evolution has no fury like a flying monkey!!!!
Oh, yeah, and by the way, can we all say Piltdown Man ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man ) and Archaeoraptor fossil ( http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1120_021120_raptor.html ) ????
I‘ll believe in evolution when the Archaeoraptor can fly to the Dodo’s nest. I’m not holding my breath.
Report Post »ChildofJesus
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 8:52amhe doesn‘t speak for me I know its not true and won’t believe his word over God’s
Report Post »moussiagilda
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 8:49amIt was all created by God, and yes, there is evolution.
See! Now you know.
Report Post »Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 8:59amIndeed, God created it all in the beginning. An engineer friend I have was an atheist for most of his life, then finally saw the light in a matter of speaking. His words:
“The big bang, when all energy came into existence in a moment of light; I understood then…God said, “BANG” and it was big…”
That was the beginning of his understanding of God. Evolution/Adaptation are part of what happens true, yet God is the source of it all.
Report Post »SquidVetOhio
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:01amIt was all created by God and NO, there is no (macro) evolution.
Report Post »moussiagilda
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:16amSays you, biatch.
Report Post »Anonymouse.
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 8:10pmHave a cookie snowleopard – I’ll get your crayons and construction paper.
Report Post »klevalt
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 8:48amNo doubt that evolution has occurred and is ongoing. I don’t deny that….. And I don‘t deny that it is all part of God’s plan for us.
Report Post »Peacemaker5150
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 3:34pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvDqrSTCcmA&list=FL09LHwVJGOmYixy9Pyt4xXw&index=61&feature=plpp_video
Report Post »Anonymouse.
Posted on May 30, 2012 at 9:08amBut people of reason do deny it. God is an idea – a bad one. What’s it like to live believing that invisible demons are always coming after you unless you talk silently to yourself and your god to protect you? If you believe in god you have to believe in satan and demons. Right?
Report Post »ThankYouFounders
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 8:48amEvolution doesn‘t mean God doesn’t exist. Conversely, Darwin also thought that the fossil record would soon (in the 1860′s) prove him right which it hasn’t. Shouldn’t there be trillions and trillions of fossils of “failed” species before nature finally got it right? Or did nature (ahem) get it right the first time?
Report Post »Calm Voice of Reason
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 11:41amThe fossil record is spotty by the very nature of fossils; they require very specific conditions to be preserved for the lengths of time that we are seeing. It is only by a slim margin of chance that we have the few that we do have.
Report Post »rbsh_melb
Posted on May 30, 2012 at 6:36am@ calmvoiceofreason “The fossil record is spotty by the very nature of fossils; they require very specific conditions to be preserved for the lengths of time that we are seeing. It is only by a slim margin of chance that we have the few that we do have.”…..or they were never there in the first place.
If you believe evolution and need support – fossils – and they’re near none existent, then you need to come up with a reason and there you have it, “the fossil record is spotty” – explained! The General Theory of Evolution is a major league hoax. We have fossils over 65 million years old, yet we can’t find adequate fossil support for human evolution – why? Because the GTE is a hoax – we did not evolve from some common organism. Evolution is the myth here, not Creation. People open up your mind – it is not even reasonable to think or try to believe that one organism, given enough time, became a entirely different organism. How many “sea creatures” had to come up out of the water to give us all the land life we have today…1?…..2? …100? more?
Report Post »Anonymouse.
Posted on May 30, 2012 at 9:01amRBSH – you deny fact while you cling to fantasy. That means you are delusional. You can torture logic untill it spills state secrets to support your delusions but you’re still delusional. Amazing how people in this modern age still can be so brainwashed with the mountains of truth, facts and evidence available. No doubt about it: religion is dangerous.
Report Post »Anonymouse.
Posted on May 30, 2012 at 9:04amRBSH Melb, you have a lot of homework to do. Start in the field of genetics. You’ll learn that all life is made of a finite amount of DNA that is made from just a few basic components that all life shares. And there’s so much more. Close that dang Jehovas Witness Bible and join us in the real world. Now off you go.
Report Post »rbsh_melb
Posted on May 30, 2012 at 1:03pm@anonymouse-you failed to support your argument – that I am delusional, that I deny “fact”…what “fact”? The “fact” of evolution? There is no fact of evolution. How, and I really mean HOW, do you know you are not the one being lied to, the one that is brainwashed? I was only taught evolutionary thinking in school years. You’re partially correct I was brainwashed, but I am not brainwashed anymore – I am critically thinking.
You are suggesting I read a genetics book written by someone who is going to support evolution, when I can read a genetics book written by genecist that believes in God and supports creation. Do you think a creationist doesn‘t already know what you’re talking about as far as DNA goes – one trained in genetics? I am not a JW – I am Christian (Christ Follower), and I do not intend to throw away my Bible. And I will continue to read good, intelligent articles by intelligent believers in Creation journals as well. And I’m not going away any time soon.
Report Post »Grasshopper42
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 8:47amYa, and ‘monkeys might fly out of my butt’.
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 12:46pmBased upon… the Scientific definition of Science… Evolution will never be proved to be Science… but only accepted as a Religious Believe called Darwinism… opposing the Biblical Creation Story… where I will always reject both as Fact & Truth! So, everyone will not be Converted!
Report Post »Anonymouse.
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 8:05pmIgnorant hillbillies – what’s your favorite brand of bacon flavored toothpaste anyway?
Report Post »NickDeringer
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 8:45amMaybe this “famed scientist” can explain how caterpillars evolved into butterflies. The problem is that caterpillars don‘t lay eggs and can’t reproduce without the butterfly.
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:08amwow, i’m simply blown away by this one. they say you learn something new every day, but i think you just proved that wrong. you’ve apparently missed a LOT of days.
Report Post »Tobias
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 9:41am@NickD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly#Caterpillars.
Reading. Try it sometime, brah.
@Article.
Report Post »It’s about bloody time.
The sooner Theist accept Evolution, the better.
Anonymouse.
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 11:18amLOL. wow………………………………………………………………..Strike up the banjo music. What a stupid comment.
Report Post »BIgWheeler
Posted on May 29, 2012 at 12:04pmLadies and gentlemen, your public school tax dollars at work.
Report Post »davecorkery
Posted on May 30, 2012 at 2:22pmWow. You’re kidding, right? And you think your side is going to win? Let me say a prayer for you: Dear Evolution. I think you missed one. Thanks.
Report Post »