Nearly Half of Americans Believe in Creationism Over Evolution — Do You? (Poll)
- Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:25am by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
Image Credit: Answers In Genesis
Despite scientists’ increasing efforts to convince the public to embrace evolution and to abandon creationism, it seems Americans’ views on the matter have changed little over the past three decades. New research from Gallup conducted earlier this month found that 46 percent of Americans still embrace creationism, the notion that God directly created human beings in their present form at one point in the last 10,000 years.
(Related: Famed Scientist Predicts: Evolution Will Soon Be Accepted By Everyone)
The numbers that extend beyond this are equally fascinating. While nearly half of the nation believes in the aforementioned view, an additional 32 percent maintain that humans evolved — but with God’s guidance. Taken in its collective, this means that 78 percent of Americans believe that God played a substantial role in mankind’s creation. An additional 15 percent of respondents embrace evolution with no involvement from the Almighty.
Recently, famed scientist Richard Leakey promised that it won’t be long before everyone — including those who fiercely maintain that creationism explains man’s development — accept evolution. In the next 15 to 30 years, Leakey believes that scientific advancements will make embracing such a notion a necessity.
However, in examining the past three decades, Americans have remained quite consistent and there’s no indication — at least when looking at the statistics — that the situation is poised to change. In fact, Gallup notes this, writing, “there is no evidence in this trend of a substantial movement toward a secular viewpoint on human origins.” The research firm continues, highlighting the very slight changes that have occurred:
Gallup has asked Americans to choose among these three explanations for the origin and development of human beings 11 times since 1982. Although the percentages choosing each view have varied from survey to survey, the 46% who today choose the creationist explanation is virtually the same as the 45% average over that period — and very similar to the 44% who chose that explanation in 1982. The 32% who choose the “theistic evolution” view that humans evolved under God’s guidance is slightly below the 30-year average of 37%, while the 15% choosing the secular evolution view is slightly higher (12%).
Not surprisingly, there is a correlation between religiosity and an embrace of creationism. Sixty-seven percent of those who attend church weekly believe that God created man in his current form within the past 10,000 years. Only 25 percent of those who attend church seldom or never report the same.
Gallup continues, highlighting the somewhat unsurprising political and educational breakdowns:
Highly religious Americans are more likely to be Republican than those who are less religious, which helps explain the relationship between partisanship and beliefs about human origins. The major distinction is between Republicans and everyone else. While 58% of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years, 39% of independents and 41% of Democrats agree. [...]
Americans with postgraduate education are most likely of all the educational groups to say humans evolved without God’s guidance, and least likely to say God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years. The creationist viewpoint “wins” among Americans with less than a postgraduate education.
In the end, the debate over evolution versus creationism is a complex one that surely has no end in sight. As atheists and non-believers continue their crusade to instill secularism, it will be intriguing to see if the patterns Gallup has observed continue — or if the public begins to change its views on matters of faith.
What do you think about creationism and evolution? Take our poll, below:
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 707 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 560 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 379 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 370 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 363 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 370 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 379 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 301 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 149 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 370 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 (820)
Altair
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:02amThe Bible tells us God created man in His own image.
It also tells us we can drink strychnine and smooch with rattlesnakes and have a good old time doing it.
Taurine scatology.
Ontology recapitulates phylology, and yes, Virginia, dinosaurs once roamed the Earth, leaving fossil evidence over a hundred million years old. People who look the other way cuz a book written by men, years after the facts written about says so, are no different than the Taliban So easy to be a fanatic, because one doesn’t have to ask oneself any questions that way.
BTW, the fourth guy from the right in the article’s graphic looks a lot like what I saw in Detroit last year.
Report Post »dimitrisokolov
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:10amPeople are lunatics. When adults need to believe in fairy tales to make it through the day, society is in big trouble.
Report Post »Blazebanned
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:14am@altair aka encinom.
Report Post »Did you understand anthing that you parroted from media matters? Once a pos idiot, always a pos idiot…..
Bruce P.
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:14amEvolution is not easy to understand. The comments here are rife with misunderstanding. But it is much easier to accept a seeming simple solution (God did it) than trying to educate yourself and understand the complex.
Report Post »chucksue351
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:19amgo check the facts about the fossils, they have been known to have soft tissue preserved, tell me how that the soft tissue survived the millions and millions of years?
Report Post »kevin1122
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:22amOh Bruce, now evolution is too difficult to understand. I see. Actually it is impossible to understand and ther eis no empirical evidence for it.
Report Post »By the way, Evolutionist only agree that evolution happened. They do not agree on how it happened. So, do you believe in Darwinian Evolution where small, random, undirected changes occurred over very long periods of time or do you beieve in Punctuated Equilibrium that many evolutionist now subscribe to because there is no evidence in the fossil record showing Darwinian Evolution?
TomSawyer
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:31am@Bruce P. Even if it were possible that evolution could happen (it is not possible based on scientific analysis of the complexity of DNA and the many other scientific evidence), you still would not proved it did happen. You also have not proven the more simple solution did not happen at all. Please prove God did not create humans.
Report Post »naed5048
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:34amIf the theory of evolution. then why are their still apes….was it selective evolution?
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:37amCHUCK — soft tissue MAY have been observed in fossils, but NOT in the way you are thinking. The paleontologists who made this discovery do not mean they found the same kind of soft tissue that one would see if they opened up a fresh bone. What they mean is that soft tissue had been preserved as mineralized and is observable within the fossil bone. Typically, fossil bones mineralize completely, without the soft tissue also mineralizing.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:41amKEVIN, TOMSAWYER — please, show us the “scientific evidence” proving that evolution did not exist.
And please, show us from a reputable scientific journal by credentialed evolutionary biologists, not an editorial from someone with a degree in “Advanced Evangalistic Studies” from the No-Science-Education-Necessary Fundamentalist College.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:41amNAED — please point to the evolutionary theory that says apes cannot exist if we exist.
Report Post »ExhaustingPassion
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:42amSince I do not care to convert people who will believe in sasquatch, space aliens, and every thing else rediculous, I’ll just say this. “I’d rather have lived my life believing in GOD and find out there is not one, than to live a life without belief only to find there IS one”.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:42amThe universe required some energy for its existence. It DIDN’T come out of nothing. There must have be some driving force, albeit one out of our realm of time.
What are the chances that everything around us was perfectly put in place by coincidence for our own survival?
You CAN’T have something come out of something THAT ISN’T LIVING. There must be something ALIVE. Did the big bang spontaneously come out of NO where? You can’t prove that we came from nothing. But nature CAN prove that in order for something to come into existence there must be some active life or force ALREADY present. No evolutionist can prove the contrary.
Most (liberal) scientists use Evolution as a way to replace, substitute or dismiss the notion of a Divine Creator. The purpose of Evolution has been in a sense corrupted to justify the belief in no God, at least for some folks. Evolution can’t prove any such thing, nor is it absolute.
Another Blaze user, Superfluous, once said, “Evolution is merely a statement about the origin of species in the universe, not how early cellular life originated, or how the universe came to be. Those questions are answered via abiogenesis and cosmology. Evolution is true whether a god guided the creation of the universe or not.”
Evolution at face value, is great if used to examine life here on earth, but a distraction and falsehood if used to define or determine the origin of all life and force, from the very beginning, which it cannot do.
Report Post »kevin1122
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:44amBruce,
Report Post »As for soft tissue. I am sorry to tell you that you are wrong again. I personnaly have talked to friends who have been on dinosaur digs in Utah or Wyoming and they found actual soft tissue that was not “mineralized” as you claim.
Ballot_Box_Revolution
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:47amPeople have believed in “Fairy Tales” for all of human history, and over time more and more people have stopped believing in “Fairy Tales” Now you tell us….has humanity gotten better or worse?…
Evil humans will find other reasons to kill others even if you take God out of the equation.
Religious Wars are not fought over God, they fought for power. God is the mask they use to get ignorant people to follow them…Take away God and power seeking humans will find something else to use…..There are enough special interest groups out there to fill the void. The problem with that is that when that happens man is then ruled by man and we will have know natural rights according to the men in power.
Any true God believer would know not to follow fools into war to kill in the name of his religion, because it is not the religion we should hold to such high standards….it is God…Jesus was not trying to start a new religion, he was just trying to teach people the truth…
Report Post »kevin1122
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:52amBruce,
Report Post »You and others are making the claim that evolution happened. I am sorry you have no scientific evidence to back up your claim.
I have given lots of scientific, empirical, observable and repeatable evidence that Macro-Evolution does not happen. All living organisms recreate after their kind. That is what we observe empirically every day in the world. The Scientific Law of Biogenesis states that life comes from life. How is that for a start?
TomSawyer
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:53amBruce P., I think most people understand the theory of evolution. I do not understand why you think it is complex.
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 10:04amQuestion for those that believe in evolution (I do not)
what would happen, if we took a species like the wolf, and could do a very controlled experiment over a long period of time. If while still in the wild, we could actually kill or hamper the strong ones, and then allow only the weak, sick, slow, and stupid to reproduce. What would happen to the species?
Report Post »TomSawyer
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 10:08am@Bruce P., Instead of me first proving a minor side note in my comment please answer my question firs before I answer your new question. Again with my question that I asked before you asked: How do you know that God did not create humans?
I fully understand your desire to distract and avoid proving the simplest solution. It is very very difficult huh? In fact, I suspect it is impossible.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 10:08amAnd people wonder why America is in decline?
I saw a study in 2007 that 50% of Americans answered “True” to the question, “The sun revolves around the Earth and it takes 365 days to do so.”
Therefore, since 50% of the people think that, according to Creationism we should teach it in science classes because “The debate isn’t over.”
Sadly, the average American is fat, superstitious and uneducated.
The purpose of education isn’t to validate ignorance, it’s to overcome it.
Report Post »sinsay7
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 10:12amtee hee
Report Post »encinom
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 10:13amThe problem is the South and the Bible Belt, while they live in a modern America with cars and such luxary, they have a mindset and a belief system simialr to the tribal cultures of Afghanistan. The American “Christian” is a paranoid beast still clinging to the supersitions of the past because the modern world is too scary for it.
Report Post »SquidVetOhio
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 10:22am@BRUCE
You’re right evolution is real complex. Instead of “God did it” you say “Time did it”. Brilliant. The same complaint you hold that we don’t understand evolution (when most of us were forced to learn it in public school and college) I charge you with. Evolutionists know squat about what creation scientists (many working as professors at secular universities btw) theorize as explanations for biological and geological evidence. You should educate yourself on Mt. St. Helens eruption in the 80′s providing a model of how the Great Flood shaped todays geology. The former head of the Federal Geological Dept is a creationists. I‘m pretty sure he’s a scientist too (sarcasm).
Report Post »edcoil
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 10:27amEvolution is also called adaptation. It would make sense for God to create animals with the ability to adapt wherever on earth they find themselves.
Report Post »JRook
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 10:27am“Despite scientists’ increasing efforts to convince the public to embrace evolution and to abandon creationism, it seems Americans’ views on the matter have changed little over the past three decades.” So a poll regarding views of the public rather than the wealth of scientific evidence is worthy of coverage. You would think this level of collective ignorance is something that we would want to keep quiet. The scientific evidence goes back far beyond 10,000, despite any BS about the underlying scientific methods. Even if you allow for an extreme degree of scientific error, there is no way you come up with man only being around for 10,000 years. And when did we start exchanging the word views for beliefs. The poll is merely a recognition of the arrogance of people who think that their beliefs and/or views matter in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence. Example, “The first signs of human inhabitants in Sri Lanka date back to the Stone Age, about 1.750.000 million years ago. These people are said to have come from the South of India and reached the Island through a land bridge connecting the Indian subcontinent to Sri Lanka named Adam’s Bridge. This is related so in the epic Hindu book of Ramayana.” Research the NASA photo of the bridge. You really think the scientific measurements here are off by more than 1.7 million years.
Report Post »SquidVetOhio
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 10:28am@ENCINOM
You’re a typical elitist liberal. Have you ever been to the south? Evolution is impossible both statistically, and by the known laws of DNA and information science. You do not get order form chaos and since everything tends to chaos (the 2nd law of themo-dynamics), evolution is illogical. I’ll side with science and continue believing an Intelligent Designer engineered the intelligent universe.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 10:28amKEVIN — you’re a liar.
How do I know you are a liar?
Because you don’t have a friend that told you anything of the sort. How do I know that?
The team that discovered the soft-tissue fossil in 2005 found it mineralized…
“The paleontologist and her colleagues removed MINERAL fragments from the interior of the femur by soaking it in a weak acid. The fossil dissolved, exposing a flexible, stretchy material and transparent vessels.
The vessels resemble blood vessels, cells, and the protein matrix that bodies generate when bones are being formed.”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html
This goes into length about how the discovery was made as well… http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/soft-tissue-dinosaur-fossil.htm
You cannot just crack open a dinosaur fossil and find the soft tissue free inside. You have the dissolve the mineral it is preserved in. And despite your question of “how can this be possible! It proves dinosaurs died last week!,” there is nothing, absolutely nothing, to say the same process that preserves bones cannot preserve and protect the soft tissue.
But, long and short of it is, you are a liar. And since you cannot have an honest conversation, everything you say is suspect and therefore not worthy of discussing.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 10:31amSQUIDVETOHIO — please, show me where I said “time” is responsible for evolution. I didn’t. Because time is not responsible. It takes place over time, but the simple passage of time does not cause evolution.
Report Post »sensibleadult
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 10:34amEvolution is the biggest fairy tale of all.
Report Post »Nasado
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 10:34amWhat many people don’t understand is that creation and evelution coexist. It says God creaded the heavens and the earth in six days, ok. But what is a day to God? He does not recon with our time. It can be hundreds of millions of our years for all we know.The Earth is not 6000 years old and God created the animals through evolution. Now, I believe that man was not created through evolution but we do eveolve and adapt to our surroundings. Also, we do not know how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden. They were immortal so they could not die. They could have been there for millions of years too. What was happening outside of it? It did not cover the entire earth? Just a few questions for those “Earth is 6000 years old” religious types to ponder about.
Report Post »VRW Conspirator
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 10:44amWell…lets see…where should we start…with credentials…nah..too easy to fake…with scientific method..nah..too hard for simpletons to understand…with logic…nah…take to long to educate you to a high enough level…
but we will try…from the decades I have spent involved in the Math and Science fields…I have NEVER found anything in the Bible that is contradicted by Science.. NEVER….in fact, the more that we discover and find out about the Universe…the more the Bible appears to be absolutely true…now, since God doesn’t obey the Space-Time we mortals live in, putting a “man-made” timeline on the Universe seems just as idiotic as you say people are that believe in the Bible, a “man-written” book, as you say….
the best explanation I ever heard came from a retreat that has a Catholic priest as our main Sunday speaker…he held degrees in Theology and History…not uncommon for Catholic priests, most of them hold MULTIPLE college degrees….
the “creation” story as he put it was both true and analogy….Adam was the first “self aware” human being on the planet, meaning that he know his place in the Universe and he knew he did not create it, created in God’s image – INTELLIGENCE and WISDOM. God revealed himself to Adam and Adam began following God’s Word and Law, thus God set Adam up above all other human on the planet and created a kingdom, Eden for Adam. Adam spoke about God to all he encountered until one female, Eve, believed and follo
Report Post »romulus8bc
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 10:51amDimitrisokolov, can you name on instance that there is a fossil record of any animal that proves evolution that has not been proven to be a fraud?
Evolution seems to be a fairy tale.
By the way, the picture at the beginning of the above article was proven a fraud over 150 years ago but it still shows up in our children’s text books. In of 1868, L. Rutimeyer wrote an article, entitled “Referate,” which appeared on pages 301-302 of the Archiv fur Anthropologie (Archives of Anthropology). The article was the result of a peer review of Haeckel’s books, Natural History of Creation (Naturliche Schopfungsgeschichte), and his Uber die Enstehung and den Stammbaum des Menschengeschlechts.
I do have another question for you. First I would like to have you imagine the idea of nothing. I assume we can agree on the big bang theory just not on what initiated it. Now if the universe was super dense, the size of a pee, and surrounded by NOTHING, what triggered the “Big Bang” if not God? According to science you can’t have a reaction (Big Bang) without an action. So if there is no intelligent being what caused the reaction?
Most of the books I have read that support intelligent design where written by scientists that started out to trying to prove Darwin correct.
By the way, the last I checked Evolution was a theory not a proof. Remember people thought the theory the earth was round was a fairy tale. I guess Ferdinand Magellan proved those people wrong.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 10:55amBruce P.
Evolution is easy to understand. Isolation, Stress Medellian selection, punctuated equilibrium are all easy concepts.
If you make no progress, maybe it is because you are an uncouth, pugnacious gnostic atheist.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:04amBruce P alone is responsible for 2 points of the 6 points of the uptick from 4 to 46. :)
Report Post »jdtanker
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:09am#1) The earth is getting farther and farther away from the sun at a constant. If we go back 4 billion years, the earth doesn’t even exist.
Report Post »#2) There is no proof of any evolution going on right now. If dinosaurs came before man, and we have fossils of them, then why don’t we have any half-man, half-ape, fossils out there. There should be millions of them. Remember, we evolved after dinosaurs. I like to actually call them dragons. “Dinosaur” is a made up word from the late 1800′s. 1840′s Webster Dictionary says “dragons”, very rare.
#3) The Grand Canyon is a very good example of evolution stupidity. It didn’t take millions of years to carve the canyon. It took a day or even less. How does a river flow up hill? The middle of the Colorado River has a much higher elevation then the start of the Colorado. I‘ll give you 60 billions years and that river won’t cut through 3000 feet of mountains. It will find the path of least resistance. Also, you wouldn’t see sharp 90 degree edges going down the sides of the canyon if it took millions of years to form.
#4) And just a question for all you evolution believers. We are made up of ingredients correct? Lets say we have a sealed off kitchen with all the ingredients to chocolate chip cookies measured out on the counter. How many billions of years would it take to have freshly baked cookies? All life is way to complex. Just my DNA, if written down in books, would fill up the Grand canyon 7 times. Li
rangerp
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:12amencinom
I have lived in Georgia, Alabama, North Carolina, and Arkansas. I have also lived in Afghanistan.
Your comparison is not real. there is no comparison between the south of the US, and Afghanistan.
Afghan people are tribal, and over ten languages are spoken in the various regions, 90% do not read or write, they do not have a system of highways and rail.
Those in the south that are the most ignorant and backwards, are those on the democrats welfare system.
Keep it real
Report Post »JRook
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:13am@Nasado And what even more people don’t understand is that while all indications is there is some higher force or energy in the universe, call it God if you must, it is likely that man has no clue what it is and wouldn’t be able to comprehend it. The very notion that god revealed himself to man for thousands of years right up until the time of the new testament and then decided to take a break for the next 2,000 years is, at best, laughable. Add to that the fact that a Nicean Council somehow had insights into what should and should not be included in the bible and how words should be translated and interpreted….. And you have a wonderful man made story. And now the repeated notion that the founding fathers and constitution were God inspired. The result is a modern day fairy tale.
Report Post »oneshiner
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:14amMy ancestors ain’t no monkeys. Even as a child when I first heard evolution thingie, I kept wondering why, if everything evolved, did the honey bee remain the same from the very beginning of time? They are becoming endangered and this makes me wonder if things are winding down.
Report Post »And, if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys in their original forms? Hmmmm?
Guys, God is in control of what happens in this world of ours.
How many of these over-educated idiots have made blatant distortions, hoping something will stick?
encinom
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:21amSquidVetOhio
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 10:28am
@ENCINOM
You’re a typical elitist liberal. Have you ever been to the south? Evolution is impossible both statistically, and by the known laws of DNA and information science. You do not get order form chaos and since everything tends to chaos (the 2nd law of themo-dynamics), evolution is illogical. I’ll side with science and continue believing an Intelligent Designer engineered the intelligent universe.
_____________________
YOur post only proves how stupid and brainwashed the Christians are. Evolution does not violate Newtons second law, the are not even remotely related. The changes of speed and tempeture is not appilcable to the various factors for evolution. And the Chaos theory actually proves that order from chaos is quite natural. Again, you strave your mind with fairy tales about a sky gods.
Wher eis the Proof that the Christian and not the Hindo creation myth is true?
Report Post »JRook
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:28am@jdtanker Let me get this straight not only do you not believe in evolution you don’t believe in erosion. As though the two are even remotely related. If you suggesting that God formed every river, canyon, mountain range, etc. in its present form than you are perhaps the most dangerous religious zealot present. Perhaps you could lend your insight into why historically, organized religion has felt a need to both limit the advancement of science and its’ dissemination.
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:47amencinom
Evolution does violate the second law of thermodynamics.
Report Post »akairey
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:52amJAVA MAN In 1891, Java Man was found. This is a classic Instance of a man searching for evidence to support a theory. * Eugene Dubois became a convinced evolutionist while attending a Dutch college. Dropping out of school, he began searching for fossils in Sumatra and other Dutch East Indies islands. He shipped thousands of crates of regular animal bones back to Holland, and then went to Java.
Report Post »In September 1891 near the village of Trinil in a damp place by the Solo River, Dubois found a skull cap. A year later and fifty feet from where he had found the skull cap, he found a femur. Later he found three teeth in another location in that area. Dubois assumed that (1) all these bones were from the same individual, and (2) that they were as much as a million years old. Nearby, in the same condition (indicating the same approximate age) he also found two human skulls (known as the Wadjak skulls), but he did not publicize this find, for they had a cranial capacity somewhat above that of modern man. Thirty-one years later, in 1922, he admitted the Wadjak skull find.
Excitedly, Dubois reported the find (the pieces of bone) as “Java Man”, and spent the rest of his life promoting this great discovery. The thigh bone was a normal human upper leg bone. As might be expected, many experts questioned whether all the bones came from the same person, and even if they did, they said they were human bones, not ape bones.
akairey
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:53amBut Dubois spent most of the remainder of his life lecturing and telling people about the “half-human half-ape” bones that he had found in Java in 1891-1892. He named it Pithecanthropus erectus (erect ape-man).
Report Post »British zoologists thought it was human, German experts decided it was ape, and the French conjectured that it was something between the two.
Finally, in 1907 a German expedition was sent from Berlin to Java to settle the matter. But Dubois would not show them his “bone collection” nor help them in any way. Arriving in Java, they went over the Trinil site thoroughly, removed 10,000 cubic meters of material and 43 boxfuls of bones, and then declared it all to be wasted time. Their main discovery was that Dubois’ Java Man bones had been taken from a depth that came from a nearby volcano. It had overflowed in the recent past and spewed forth lava which overwhelmed and buried a number of people and animals.
About 15 years before his death, and after most evolutionists had become convinced that his find was nothing more than bones from a modern human, Dubois announced his conviction that the bones belonged to a gibbon!
School textbooks and popular books for the public continue to cite 500,000 years as the age of “Java Man,” which, admittedly, is quite an imaginary figure.
Next will be the Piltdownman—–
akairey
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:55amPILTDOWN MAN In 1912, Piltdown Man was found. This created a great sensation in both the newspapers and halls of science when it was announced by the British Geological Society. They gave it the scientific name, Eoanthropus dawsoni. For nearly 40 years the scientific world bowed before Piltdown Man as the great key to human evolution. Only one specimen existed, when there ought to be thousands if it was really genuine.
Report Post »Paintings were made of the great men who found and worked on it, and three of those men were later knighted by the king of England. Such is the stuff of glory. Ignored was the report of a dentist in 1916 who said that the teeth had been filed down by someone.
In 1953, *Joseph Weiner and *Kenneth Oakley applied a recently-developed fluorine test to the bones and found that Piltdown Man was a grand hoax! Someone had taken an ape jaw and put it with a human skull, filed the teeth somewhat, and then carefully stained it all so that the bones looked both ancient and a matching set. Imported mammalian fossils and handcrafted tools were placed nearby. It took 40 years to figure out that particular hoax.
“Careful examination of the bone pieces [in 1953] revealed the startling information that the whole thing was a fabrication, a hoax perpetrated by Dawson, probably, to achieve recognition. The skulls were collections of pieces, some human and some not. One skull had a human skull cap but an ape lower jaw.
akairey
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:56amThe teeth had been filed and the front of the jaw broken off to obscure the simian [ape] origin. Some fragments used had been stained to hide the fact that the bones were not fossil, but fresh. In drilling into the bones, researchers obtained shavings rather than powder, as would be expected in truly fossilized bone.” Harold G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or Design? (1961), p. 221.
next will be RHODESIAN MAN & TAUNG AFRICAN MAN
Report Post »akairey
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:56amRHODESIAN MAN In 1921, Rhodesian Man was discovered in a cave. Anthropologists and artists set to work turning him into a half-ape, half-human sort of creature. But then a competent anatomist had the opportunity to examine it, and found that this was just a normal human being.
Further analysis revealed dental caries which modern diets tend to produce, and also a hole through the skull made by a bullet or crossbow. So Rhodesian Man was not so ancient after all.
TAUNG AFRICAN MAN Taung African Man was found in 1924 by * Raymond Dart, when he came across the front face and lower jaw of an immature ape in a cave in the Taung limestone quarry of South Africa. He rushed to report it, accompanied by extravagant claims. A majority of scientists rejected this find, but the press loudly proclaimed it to be the “the missing link.” Today most experts dismiss it as the skull of a young ape.
“Differences due to age are especially significant with reference to the structure of the skull in apes. Very pronounced changes occur during the transition from juvenile to adult in apes, but not in Man. The skull of a juvenile ape is somewhat different from that of Man. We may remember that the first specimen of Australopithecus that was discovered by Raymond Dart, the Tuang ‘child,’ was that of a juvenile [ape]. This juvenile skull should never have been compared to those of adult apes and humans.” Duane Gish, Evolution: the Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985), p. 178.
You want more?
Report Post »encinom
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 12:01pmrangerp
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:47am
encinom
Evolution does violate the second law of thermodynamics.
_______________
People who believe in sky fathers and mystical beings should not talk science. Go back to you witch doctors and shamen.
Report Post »KICKILLEGALSOUT
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 12:41pmI find it ironic that Atheists claim to be so smart and believe in science when there is still no science to back the full process of evolution. Those who believe in evolution fail to answer the most basic and important questions surrounding this theory. First where did everything come from, Second is once you can scientifically prove where it all came from and not just some wild guess then you need to scientifically observe and reproduce how inorganic material became organic life. Science has yet to show how that happened outside of the creation story of the Bible that God spoke life into existence. Concerning the dinosaurs and other ancient fossils, first of all the Bible never says that the earth or humans are only 5000 or however many years old, the Bible as recorded in Genesis refers to a dateless past as “In the Beginning”. Also, the Bible when referencing the creation story does not mention that this was original creation or that there has not been things created on the earth before that time. If anything when the Bible refers to the earth as without form and void it could have undergone a previous judgement, during this period there was probably dinosaurs and also could have been another man like species. This could very well be true considering that the Bible also speaks to a day in the book of Revelation when this current world and all in it will be judged.
Report Post »deeberj
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 12:50pmEvolution scientists cannot explain when man’s footprints are found with dinosaur footprints because it goes against their belief system, so they ignore any findings and bury them.
Report Post »CaptainFinland
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 1:11pmThese comments make me want to flee the Earth. Evolution is a fact. Do not give me any of the “oh its just a theory” crap, because you’ll find the definition of a scientific theory to be different to what you expect it to.
Report Post »“The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.”
jblaze
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 1:12pmPiltdown Man & Others …The Facts Are …..Evolution Says …..Pithecanthropus evolved into Eoanthropus. Eoanthropus evolved into Hesperopithecus. Hesperopithecus evolved into the Neandertals. The fossil evidence proves this evolution and provides evidence of many other intermediates between them. The existence of these part ape, part humans, proves that humans evolved.
Report Post »(1) Many fossils have been ‘sold’ to science, and to the world, as the true missing link in human
evolution. These have all been subsequently displaced or disproved by later discoveries. This shows
that human evolution is only a theory. W.R. Fix, “The Bone Peddlers – Selling Evolution”, Macmillan Publishing Co: New York, 1984
(2) Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus), of which only skull fragments were found, was proved to be a hoax
in 1982. An examination of the real bones showed that the teeth had been filed down. Collagen tests
conducted more recently, show that the jaw came from an orangutan. M. L. Lubenow, “Bones of Contention”,
Michigan: Baker Book House Co., 1992 p:16, 39-44; Frank Spencer, “Piltdown: A Scientific Forgery”, Oxford University Press: Oxford (UK), 1990
(3) Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus) was constructed from just one tooth, and many scientists have
differed with its discoverer’s classification. Over successive years, more teeth were found, and were
positively identified as belonging to an extinct pig. Nebraska Man never existed, and can never be used
to prove human evolution. Na
DoomsdayProphet
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 1:19pm.Dinosaurs still walk the Earth, and have always been alive with people.
Report Post »CaptainFinland
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 1:20pmThose saying scientists are burying evidence to the contrary are ignorant what the aim of those scientist is. They have no agenda. When a scientific theory comes across evidence to the contrary, it does *not* ignore the evidence/bury it, in order to keep the theory sound. No, thats idiotic. Science has no agenda. When scientists and CERN came back with results suggesting the *theory* of relativity was incorrect, what did they do? Burying it and pretending it never happen is the INCORRECT answer. A full on investigation started to find if the readings were true. Guess what, they found out what it is and have made the corrections. Because thats what science does.
Also, quoting the bible in order to prove your beliefs is exactly the same as quoting Harry Potter in order to prove the existence of hogwarts. Please, if you have any actual evidence for your claims that doesn’t come from a desert nomad fairytale, then write a peer-reviewed paper on it and go and collect your Nobel prize.
Report Post »mzk1
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 1:21pmWow! Were you frozen since the nineteenth century?
1. “Ontology recapitulates phylology” – long found to be a myth,
2. AND racism as a result of Darwinism to boot! Not even worth dignifying.
I don’t know if evolution is true – it doesn’t contradict Genesis, anyway – but this is clear proof that its proponents can be scientific know-nothings.
Report Post »SLOWBIDEN
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 1:24pmthe theory of evolution- we were all fish and one day the fish had a ****** baby, then the ****** baby had more ****** babies, one day one of the ****** babies crawled out of the ocean and had butt sex with a squirrel and made a ****** frog squirrel, and that had a reatard baby that was a monkey fish frog, and it had butt sex with another monkey and that monkey had butt sex with another monkey and had you. so their you have it. We are the offspring of 5 monkeys having butt sex with a fish frog
Report Post »CaptainFinland
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 1:32pmMisconceptions I’ve seen in this thread:
If we evolved from apes why are there still apes?
If you ask this, you do not understand evolution. Nowhere in evolution does it say we evolved from modern day apes. We simply share a common ancestor with them. If dogs evolved from wolves, why are there still wolves? Its the same question.
Human footprints found alongside dinosaur’s:
No. Just… no. Either someones been watching too much of the flintstones, or your source of information is a potato. Those footprints have been long found to be that of another dinosaurs. Creationist hype has for some reason kept this misconception alive. Its simply not true
Skeletons of ‘missing links’ have been proven to be hoaxes.
Yes, some claimed ‘caveman’ skeletons/fossils have been found to be fake. But you‘re overlooking the hundreds that aren’t. We have such an incredible array of fossils showing the gradual evolution from a common ancestor. Just do a bit of research and you’ll be rather amazed.
Soft Tissue dinosaur fossils
Again, seriously? You do not even understand what a fossil is. I’m assumed that when we find fossils of skeletons you think those bones are the actual bones of the creature? A fossil is made from rock. All of it is. The ‘soft tissue’ in fossils is simply minerals that have replaced the original soft tissue of the animal. In the same way, the bones in every fossil has been replaced by minerals, giving the bone structure made of rock.
Report Post »PATTY HENRY
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 1:40pmThere’s never been a “Missing Link” proven. GOD CREATED EVERYTHING. Satan, fallen angel, wants us to believe there is no GOD. God uses that as the catalyst to give us free choice. God wants us to choose Him of our own free will. This is one of those periods that makes it appear that evil is winning. It never does, never will. IF you care about your life, your family’s lives, the world etc. you must get close to God. It will all make sense then. All satan wants to do is make you miserable (like some of these poster-trolls) and depress you to the point of inactivity. GOD NOW.
Report Post »MontaraMissileMan
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 1:49pm@Patty: Everysingle one of these was created by fallen angels to intentionally confuse us along with radiometric dating and geological sciences?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
Well, okay, if you say so…
Report Post »3monkeysmomma
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 2:00pmI never thought creationism and evolution were at odds.
The Garden of Eden story is a metaphor. Perfectly true, just given to us in a form we could understand at the time. I don’t think it makes me any less a Christian to believe that.
Report Post »Lock-n-Load
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 2:41pmIt is not the Conservative who is ranting and raving, Always the Liberal. Nobody takes you seriously and chirping louder only makes you look more desperate and foolish. On the other hand, I may start to believe in evolution myself. Just the other day, I tripped over three or four fossilized hominids while on my way to church. Looked a lot to me like a couple of the guys on the left side of your scientifically proven ascent chart. Keep it uo, guys, the world is looking for more stand-up commedians.
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 2:47pmENCINOM
“People who believe in sky fathers and mystical beings should not talk science. Go back to you witch doctors and shamen”
You notice that as soon as I started talking thermodynamics, you cease the “science” talk, and turn to personal attacks. You evolutionists are the ones talking fairy tales and magic.
Shall we talk science? How about a little talk on DNA, thermodynamics, biogenics, and the Krebs cycle?
Report Post »watchmanwatch
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 2:55pmI agree with the ones that believe in GOD :)
Also I agree that I would rather go through my life believing in GOD and doing what HE considers right; than to believe in evolution which in all reality would have to be on going and is not… I see no half fish/lizard/mammal things running around my neighborhood??? And to find out that I did displease my FATHER and pay the price for not believing in HIM…
IF you truly read the bible go back and do your homework ; rightly divide the word; do the proper translations from Hebrew and Greek you will find the bible says the earth is millions of years old. 1st earth age; we are living in the 2nd earth age… Imprints of human type footprints millions of years old; 1st earth age… so we were here before… do the homework people… FATHER gave us the little book read it; most of you take time to read novels, magazines, etc. but have you read the little book??? Let those that have eyes to see and ears to hear???
Also not trying to convert as the old saying is there are no atheists in the foxholes of the battlefields.. That is where the rubber meets the road my friends :)
Report Post »4truth2all
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 3:08pmYo Eincinom:
I believe you win the gold, silver, and bronze metals for the dumbest comments in this section alone . I bet you can go 10 for 10 without even trying.
Do you read you’re own posts ….?
The gold goes to the post to RangerP @ 12:01… you accuse christians of being stupid and ignorant and not able to understand science, but as soon as you are challanged on this you say that “we should not talk science”. …. you look like those guys running from the zombie ….
Report Post »MontaraMissileMan
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 3:11pm@Lock-N-Load: Really? The “Liberals” are the ones ranting and raving?
First of all, there is no litmus test in being a conservative that requires you to believe in Creationism.
Second, the evolutionists aren‘t the ones pulling out miles of scripture and going on about what we’re all meant to be.
Third, evolutionists are the only ones who are able to provide any objective amount of proof here. Like was said earlier, you can’t point to a Harry Potter book as proof Hogwarts exists.
Report Post »MontaraMissileMan
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 3:18pmHere, take a look at these videos and try to address the theories brought up by them. They are what the scientific view of the theories of the origins of the universe, the solar system, and life as we know it.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDB23537556D7AADB&feature=plcp
This way we can at least be on the same page as to what the Big Bang and Evolution are defined as. Maybe then we can a civilized conversation about it without name calling and church services.
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 4:14pmMontaraMissileMan
You evolutionists crack me up. Conservative Christian bloggers by the dozens her on the blaze, write mounts if evidence backing up creation (and all scientific), to include thermodynamics, biogenesis, DNAa, paleontology, fossil records…. They provide hard science, that debunks Darwin and evolution.
The evolutionists, then start calling names, and declaring them to be science based, and us creationists to believe in fairy tales.
It takes more faith to believe in your evolution, than to believe in the first four words of Gen 1:1
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that entropy
irreversibly increases in a closed system. This means that usable
energy decreases and cannot be increased in a closed system. Because
of this law, perpetual machines are not possible
The universe is experiencing “heat death,” which means it is
a closed system that is winding down like a clock inside of a box. Once
it unwinds it cannot be rewound. Heat death points to an end point,
which means there was a beginning
If the universe is winding down and cannot be wound up, how
Report Post »did the universe originate with energy in order to start unwinding? The
most logical conclusion is that it originated supernaturally
lukerw
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 4:25pmALBERT EINSTEIN: ‘perhaps…. God had only one way to do it… ‘
Report Post »Redwood Elf
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 4:28pm@naed5048: A common misconception. Humans did not evolve from apes, they evolved from a common hominid ancestor.
Evolution is actually quite easy to understand. In any population of living creatures, mutations occur. very occasionally, a mutation gives the creature that has it a survival or reproduction advantage. Since a mutation is, by definition, inheritable (Mutant: A plant or animal with an INHERITABLE characteristic that differs from those of it’s parents), it’s offspring that inherit the mutation will also have this advantage. On average, over many generations, that mutation becomes the norm rather than the exception since it gives a better survival and/or reproduction chance.
What’s so hard to understand about that?
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 4:34pmRedwood Elf
creatures adapt within their DNA, not outside of it. Mutations generally always kill the host, and they are not passed on.
it is like saying you will take a bicycle apart, put it back together as a motorcycle, but not add any parts. it does not happen.
Report Post »DrFrost
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 4:34pm@ALTAIR: The bible doesn’t teach that we “can drink strychnine and smooch with rattlesnakes and have a good old time doing it.” Yes, you can find a very small group of individuals that think otherwise but you can find strange sects in any large group, scientists included!
@TOMSAWYER: Good point.
@BRUCE. P: I think you missed the point that TS was making. He wasn‘t saying evolution wasn’t real. He was saying evolution does not preclude the possibility that man was created separately.
@RANGERP: We did that experiment…. we got chihuahuas.
@JROOK & ENCINOM: Personal attacks and insults don’t make a believable argument. Right or wrong the only thing any one will remember is how rude you are.
@NASADO: This point has been made many times. The word used for day in that scripture (6 days) has three meanings: 12 hours, 24 hours or some undefined length of time.
@RANGERP: Evolution does NOT violate the second law of thermodynamics. The second law states that entropy IN A CLOSED SYSTEM must increase. It does NOT preclude the possibility that entropy can decrease in portions of a closed system (i.e. order can increase in a portion of a closed system as long as the entropy overall increases). Take a baby from the moment of conception onward as an example. You go from a single cell to a very complex and ordered creature. Increasing complexity and order! Despite appearances this does NOT violate the second law because the entropy of the system as a whole
Report Post »JRook
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 4:42pm@rangerp I know this is a tough concept for those that are ideologically driven, but evolution is not something that you believe in or not. There are are too many scientific observations that reinforce the theory. So what people believe or don’t believe relative to these scientific observations is rather irrelevant.
Report Post »HappyStretchedThin
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 4:49pm@Altair: I believe the phrase is “ontology recapitulates phloGENY”. Phylology is an arcane spelling for a methodology in the study of languages.
Report Post »But a slip like that doesn’t surprise me given the other mammoth errors of moral relativism and incapacity to distinguish between the most plainly disparate concepts. Christians no different than the Taliban? RangerP was answering Encicom specifically, but his answer should also be effective in demonstrating how little you know of either Christianity OR the radical Fundamentalist Islamist minority in Afghanistan.
No serious Christian denies the principle of evolution. Of COURSE God created life to adapt, and for species to change over time within their own kind.
But we’re not the ones CLAIMING to have proof anyway. Only faith. Shouldn’t the burden be on YOU to demonstrate how the principle of evolution somehow applies to explain the origin of species?
And that faith is NOT baseless!
As we act as if things are true, confirming evidence solidifies our faith in the increments to which we’ve had it tested until we can no longer doubt the existence of a loving God whose perfection ordered the universe. And although these faith experiments have subjective results, the presence of such an overwhelming plethora of confirming testimonies reassures the believers of the objectivity of their truth. And whether the design is objectively replicable is immaterial to the parallelism of the process to your dear scientific method.
Redwood Elf
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 4:50pmRanger, a bicycle isn’t a living thing (Show me a bicycle that reproduces, eats, and excretes) and while most mutations are either detrimental and/or fatal, it is the rare beneficial mutations that drive evolution. If a life form dies or fails to reproduce because of it’s mutation, it will not propogate that mutation – even someone as closed-minded as you would have to agree with that.
Get it now, or should I humiliate you again?
Report Post »JRook
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 4:51pm@PATTY HENRY GOD CREATED EVERYTHING And you obtained this fact from where?? So your saying every living thing that existed today was present at that special moment you speak of. Your beliefs mean nothing to this discussion. No one should be talking in terms of beliefs, they are irrelevant.
Report Post »Redwood Elf
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 4:56pmI don’t believe in Gravity. Gravity is merely the action of inertia combined with the bending of spacetime in the presence of matter. There is no such thing as the “Force” of Gravity. Thus, there is no such thing as a “Graviton”
If gravity was a force, it would vary with mass like all other forces (F=MA), but as demonstrated by the famous “Feather and Hammer on the moon” experiment, it does not.
But you still can’t fly without an airplane.
Report Post »JRook
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 4:57pm@rangerp Ok you do understand that disproving one or more aspects or instances of evolution does not in anyway prove creationism. And there are extensive scientific findings that support varying levels and instances of evolution. Your beliefs on the other hand rest with one text written by, edited and interpreted (Nicean Council) by man. The notion that the number of people who believe it somehow makes it true is laughable. The majority of the known world thought the earth was the center of the universe and the world was flat. Stop holding on to a position you can’t defend.
Report Post »JRook
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 5:10pm@RANGERP On the off chance your interested in actually reading something other than the bible. Consider the following.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
For everyone else this should give you insights into the nonsensical arguments that are presented by the creationist BELIEVERS.
Report Post »MontaraMissileMan
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 5:17pm@RangerP: Really? Quoting scripture is scientific? Do you have children? Are they exact copies of you? Does the fact that they exist negate the fact that they are descended from your great-grandfather? If they have children are their children exact copies of you? This idea of genetic diversity is the driving force behind evolution. Inherited traits changing in different species over a very long period of time until they can no longer produce viable offspring with the original population.
Take a look at this link by the same guy I posted earlier: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-ilMYc5xdQ
And understand that I’m not denying God, nor the potential roll of him in shaping the universe, but to think the vast and massive universe is only populated by a single species on an insignificant speck of dust orbiting an unremarkable star in an unremarkable galaxy and think that we are the only thing that he is concerned about is to be incredibly arrogant.
For a sense of scale here’s this link: http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/589217
Seeing that scale really drives home how important our lives as individuals are. The universe may never see another one of you. That‘s why it’s so important to do the good and live your life as an example, and not just stick to dogma because that’s what someone a church told me to listen to said so.
Report Post »SLOWBIDEN
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 5:45pmthe theory of evolution- we were all fish and one day the fish had a r et ard baby, then the r e tard baby had more r e tard babies, one day one of the r et ard babies crawled out of the ocean and had butt sex with a squirrel and made a r e tard frog squirrel, and that had a reatard baby that was a monkey fish frog, and it had butt sex with another monkey and that monkey had butt sex with another monkey and had you. So their you have it. We are the offspring of 5 monkeys having butt sex with a fish frog
Report Post »Mikeil305
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 6:21pmThere is a quite a bit of ignorance here from both sides. Someone said “you can‘t prove god doesn’t exist”, whoever you are I’m amazed you can actually read, much less utilize the technology to post that nonsense.
Someone asked why there are still monkeys if we evolved from them? We did not evolve from them, we share a common ancestor.
A key point here is that people who believe in evolution don’t claim to have all the answers, we work off of the information available. Anyone who claims to know all the answers for sure is a liar, even though they may not know it.
I take a different view on things as an atheist conservative, I don’t have the normal aggression towards believers. You can go nuts if you think a book written a long time ago holds all the answers. I would say your reactions here do show a bit of doubt in your belief, it should be unshakable and you should brush off any opposing views.
The environmental nuts and liberal professor circles give science a bad name, but there are still good ethical scientists out there. I’ll take modern science, with it’s flaws, to give me the info I need to convince me of the greatest mysteries of the world. It works better than repeatedly translated books written by people who didn’t understand the physics of rain.
I also know that by the time I cease to be we wont have an answer for how it all works.
Report Post »bigpew
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 6:37pmOne more time. God spoke you exist. That is pretty awesome. As the good book says He knew you before you were formed in your mothers womb.
Report Post »lmao@dems
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 6:47pmLets see, Theory of Evolving from a single cell organism Chances: 10 to the power of 320+, I a believer in God!! If I’m wrong oh well when i pass on. If your wrong, Good luck with that when you pass on, judgement will come. Even when scientist study deep into the Theory of evolution many go from Atheist to believers. Funny how that works. when the game of chance (THEORY of evolution) is actually studied.
Report Post »georgepatton
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 7:03pmYour statements are false and majoritive.
Report Post »Explain how everything that we know was created?
From Virginia
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 7:13pmEvolution is a fraud. Even Leakey’s Lucy was a fraud.
There is NO fossil evidence for evolution.
Report Post »4truth2all
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 7:37pmYo Jrook:
Concerning you’re post to RangerP@ 4:57 …
1. Actually scripture mentions that the earth had a spherical shape
2. many of the principles of modern science were discovered by staunch believers
3. There are tons and tons of qualified scientists that believe in creation and tons and tons of “evidence” to support it
4. I suggest that you take you’re own advice …. read some of it
There was just a story in here about a plane called … glacier girl … it was part of a lost squadron of planes that landed in Greenland during WWII. They went back to get them somewhere around 1995 and they found them under 250 feet of ice and I believe a mile away from where they landed . You’re “science ” say’s that this should not have been, that it should not have happened this quickly …yeah well, it did. This is one of many, many observable instances presented right before our eyes that attest to the time frame of scripture, yet many close their eyes to this presented evidence.
I just watched a DVD about insects in which it had 3 catagories and 6 different topics in each catagory. They stuck in there evolution garbage the entire time never once explaining or providing ANY proof of it … total propaganda. I guess they expect me and others to believe it just cause they say so. Considering that evolution is taught from kindergarden and only 50% believe it, means something is wrong with the teaching
Report Post »Nasado
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:37pm@JRook
Report Post »You and I actually agree. If God does exist and he used direct revelation to man for thousands of years, why would he stop after the apostles? I don’t believe he did. I am LDS so if you know anything about my faith you will understand that we believe there is still revelation today. Also, you were correct on the council of Nicea and what a farce it was yet few know the actual history of the Bible. That is why we believed a restoration was needed. Now, I don’t expect you to believe the same things but with your understanding of history, you should at least see and understand why we believe what we believe.
RoyBaty
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:17pmShow me ONE example of a transitional fossil, as Darwin predicted that there would be billions, and I will consider thinking about darwinism.
Report Post »TXDoc
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 10:34pmAs a Christian, past research scientist, and practicing physician, I don’t understand why people feel that science and religion must conflict with each other. When seeking medical care, one relies on scientific knowledge based in part on the theory of evolution.
The religion-science conflict seems to originate from a lack of education; and our country is sadly rife with that. I am talking about education in both theology as well as science.
The Galileo incident led the Catholic Church to stop condemnation of scientific facts; but sadly some Fundamentalist Evangelicals repeat the same mistakes.
Fortunately there are Evangelicals like Michael Dowd, who keep many Christians from holding to false and ludicrous beliefs, only shared by Fundamental Islam, that God just created the present world instantaneously and that the world is between 6-10K years old.
In attending secular/ state colleges I encountered Christian, Jewish and even Hindus commenting on the development of humans, bacteria, etc. under the direction of God–no conflict with science and religion.
Don’t engage in senseless arguments with undereducated, close-minded folks. Refer them to the outstanding video and book, “Thank God for Evolution,” by Michael Dowd, an EVANGELICAL Christian. Here’s a great quote from the book.
“The science vs. religion debate is over. A powerful book! A must read for all, including scientists. ”
— Craig Mello
2006 Nobel Prize in Phys
Report Post »ConservDadASD
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:29pm@Altair…. You have been drinking a little too much Altairian water while blogging or attempting to explain the Bible. Firstly, that passage about drinking poison and surviving asp bites was a general prophecy directed toward those who work to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This is not a directive for people to actively drink strychnine or handle snakes while singing Sunday hymns… which is a misuse of scripture. However, there was fulfillment of that when Paul’s ship was wrecked on the shores of Malta, and he got bit by a snake while putting wood on a fire. They expected him to die quickly… but he went on as if nothing happened.
Ontology recapitulates phylology is not the theory it once was… check out creation.com or icr.org, if you dare to read articles by degreed scientists.
Creationists never said that dinosaurs never existed… but they existed concurrently with humans… and there are historical records found in various cultures that describe such interactions… many of them tragic.
Bruce P,
There are many scientists with degrees who are also creationists. Most who have tried to get creationist articles in scientific journals have been refused for that very reason… Then those who publish these journals then turn around and jeer the creationists for not getting anything published in a major scientific journal. It’s a very circular thing.
RangerP… Hitler’s “friend” Nietchze actually proposed an evolution where the weak actua
Report Post »TRUECON19
Posted on June 5, 2012 at 12:45amYou guys that don’t believe in any type of evolution drive me bonkers.
1- No matter how hard you try you can’t prove Creationism.
2- Here is some Macro Evolution for you… the modern dog… Evolved to interact and work with man. you think there were labs just running around in cave man times chasing down tennis balls. You think the first dogs would listen to commands such as sit and stay.
I know you will say its because man forced this to happen through selective breeding. While definitely true, there are physical differences between dogs and wolves that have evolved over time not due to selective breeding, i.e… number of pups, etc…
Evolution is all around you all the time. Animals adapting to their areas they live in over the course of 10s of thousands of years. Look at the Wooly Mamoth, why’d it have all that hair, because it was the ice age.
Report Post »zoddie
Posted on June 5, 2012 at 1:01amI am ashamed to be an American sometimes because of these polls. Why are we the only civilized country on earth to not understand high school biology in such great numbers?
naed5048 -
“If the theory of evolution. then why are their still apes….was it selective evolution?”
You came from your Grandfather. Why didn’t your Grandfather die when you were born?
In all seriousness, humans and apes have a common ancestor. Seven million years ago, there were neither humans nor gorillas nor chimps. There was a species of ape that we are all descended from.
As for the 2nd law of thermodynamics. People. I’m not even a physicist and I know that the 2nd rule applies to a CLOSED SYSTEM. The earth is not a closed system. Also, parts of the system CAN increase in entropy. Where did y’all get your educations? So much of this stuff can be solved with a simple Google search.
As for the lack of transitional fossils, you’ve got to be kidding me. We have hundreds and hundreds. Fossils from our ancestors. Fossils of prehistoric horses changing over time. Fossils of big cats. Hundreds. Thousands.
Report Post »Servant Of YHVH
Posted on June 5, 2012 at 1:44amWell altair, that is almost funny with the pseudo-intellectual “conversation” of complete and total ignorance and dribble with yourself. Trying to be a pseudo-intellectual trying to justify a fool’s belief of evolution was quite entertaining.
BTW: I saw the backsides of six horses in a field walking away and I believe that I recognized your face as the fourth one from the right.
Report Post »RebelPatriot
Posted on June 5, 2012 at 1:47amWhen adults believe we evolve from a puddle of goo then we need help.
We are quite lucky as human beings that we by happen stance evolved to be the talking primates. Unfortunately, so many were unlucky and did not evolve into human beings.
Don’t you all feel lucky to be here? Afterall there is as much probability of a divine creator as evolving from a puddle of goo.
Report Post »skalican
Posted on June 5, 2012 at 2:23amYo lets pretend “God” exists and he created man in his image… who can argue the line of reason in genesis that it didn’t happen the way it did evolutionary?
Report Post »after He created the heavens and the earth, light and night, the fishes of the sea, the plants, and animals, then finally he gave the “breath of life” to humans. where is that inconsistent with evolution?
Mind you the “breath of life” is self awareness where all of mankind’s creativity comes from.
so how does the Bible argue against Science again?
TXDoc
Posted on June 5, 2012 at 2:33amAdd your comments
Report Post »beachj11
Posted on June 5, 2012 at 4:27amThe theory of evolution as presently taught posits that higher forms of life arose gradually from lower stages of living matter. Inheritable genetic changes in offspring are assumed to be spontaneous rather than the result of arranged or directed forces external to the system.
This theory conflicts with a basic law of chemistry, the second law of thermodynamics, which states in part that it is not possible for a spontaneous process to produce a system of higher order than the system possessed at the beginning of the change.
Report Post »Lotus4115
Posted on June 5, 2012 at 7:53amSquidVetOhio,
You do not get order form chaos and since everything trends to chaos (the 2nd law of thermo-dynamics)
The 2nd law of thermo-dynamics applies to a closed system with no available energy input. This is not true of the Earth. Crawl out of your hole and feel the warmth of the big energy source in the sky. Evolution is a fact and stupid doesn’t make you right.
Report Post »BeckTard can’t win this one no even with stupid turned up to full.
PreachermanMatt
Posted on June 5, 2012 at 7:53amThe Church ignores Science…so I left.
http://matthewstevens.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/the-church-ignores-science-so-i-left/
Report Post »4truth2all
Posted on June 5, 2012 at 8:11amYo Zoddie:
Because we are still, reguardless of what obama say’s, a christian nation not deceived into thinking as the world does. So what you see as backwards is forwards, and what is actually forward you think is backwards. I actually find it amazing and sad to watch this happening in our world. Good thing is I know exactly where it’s going. You are ashamed of the truth of God’s Word ….. “and their glory will be their shame.”
Also, you do realize that bones do not fossilize in the open air ?
Report Post »Do you actually believe everything you Google ?
jdtanker
Posted on June 5, 2012 at 11:03am@JROOK Erosion now? You say Erosion cut through a mountain range? HAHA, and it left 90 degree cliffs also. No, it was cut fast. Look at a mini grand canyon that was formed after Mt. Saint Helens. It was created in minutes from a lake that formed that later broke over. It cut right through granite like butter and now a little creek runs down the center. Did that little creek erode the canyon? Nope. You don’t like what you read or what makes sense. Now give me the ultimate proof that evolution is nothing but a theory. Oh wait, that’s what it is, a theory. Something not proven, mmmmmmm, a religion. That’s also what it is. A religion. You think I’m a danger? You attack, I’m just showing off my light.
Report Post »puravida56
Posted on June 5, 2012 at 11:05am@exhausting passion- I did not choose to become an athiest/ agnostic. In fact I tried real hard to believe. I met with pastors, priests, studied the bible dailey and prayed for understanding. Yet, the more I studied the more I realized that I didnt believe it. No matter how hard I tried.
Report Post »mycomet123
Posted on June 5, 2012 at 12:18pm@PURAVIDA56, I’m sorry you tried really hard & still didn’t find God. I truly believe God will “find you”. Your relationship with God should be as easy as breathing. I was raised Catholic & never really thought that much about what I believed–guess I didn’t really care! God “found me” or should I say He made me aware of His presense at a time when I was the farthest from Him. We are all instruments of God & everthing has a divine plan & sometimes that may mean people may not believe in God until He reveals Himself to them. Atheists are just as much part of God’s plan as Christians are.
Report Post »BeverlyC
Posted on June 5, 2012 at 1:24pmCan’t you tell most people have never studied the Bible?
Altair are you aware that Mosaic Law was halted after the Christ died? We are now under the law of Christ.
You might find help in understanding the Bible if you obtain one in modern English.
Report Post »You sound so uneducated.
MSBrewer
Posted on June 5, 2012 at 11:33pmFor reputable scientist’s who have studied much about creationism and evolution try this site, they have over 7500 articles about the science behind creationism.
http://www.creation.com
Report Post »jamessick
Posted on June 6, 2012 at 4:33am@BruceP Read the book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton, microbiologist and atheist who demonstrates that Macroevolution is not a viable theory. It was written in the late 80s or early 90s.
Report Post »Joey Odendahl
Posted on June 7, 2012 at 10:52amI don‘t know why it’s assumed that every Christian is a fundamentalist. MOST Christians believe that animals adapt and change over time. MOST Christians believe dinosaurs existed. MOST Christians do not see the Book of Genesis as a science book or a history book, but rather as an important meditation on the nature of God and man… and God’s relationship with man. Yet for some reason there’s this notion that you either believe in God or science. Why not both? The two are not mutually exclusive.
Some facts:
1- There are priests with doctors degrees in science who apparently have no trouble balancing their views.
2- On average, students from Catholic schools score higher on science tests than students from public schools.
3- Some of the greatest scientific developments of all time came from monks (read up on the history of genetics research, for instance).
So let‘s dispel this odd notion that you can’t believe in God and science. You can.
Report Post »binge_thinker
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 8:53pmI say this again, The Law of Non Contradiction is the WORST enemy of secular atheists. They will say that All life can be traced back to a primordial “soup” and that the Universe is 13 Billion years old. What they Won’t tell you is that by their own theory, 13 Billion years isn’t even a fraction of the time it would require of such a “dumb” theory. They will not discuss the Transcendant Cause of the Universe because they don’t have one. They may try to throw out an Inflation Field as a “possibility” but the Inflation Field itself requires Anthropic fine tuning. The secular atheist would have us believe a fary tale likened unto a person walking into the TajMahal and making the absurd assertion that the bricks, mortar and wood by chance, assembled themselves over 13 Billion years all the while failing to address where the matter came from to assemble the very materials that make up the bricks, mortar and wood that make up the Grand Taj Mahal that is our Anthropically fine tuned and orderly Universe.
Report Post »binge_thinker
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 9:50pmWhy evolution is false.
Report Post »http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v13i8f.htm
Amtorcha
Posted on July 8, 2012 at 10:04amThe Earth is in the solar system….the solor system is in the galaxy……the galaxy is in the universe…..the universe is in what..?????? I am waiting for an anwser from those who believe they can explain away GOD. At some point you might want to use your brain that GOD gave you and realize that one can not explaine everything with a physical answer.
Report Post »superglide
Posted on August 1, 2012 at 7:23pmThese arguments prove the theory of evolution….. so many knuckle draggers that haven’t evolved enough yet!
Report Post »Obamujahadeen
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:02amAs John Lennon came to realize about “evolution” was “if it were true, how did everyone evolve at the same time? Why aren’t there monkeys evolving right now into man”? I go with that kind of view.. A while back some of his views not known were made public and this was one of them that surprised people from him (Lennon).
Here’s part of the quote below, the whole interview’s here, actually one of the last ones he gave: http://bit.ly/kTr6I3
“”Nor do I think we came from monkeys, by the way… That’s another piece of garbage. What the hell’s it based on? We couldn‘t’ve come from anything–fish, maybe, but not monkeys. I don’t believe in the evolution of fish to monkeys to men. Why aren’t monkeys changing into men now? It’s absolute garbage. It’s absolutely irrational garbage, as mad as the ones who believe the world was made only four thousand years ago, the fundamentalists.
That and the monkey thing are both as insane as the apes standing up suddenly. The early men are always drawn like apes, right? Because that fits in the theory we have been living with since Darwin. I don’t buy that monkey business. [Singing] “Too much monkey business…” [Laughing] I don’t buy it.”" Neither do I.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:12amObviously, John Lennon had little understanding of evolution.
Report Post »qpwillie
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:26am@Obamujahadeen
Try this experiment; Go find a group of apes. Sit patiently and watch them. If they are evolving, you should be able to detect some significant changes taking places after about a couple a hundred thousand years. Don’t get up yet. If they are evolving, it should be quite obvious after a million years. They probably won’t evolve to be the same creatures we are though. That’s not the way it works.
Come back and let us know what you found out.
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 10:07amI do not believe in evolution, but have a question for those that do. If it were real, and if people did come from monkeys, would that lead us to believe that certain humans living today are more evolved, and some are less evolved, and closer to the monkey than others?
Report Post »flipper1073
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 10:50am@ RANGERP
What I find interesting is the Intellectual Elites among us
Believe that they Evolved from Apes.
An Us Uninformed Neanderthals Believe we were created
Report Post »by Intelligent Design or Devine Intervention.
Kinda backwards don’t ya think ?
phillyatheist
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 10:53amRANGER – no. but i have a feeling i know where you are going with that. for shame.
Report Post »texasbeta
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:30amNobody claimed we came from monkeys except fundamentalist Christians who are too lazy to read 3rd grade biology. The theory is that apes and man had a common ancestor.
Report Post »Evolution as a process, is not longer debated. Where man fits in, is. However, the process of evolution is a fact that you see every day. Antibiotic resistance is something you and your doctor deal with each time you get sick. Take a domestic pig, throw him in the woods, and in 1 generation he’ll go back to his natural form with tusks and fur. Do you own a dog? How do you think you got that dog? Did God make cockerpoos? They were created by selective breeding and no random necessity, but it definitely shows you how the process works. Man has been growing taller and with larger foreheads. This is verifiable. There weren’t enough 7 foot guys to field a single basketball team 500 years ago. Today, turn on your tv…giants are everywhere. The process of evolution is seen in most of the avenues of your life everyday…Nobody is saying there isn’t a God, or that God didn’t act as the catalyst. However, denying basic biology and then complaining that America is behind in education is ridiculous.
flipper1073
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:42amAnd by the way
GOD designed us to Intellectually Evolve.
Otherwise You would be typing on your
Computer by Candlelight!
Or riding your Horse to your Ivy League University.
to be indoctrinated.
OK my analogies leave something to be desired
Report Post »but hopefully you get the Idea.
davecorkery
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:55amJohn Lennon smoked a lot of pot and dropped acid regularly. He dropped out of high school cause biology is hard. Therefore, everything he says about evolution is 100% true.
Report Post »Faith is no reason.
encinom
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 12:04pmphillyatheist
Report Post »Posted on June 4, 2012 at 10:53am
RANGER – no. but i have a feeling i know where you are going with that. for shame.
________________
Philly, Ranger Dan is an admitted racists, he has commented on how he blames MTV for saying the mixing of the races is okay.
rangerp
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 4:30pmAs a creationist, and a constitutionalist, I believe God created all men, and I believe in treating them all equally. We can not say the same for your Darwin. His false theory of evolution led men (like Hitler) and others to do extreme evil in the name of Social Darwinism.
From Darwin “At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes…will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the ***** or Australian and the gorilla”
Encinom – Biblically, I do not believe there is anything wrong with mixing races. I will also claim that I believe whole heartedly that MTV saw fit to promote mixing races. they did not look to just mixing races, but more specifically, in having white girls be sexually active with the gangster black male. Watch MTV, and show me where I am wrong
Keep in mind only 2% of whites date/marry outside of their race. So why do half of the shows on VH1 and MTV promote race mixing with whites and blacks?
A few examples
Report Post »Flavor of Love
I love New York
The T.O. Show
Ochocinco: The ultimate catch
So you think you can dance
4truth2all
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:03pmYo Texasbeta:
antibiotics resistance … the bacteria ALREADY has the ability to resist it, it does not evolve it.
Selective breeding has NOTHING to do with evolution … again all the “information” is already there.
the THEORY of evolution is still VERY much in debate by qualified scientists.
Report Post »Having a common ancestor means that you come from that ancestor .. not quite sure how you don’t see that.
As far as third grade biology … the current school books on this subject have a lie printed in them that was challanged at the time and KNOWN to be false …. yet this LIE is still in them to this day.
Many christians are well read on this subject … don’t speak so foolish … or does this make you feel better about the theory of evolution.
texasbeta
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:56pm4Truth –
Report Post »This is idiotic to debate. “Antibiotic resistance is a type of drug resistance where a microorganism is able to survive exposure to an antibiotic. While a spontaneous or induced genetic mutation in bacteria may confer resistance to antimicrobial drugs, genes that confer resistance can be transferred between bacteria in a horizontal fashion by conjugation, transduction, or transformation. Thus, a gene for antibiotic resistance that evolves via natural selection may be shared. Evolutionary stress such as exposure to antibiotics then selects for the antibiotic resistant trait. Many antibiotic resistance genes reside on plasmids, facilitating their transfer. If a bacterium carries several resistance genes, it is called multidrug resistant (MDR) or, informally, a superbug or super bacterium.”
Don’t be an idiot. Doctors quit prescribing Penicillin because it was overprescribed and the bacteria developed an immunity. Steptocauchus strains have evolved recently to the point of killing thousands each year due to excessive antibiotic prescriptions. It didn’t already have that immunity, or the stuff wouldn’t have worked to begin with. I know dealing with creationists about evolution is like wading into a mentally challenged class of 1st graders and discussing particle physics, but just being dumb for the sake of being dumb doesn’t help anything. You essentially said…”nuh-uh.”
texasbeta
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:59pmSecondly, the common ancestor between apes and man, by which monkeys evolved FROM apes, does not mean that man evolved from monkeys and therefore, why are their monkeys. Even the statement is moronic. You came from your dad, and your dad was still there. Send a pig into the woods, and when its kid has a kid, it will have fur and tusks. The first pig doesn’t have to be dead for this to occur. It will occur every time. That is how we got boars. They came from domesticated pigs brought over by Europeans.
Report Post »Simply said…you can choose to be an idiot. But you aren’t helping your cause, your kids, or the country.
4truth2all
Posted on June 5, 2012 at 1:20pmYo Texasbeta:
You can call me an idiot all you want … you’re words hold no truth or power.
Report Post »What you say is not true … line up 5 glass bottles and 5 stones a foot around shoot at them with a gun. The glass will be destroyed, the stones will not, you need to get something stronger or different ( if you wish) to destroy the rocks. same principle as the bacteria. The bacteria that is not killed by the drug reproduces, and as it does you in turn have bacteria that is resistant to given drug. It does not happen instantly, it takes some time. Should I now call you a moronic idiot because you disagree with the proven science behind what I say?
mycomet123
Posted on June 5, 2012 at 6:30pmWow, Let’s see. I have 2 choices. #1. I was created in the image & likeness of God. #2. I evolved from an ape??? Faith choices #1. Man’s “superior intellect” choices #2. The devil is in the details!!.
Report Post »Redwood Elf
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:58amIf you want current living proof of Evolution, just look at the knuckle-dragging neanderthals that make up the membership of Al Qaida and Hamas.
There’s your missing link.
Report Post »binge_thinker
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 10:03pmThe pervasive ape-to-human montage that shows an ape-like being on the left slowly becoming a human on the right is so much a part of culture that most anyone can recognize it. Natural history museums and TV shows give us supposed glimpses into the past and how human ancestors might have looked. Too bad it’s all a sham.
Fossil apes are difficult to come by, but several species have been found. However, a new ape fossil does not generate as much interest or prestige as one called a “human ancestor,” which is why there is so much focus on how ape fossils tie in to the evolution story. The desire to “fill in the gaps” leads to many false conclusions. For example, some of the supposed bipedal characteristics found in fossils are also found in living apes that are not bipedal.
In fact, imagination, wishful thinking, and presuppositions influence a great deal of the reconstructions we find in magazines, textbooks, and on TV. Enjoy the science, but don’t be taken in by the fiction.
Report Post »chucksue351
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:01amlet us think for a moment, if????? in the beginning 100000000000000 years ago the earth or somewhere in space we started with just a single cell organism (i suppose the evolutionist would agree with that) then that organism would have been the king of the universe with no enemies or anything that would confront it with destruction! so evolutionist tell me why it would need to evolve into any other form knowing that the new form might destroy it (remember it is about the survival of the most fit)! this is only one of so many ways to contradict evolution its not even funny!
Report Post »RamonPreston
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:10amNo, no, no. In the beginning there was nothing. Nothing started spinning and exploded into everything. It rained on a rock which turned into primordial soup which turned into a living cell. This cell turned into humans. There you have it. Why evolutionist have rocks in their heads. They simply don‘t want God in the picture so they don’t have to obey Him.
Report Post »tzion
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:16amI’d take it further. The existence of life is extraneous as far as the rest of the universe is concerned. Why does all life seek to preserve its own existence to begin with? Why should ordinary matter favor that form? And even if life did come into being naturally, where did the laws of nature that permitted that occurrence originate? Science can’t disprove G-d because G-d created the very scientific laws that all our science is based on. If you saw a computer program and began analyzing it only to find that the program is capable of running without any obvious signs of outside interaction, would you conclude that the program has no programmer?
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:20amRAMONPRESTON — Christians have “god in the picture” but seem to be doing a damned good job disobeying him to.
But oh yeah, I forgot, as long as you tell yourself you’re right with god, it forgives any trespasses.
Report Post »kevin1122
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:27amPoor Bruce,
Report Post »Now changing the topic from evolution to criticizing believers. I admit you are just as good a person as I am (depending of course on how YOU define “Good.“ The problem Bruce is none of us are ”good” according to God. And saddly, His definition is the only one that matters.
So, I’m not good, or better than you, just forgiven. You can be too.
Bruce P.
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:44amKEVIN — oh poor Kevin. I am not criticizing believers. I am responding to an attack on people who believe in evolution from a believer. Responding to someone’s point and addressing that point is not changing the subject.
Report Post »kevin1122
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:57amBruce,
Report Post »Do you beleive in Darwinian Evolution or Punctuated Equilibrium or one of the other 13 or so Theories of Evolution postulated by evolutionist over the last 200 years? And, why do you believe the one you have chosen to believe?
CaptainFinland
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 3:21pm@Kevin1122
There is one theory of evolution. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. This is the only theory accepted by the scientific community as fact. Darwin was wrong about a lot of things, hence we do not accept Darwinian evolution. But he was right about a lot as well, and science, doing its job incredibly well, has filled in the gaps. It baffles me how anyone in the 21st century can still not manage to wrap their head around such a simple fact.
Report Post »CaptainFinland
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 3:32pmAs for why this is the accepted theory, well, thats down the the mountain of evidence we have. Pretty much in every case of someone critisising evolution, it boils down to them not understanding how it works.
I’m going to try to explain this uses facts you cannot dispute.
Every time DNA is copied there are mutations in the genes. Fact.
These mutations are carried on to offspring. Fact again. You with me so far?
Changes in the DNA have the ability to change characteristic of the organism inheriting them. Fact again.
These characteristics can either:
A) Benefit the organism / Give the organism a competitive advantage over other organisms
B) Hinder the organism
C) Have no affect on the organism’s ability to survive.
If the mutation benefits the organism, it is more likely to survive and produce offspring itself. Because of this, the offspring all share the mutated gene which gives them an advantage. Because of this, the offspring are more likely to produce offspring themselves. Eventually, the other members of the species that do not have this advantage either die out, become a new species themselves, or breed with those that do.
This is evolution in a nutshell. Not one of those points I have made can be disputed. Each point has been observed again and again.
Report Post »VinnieCCT
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 4:16pm@CAPTAINFINLAND
Nice post, EXCEPT, where does DNA come from? Also you are describing adaptation which happens to every species (also called microevolution) and has been recreated in labs. However, it is impossible for one species to mutate into another (macroevolution). There has never been any evidence, and it has never been recreated in labs after years and years of trying. It is the evolutionists who are taking the “giant leap of faith” from microevolution to macroevolution.
Report Post »CaptainFinland
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 6:18pm@VINNIECCT
My argument is regarding evolution. Where DNA comes from is not evolution. That is abiogenesis, and has nothing to do with evolution.
So you’ve accepted that microevolution occurs? Great, so we’re halfway there.
Macroevolution is microevolution over time. Microevolution is the steps in between macroevolution. Basically, we know (as a fact) that microevolution can cause new species. We’ve seen this occur in organisms. The ‘microevolution’ changes the organism so much after so many generations, that you end up with an organism very different to the one you started with. FOR EXAMPLE: We all know every species of dog share a common ancestor with a wolf. I’m sure you can agree a dachshund and a wolf are pretty different. It’s the same with humans and the chimpanzee, for example.
The reason its never been recreated in labs is simple. Whilst we know that it can happen (due to evidence in the fossil record), we can’t recreate it in the lab because do you realise how long it takes? The difference in regards to modern humans and the nethanderals is not that great, and it took a *long* time. Labs simply haven’t even existed long enough to observe such an effect.
By the way, heres a good example explaining what I mean in regards to micro and macro evolution:
Report Post »http://livinglifewithoutanet.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/macroevolution.jpg
BlackJohntheFlyingScotsman
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:04pmThe evolutionary process was expanded in the early 1900s by Hugo De Vries. De Vries proposed the Neo-Darwinism or mutation-selection theory, which states that the evolutionary progression was enabled and propelled by mutations. These mutations were then field-tested in the school of hard knocks, and judged to be successful or not by the court of survival of the fittest. For mutations to be passed on to the next generation the mutation must happen in the reproductive cells (germ mutations) which comprise a comparatively small percentage of cells. The odds of a mutation occurring is nigh unto one in a million cell reproductions, and the odds of two mutations occurring to one gene are one in a trillion cell reproductions. A lone gene would require hundreds of mutations to change from one gene to another. Subsequently, thousands, millions, or easily billions of mutations must then be absolutely necessary to transform one organism to an entirely different organism. Evolutionary thought says that such mutations must have taken place throughout the eons of time. However, such an utterly fantastic amount of time as would be obligatory to facilitate this sort of change is not available. For, you see, the earth is slowing spinning further and further away from the sun. Life, as it is -or, if you prefer, has come to be, is only able to be sustained in a very narrow range from the sun. Life could not have progressed on this earth for millions of years.
Report Post »BlackJohntheFlyingScotsman
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:16pmIn addition, the whole daft notion of white superiority or a ‘master race’ was an evolutionary thought. Before Darwin and his ridiculous theories there wasnae any scientific or historical basis for racism. The Bible, for instance, dinnae make any racist claims even feasible. Mankind is mankind, Adam’s seed we all are, and naebody else! There is but one race in me Bible, and ‘ALL men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.’ The Holocaust was a direct result of evolutionary thought applied to nations. For if Darwin is correct, we are nothing more than brute beasties, we’re just a wee bit more progressed than some others. Nae soul, nae reason for being except to improve ourselves through mutations so our progeny may inherit a better vessel of life. Och, as for we canny bipeds, well, some of us happen to be more evolved than others who fall into a rather similar genus. When a wee lad believes that, why, why he might feel that he ought to strive to ensure that only the fittest among us survive to procreate so that the world will have a better future. That lad might. . .well, might even pen a slip of a book and title it ‘My Struggle’ or ‘Mein Kampf’ if he happened to speak the language of the Rhine. . . If there is nae God, there is nae moral lawgiver. If there is nae moral lawgiver, there is nae moral law. If there is nae moral law, then there is nae absolute right or wrong. If nothing is absolutely right or wrong, ye cannae say what another does is w
Report Post »BlackJohntheFlyingScotsman
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:21pmCAPTAINFINLAND
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 3:21pm
@Kevin1122
There is one theory of evolution. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. This is the only theory accepted by the scientific community as fact. Darwin was wrong about a lot of things, hence we do not accept Darwinian evolution. But he was right about a lot as well, and science, doing its job incredibly well, has filled in the gaps. It baffles me how anyone in the 21st century can still not manage to wrap their head around such a simple fact.
Will ye stand by that statement? Darwin didnae. “Such simple instincts as bees making a beehive could be sufficient to overthrow my whole theory.” ― Charles Darwin And that, mind you, was when he had but the very slightest understanding of the cell. He believed the cell was merely a membrane filled with some highly viscous substance.
Report Post »CaptainFinland
Posted on June 5, 2012 at 6:54am@BLACKJOHNTHEFLYINGSCOTSMAN
I’m not sure if you can even read.
You have literally quoted me, and then made a claim that I have addressed in the quote itself.
I’ll repeat myself again: “Darwin was wrong about a lot of things, hence we do not accept Darwinian evolution.”
It goes like this. Charles Darwin sets sail and makes a load of observations. Looking at these observations, one of the conclusions he finds is that when a species is separated geographically (such as the finches of the Galapagos islands), the individual species slowly adapt to whatever new conditions they find themselves in (an island of mainly berries and fruits, an island with a high insect population ect ect). He concludes that change over time can occur in species that eventually leads to the two/three populations of the species becoming so distant from each other in terms of genetics that they are new species in themselves.
Report Post »This was, the main conclusion. And he was right. But, he had a load of other speculations and ideas that have since been proven wrong. Using Darwinian evolution to attack modern evolution is like using the ‘plum pudding’ theory of the structure of the atom to attack the modern atomic theory. They are both separate and one has been proven incorrect whilst the other (which has derived from the former) has been researched and advanced to a point at which it is accepted as correct by the scientific community.
VinnieCCT
Posted on June 5, 2012 at 9:27am@CAPTAINFINLAND
That is because Neanderthals were Humans, just like all dogs are still canine like wolves. Again, no species can transform into another.
Report Post »CaptainFinland
Posted on June 5, 2012 at 10:45am@VINNIECCT
Correct! Whilst the dog species shows such diversity, they are still canine. But then again, so is the hyena. The hyena is most certainly a different species, as is the fox, but they all share a common ancestor. Why is it that you think its possible that wolves, foxes, hyenas and the Chihuahua all share a common ancestor, but humans and the other apes don’t? The common ancestor of the dogs and all canines has been found to be Miacoidea, and this was about 55 million years ago. The Miacoidea was a *very* different species to the modern day dog.
“no species can transform into another.”
Report Post »Well this makes me think you have a misinterpretation of evolution. You see, evolution does not start with one species, and then turns it into another. It starts with one species, and simply changes it over time. In most cases, if the gradual changes of the animal prove benefitial, then you end up with what could be a very different animal that you started with. In other cases, such as the crocodile, the animal hardly changes at all, even after millions of years.
Evolution has no goal. Evolution doesn’t set out to make an animal better, or more fit, or to turn it into a better species. Natural selection does this. Natural selection is the process of the weaker animals dying off, leaving those that a better adapted to survive. These adaptions lead to changes in the animal’s structure, appearance and sometimes even the divergence of a species. Evolution is the name given to
BlackJohntheFlyingScotsman
Posted on June 5, 2012 at 4:55pm@CAPTAINFINLAND, aye, I did literally quote you. I have found it to be somewhat a distracting practice to copy and paste other people’s comments in entirety and then respond to it in the very same post. However, I felt it was appropriate in that instance because I would fain have made manifest that you believe in only the Theory of Evolution by Means of Natural Selection. This theory is, in fact, Darwin’s theory. I fail to comprehend how one may only believe in the Theory of Evolution by Means of Natural Selection and then immediately turn around and completely disparage Darwinian evolution! How can this be!? The Theory . . .Selection is Darwinian evolution. I apologize, sir, for not marking and declaring my quotation more plainly. Certes, I found it rather confusing myself upon further review.
Concerning the canine species; selective breeding, which is, in all reality, natural selection under human supervision, is only capable of reducing or focusing the gene pool to isolate whichever traits are desired in that breed. A mutt has infinitely greater genetic possibility than a purebred poodle. It is wholly feasible for a canine patriarch (and matriarch;) with the maximum genetic possibility to have spawned the great majority of the canine species, perhaps all of it. Yet that is worlds apart from a single animal giving rise to all living species. It is utterly impossible for some animals, and bacteria as well, to have slowly acquired body components.
Report Post »binge_thinker
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 10:11pmMuch of the reason for evolution’s privileged status has been due to confusion over just what people mean when they use the word evolution. Evolution is a slippery term. If evolution simply means “change over time,” this is non-controversial. Peppered moths, Hawaiian drosophila fruit flies, and even Galapagos finches are clear examples of change over time. If you say that this form of evolution is a fact, well, so be it. But many scientists extrapolate beyond this meaning. Because “change over time” is a fact, the argument goes, it is also a fact that moths, fruit flies, and finches all evolved from a remote common ancestor. But this begs the question.
Report Post »The real question, however, is where do moths, flies, and finches come from in the first place? Common examples of natural selection acting on present genetic variation do not tell us how we have come to have horses, wasps, and woodpeckers, and the enormous varieties of living animals. Evolutionists will tell you that this is where mutations enter the picture. But mutations do not improve the scenario either. In speaking of all the mutation work done with bacteria over several decades, the great French zoologist and evolutionist Pierre-Paul Grasse’ said:
What is the use of their unceasing mutations if they do not change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect.
POET
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:00amOn LAND the balance or to you Greeneys the Biota can be simply summed up with 3 players .
Report Post »1 -The Roach 2- The Rat 3- The Crow this is how the food chain works on all specie other than Man
Man as a specie is the only animal aware of “Self”
But the same science can apply to all
If you supply the Crow with everything it needs ,it just sits there and waits for thing to come . The same with the Rat and the Roach , content to sit and wait .
Now apply this supply everything to Man and what happens ?
Take Bill Clinton for instance Had everything and still chased woman .
The Reason for this is “Self” even with everything, he had to pursue purpose .
When man is handed everything he needs and rewarded for doing nothing .
You end up with Poverty, look at Chicago , OAKLAND CA,
What do you see ? Because Government has provided everything Man is denied his purpose and lashes out any way he can to Justify he was ever here .
You see Gangs, Drugs Violence you see young men trying to father as many baby’s as they can any thing to prove that they were her.
Look at Our Government “SET FOR LIFE” and what do they do pass laws on Big gulp soda?
Hammerdown
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:59amIf evolution was the answer, wouldn’t it still be going on? Shouldn’t we have several different species walking around between humans as we know them today and apes as we know them today?
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:02amgive it a million years.
Report Post »Altair
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:05amBeen to Detroit lately ?
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:26amBecause humans did not evolve from the apes you see today. We shared a common ancestor. And evolution does not say that only one species of any kind of creature can exist at any given time. Our relatives among the extant apes are every bit as evolved as we are; but we evolved in different directions to meet different environmental challenges.
And you don’t see it happening right before your eyes, because it is gradual, happening across millennia.
Report Post »SquidVetOhio
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 10:15amHere lies the evolutionists hypocracy. God is our “magic” force we can’t explain according to them without aknowledging that Time and Chance is their “magic” force they can’t explain. Both evolution and creation must be taken with some faith. Evolution require too much faith for me. Since the variable of unknown force is the same for both, I’ll choose an intelligent common designer than an statistically impossible happenstance that produced an un-intelligent common ancestor.
Report Post »Butters66
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 10:19amHave you seen Octomom?
Report Post »CaptainFinland
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 4:17pm@SQUIDVETOHIO
No, it takes no faith to accept evolution. There is no “force” driving evolution. Mutations in DNA that are then carried into offspring happens. There’s no leap of faith there. We know it happens. We’ve seen it happen. That’s all evolution is. Change over time. It’s undeniable. Organisms better suited to their environment are more likely to survive and produce offspring. We have evidence for this. SO MUCH evidence. You just need to look.
Report Post »Redwood Elf
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 4:42pmEverybody sing along! (Tune: It’s a long way to Tiperari)
Oh a fish-like thing appeared among the annelids one day
It hadn’t any parapods nor setae to display
It hadn’t any eyes or jaws or ventral nervous chord,
But it had a lot of gill slits and it had a notochord.
CHORUS:
It’s a long way from Amphioxus
It’s a long way to us,
It’s a long way from Amphioxus
To the meanest human cuss.
good-bye to fins and gill slits,
welcome lungs and hair,
It’s a long, long way from Amphioxus
But we all came from there!
It wasn’t much to look at and it scarce knew how to swim,
And Nerius was very sure it hadn’t come from him
The molluscs wouldn’t own it and the arthropods got sore,
So the poor thing had to burrow in the sand along the shore.
(CHORUS)
He burrowed in the sand before a crab did nip his tail,
And he said, “Gill slits and myotomes are all to no avail,
I’ve grown some metoplural folds and sport an oral hood,
But all these fine new characters don’t do me any good.”
(CHORUS)
He sulked a while down in the sand without a bit of pep,
Then he stiffened up his notochord and said “I‘ll beat ’em yet,
Let ‘em laugh and show their ignorance I don’t mind their jeers,
Just wait until they see me in 100 million years!”
(CHORUS)
My notochord shall change into a chain of vertebrae,
Report Post »As fins, my metoplural folds shall agitate the sea;
My tiny dorsal nervous cord shall be a mighty brain,
And vertebrates shall dominate the animal do
Redwood Elf
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 4:51pmHmn…it cut off the end of the word “Domain”
Report Post »itched
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 6:55pmIt is still happening. Insects have become resistant to Monsanto’s roundup ready seeds.
http://www.nationofchange.org/first-super-weeds-now-super-insects-thanks-monsanto-1338362046
And I was born without wisdom teeth. :)
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:59amThe poll seems a bit skewed it make it appear that more people believe in creationism than evolution. But taken together, the people who believe in evolution do (slightly) outnumber the creationists.
Either way, what this poll means is that the 47% of us still have a lot of work to do in educating the 46%.
Report Post »jesusletsmespeed
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:46amYou’re obnoxious. You’re not going to convince anyone of your idiotic position with your condescending attitude. You’re just going to get the neck punch you deserve. It is quite possible that the earth was created in it’s current form as a re-creation or restoration of an old planet that had fallen into chaos. It’s a much more likely resolution that the ridiculous idea that this extremely complex system evolved by chance. The odds against it are astronomical. You have a problem with the idea that God exists. Don’t inflict that shortcoming on the rest of us.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 10:03amSo, I’m “obnoxious” but you’re the one calling me an idiot and saying I deserved to be punched. Funny.
Report Post »BlackJohntheFlyingScotsman
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 10:31amBruce lad, ye certainly appear to be a reasonably canny being. This causes me to wonder, how is it that one such as ye could so contrive to manipulate his education that he is utterly unaware of the many insurmountable obstacles in the path of evolution? I shall, if ye would permit me to impart such a lengthy discourse, delineate a few of these wee impasses which any one of them is perfectly capable of overthrowing the whole theory of evolution.
Beginning with the very beginning, we come to the truly fascinating and mysterious commencement of the universe. The most prominent and widely-held theory of the origination of this universe is the big bang theory. Despite its rather non-scientific and unimaginative name, it is an astonishingly complex and abstruse theory. According to this theory, the universe began as something that was nothing yet, or as nothing that was soon to be something. Nigh unto thirteen billion seven hundred million years ago, this nothing then became everything in one moment of infinite energy and vehemence. A possible explanation of this something that was nothing is a singularity. In other words, a singularity is an object of infinite density; this infinite density supplying the immense requirement of matter necessary to fill the universe.
Report Post »BlackJohntheFlyingScotsman
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 10:33amHowever, the gravitational force such an object of infinite density effects an insurmountable obstacle in the path of any output whatsoever, let alone any output powerful enough to release the amount of matter required to fill a universe. So what force is capable of breaking this phenomenal inward collapsing? Was there anything around this singularity that might provide the mysterious spark of anti-gravity? Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose published their findings in an Expanded Theory of Relativity. “According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy. The singularity didn’t appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy – nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don’t know. We don’t know where it came from, why it’s here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn’t exist and neither did we.”This leaves one with the question of where then did this enigmatic singularity come from?
Report Post »BlackJohntheFlyingScotsman
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 10:43am. These letters were left to compose the how-to-build-it-yourself manual of all cellular processes and structures. Incidentally, these instructions are more complicated than any or all of Shakespeare’s plays put together. One may be reasonably expected to inquire as to how this most unprecedented phenomenon occurred? Unfortunately, the intelligentsia can discover no record of the early biochemical reactions in the strata of modern earth or even when these molecules acquired the ability to self-replicate.
Report Post »Incidentally, amino-acids do not happen to be the only building blocks of cells. Nucleic acid is also fundamental to the construction and production of any process or structure in a cell. However, nucleic acid introduces even greater and more impracticable issues to this field of study, because the elements that compose it are exceptionally rare and obscure. Now the primordial alphabet soup only has half of the alphabet with which to write, and one is left wondering how it is possible to write the instructions for the most complex and sophisticated feat of engineering known to mortal man with scarce half of the required alphabet. Nanotechnology is, in fact, mere child’s play compared to the intricate design and fantastically infinitesimal size of the cell and its brilliant components. Moving past this fresh impasse, one arrives at the next stage of life processes -namely, the method of movement and manner of sustenance.
BlackJohntheFlyingScotsman
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 10:47amUnfortunately, scientists who subscribe to the theory of evolution have a very indefinite and imperfect knowledge of the history of the formation or acquisition of these elementary life requirements. One evolutionary resource explicates their position in this fashion, “This early development of organic matter remains hidden from us behind a heavy curtain of mystery because early biochemical reactions could not leave fossil traces in the rocks of those periods. Neither do we have a record of when and how organic molecules acquired the ability to produce other molecules with the same chemical properties. All we can surmise is that such developments must have occurred during the geological eras that preceded the formation of our oldest known fossil-a primitive bacterium some 3.2 billion years old found near Barberton, South Africa.” Clearly, the evolutionists do not have to have faith in anything.
Report Post »4GODUSAANDISRAEL
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:28amall i can say is wow, well done scottsman
Report Post »CaptainFinland
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 6:47pm@BLACKJOHNTHEFLYINGSCOTSMAN
Ok, where do we begin here?
Big bang theory. Right yes, this has nothing to with evolution and is pretty irrelevant here, but anyway. “According to this theory, the universe began as something that was nothing” No. Nowhere does is state the universe came from nothing. According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state which expanded rapidly. I’m already hearing the “But then where did that come from?”, and the honest answer is we don’t know. We can’t know, but that does not mean a God did it. Besides, as we now understand what the big bang theory actually states, I’m sure you can understand why yours “universe from nothing” is a nonsensical misrepresentation. Still, you seem to assert this claim for a while. Righteo.
Right, your next point, DNA.
Nucleotides, the “oh so complex” building blocks of RNA and DNA have, guess what, formed and have been observed forming in labratory conditions.
“nucleic acid introduces even greater and more impracticable issues to this field of study, because the elements that compose it are exceptionally rare and obscure.”
Really? The components of nucleic acids are carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen.
Hydrogen – Most common element on Earth
Oxygen – 3rd most common element on Earth
Carbon is in 4th
Nitrogen is 7th.
They are not rare in the slightest.
Report Post »CaptainFinland
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 6:56pmRight, next. Amino acids also have formed on their own in laboratory conditions. In fact, the Lipid bilayer that forms the cell wall has also formed under laboratory conditions. So you‘re wrong there as well I’m afraid.
Apparently scientists “subscribe” to evolution? No, they accept it as the fact it is, and you should be damn thankful they do. Do you realise how much of biology and pharmaceuticals rely on evolution? Literally all of it. No evolution, and there goes antibiotics. There goes the ability of every species on Earth to cope and adapt with change.
Once again, I don‘t know if you’re making your information up, or if you’ve got it from one of those nutjob creationist websites, but I can assure you that you most certainly have not got your information from any scientist that deserves the title of scientist.
Report Post »BlackJohntheFlyingScotsman
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 7:37pm@CaptainFinland, Perhaps ye did not read the words of the most eminent intellects, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose that I quoted. The portion pertaining to your objection that previous to the so-termed ‘big bang’ nothing existed is as follows, listen (read, rather) most carefully; “Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy – nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don’t know. We don’t know where it came from, why it’s here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn’t exist and neither did we.” Be so good as to expound to me the error of my statement in the light of these renowned brains’ findings.
Report Post »Furthermore, your dissension with my assertion that the building blocks of nucleic acid are highly scarce, is not true, sir. Atoms of phosphorous are a necessary component of all nucleic acids and are not to be found just anywhere lazing about the earth. Carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen are the building blocks of amino acids. As to your claims that evolution is an indispensable part of antibiotics, I am afraid that you are again mistaken. Adaptation is the correct term for the expressing or repressing of a veritable host of genes exhibited by bacteria. No new information is gained by the bacteria. The genesis of new information is the fundamental tenet of evolution, and this does not occur. This information can be corrob
BlackJohntheFlyingScotsman
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 7:41pmAlberts, et al. Molecular Biology of the Cell, 4th. ed New York: Garland Science, 2002.
Report Post »Cullimore, Roy D. Practical Atlas for Bacterial Determination Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2000.
Dyer, Betsey Dexter. A Field Guide to Bacteria. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2003.
Groisman, Eduardo A. Principles of Bacterial Pathogenesis. Burlington, MA: Academic Press, 2000.
Koehler, T.M. Anthrax New York: Springer Verlag, 2002.
Walsh, Christopher. Antibiotics: Actions, Origins, Resistance. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology Press, 2003.
Read more: Bacteria – Bacterial Adaptation – Growth, Resistance, Cells, and Example – JRank Articles http://science.jrank.org/pages/713/Bacteria-Bacterial-adaptation.html#ixzz1ws40nnIt
4truth2all
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:51pmYo Captainfinland:
Antibiotics … the bacteria resistance to such is already in the bacteria … which means the medicines/pharmaceuticls have NOTHING to do with evolution, it has to do with information already given/existing.
Just thought that I’d second the Scotsman …
Report Post »CaptainFinland
Posted on June 5, 2012 at 6:29amYour quote regarding a hypothesis (not a theory) of what preceding the big bang is merely that. A hypothesis. You seem to think that when a highly revered scientist comes up with something, that rest of the scientific community instantly incorporate it into the theory and take it as fact. Well, no. The Big Bang theory states that the universe was a hot dense state that expanded. Many big-brain scientists have come up with what may have preceded that, but none of those have been incorporated into the big bang theory as there is no evidence to support it other than speculation. As for the fact that the universe expanded from a hot dense state, we do have evidence for this. Red shift and microwave background radiation are such examples.
I admit for forgetting phosphorous in my list of the elements that compose nucleic acids, but you are still wrong when you say it is rare. It is the 13th most abundant element on Earth *currently*. There used to be more of it. Not rare at all. Your claim is still ridiculous.
No. Antibiotics have everything to do with evolution. You do realise that strains of bacteria that become antibiotic resistant do so because of evolution? I’ll put it simply for you.
Bacteria are resistant to antibiotics
Report Post »Some of these bacteria have a genetic mutation that allows them to be resistant to the antibiotics
Antibiotic comes along, kills those non resistant.
The resistant ones survive, you are now left with a new strain of bacteria resistant to antibio
CaptainFinland
Posted on June 5, 2012 at 6:42amEvolution CAN cause a gain in genetic information. Of course it can! If cells did not become more complex then the whole of evolution is wrong. But its not. Here’s another example.
Down Syndrome. I‘m sure you’re aware of what this is. Its when the offspring of a human one extra chromosome. One whole extra chromosome is a rather big addition of information, don’t you think? A mutation in DNA replication has resulted in a 3rd copy of chromosome 21.
Of course such an addition does not unfortunately benefit the human, but is shows that your claim that information cannot be gained by mutation is so so SO incredibly wrong.
Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it.
Here’s examples of beneficial mutations to organisms through evolution:
RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur.
Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further.
Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence shows that they were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors.
(Brown et al. 1998)
Report Post »(Zhang et al. 2002)
(Lang et al. 2000)
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
phillyatheist
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:58amcongratulations America, you’re getting dumber!
Report Post »RamonPreston
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:13amAnother atheists who going to get “burned.”
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:15amanother person whose comprehension of linguistics make me wonder if all humans have fully evolved.
Report Post »TomSawyer
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:17amNo. We can speak.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 12:06pmHumans have evolved, Christians, not so much. The average Beckerhead is just leaving the poo-flinging stage.
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 12:55pmENCINOM – lol.
oh, and thanks for the info about RANGER-RACIST. i kinda figured.
Report Post »Full Throttle
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 2:39pmWhy can’t you just leave Christians and their beliefs alone? I thought we had freedom of religion here in this country, yet you’d never know it considering the beating that Christians take from the secular/atheist community. Tell me, you gonna hound and insult Muslims and Hindus too? Live and let live, right? Or is that too fair for you?
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 4:06pmFULL – well, in this case it’s actually pretty darn important. b/c of religious beliefs, people are refusing to accept Science, and that has a serious real world effect on the education of our populace. believe whatever you want to believe, but the number of people who don’t accept the fact of evolution is troubling, and it stems from their religious beliefs. here we have a problem.
Report Post »binge_thinker
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 10:26pmPhilly, the more you speak, the more your ignorance is so apparent.
Report Post »At one time scientists thought leeches could cure disease by sucking the bad blood out. At one time the most learned thought the earth was flat. So obviously science and scientific theories do not always equal the truth. If people didn‘t question science we would still be poking holes in people’s skulls to cure mental illness. When science says chocolate is bad, then years later it is proven benificial like eggs and coffee. When science says Carbon Dioxide is harmful to humans, yet plants require it to produce oxygen.
Want some more?
wboehmer
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:56amNot only is God the Creator, He sustains His creation day-by-day, hour-by-hour. The godless see this is all as just one big meaningless, precarious accident.
“He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” Colossians 1:17
Report Post »S2art999
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:32amProve it.
Report Post »HorseCrazy
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 12:09pmtotally agree. if one cannot look and see the perfect beauty God created there is just no arguing with them or telling them. their “science” has gone from the actual tangible truth to the speculative unproven myth of monkey men they hold dear to. It takes a lot more faith to be an athiest or agnostic than it does to be a Christian.
Report Post »themachinist239
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 1:52pmProve it.
Report Post »themachinist239
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 3:45pmEveryone saying that Creationist theory is just as valid as Evolution theory demonstrates a fundamental lack of scientific understanding. There are theories and there are scientific theories. One can have a theory about anything, but what makes a scientific theory more valid is that is has been held to the standards of scientific peer review. Scientific theories are based on fact and scientific evidence, where creationist theory is not. For those who suddenly find it convenient to doubt science because it conflicts with their religious beliefs, put your money where your mouth is and reject science in all its forms. That means every new piece of technology that comes out, every new application of science used to make your life easier, question it and doubt its benefit to humanity the way you do with evolution. Evolution is based on science. It makes no blind assumptions, it doesn’t rely on anecdotal suggestions, it just is. Every christian has the right to interpret scientific discovery as a product of god if they wish, but this rejection of science, this rejection of the method by which we learn about our planet and everything on it is counter-productive to our species.
Report Post »KickinBack
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 6:08pmGod creates. Obama evolves.
Report Post »binge_thinker
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 10:33pmIn the past when I was feeling unsure, I would frequently need to return to the basics which I knew were true. The facts of Jesus historical existence, the reliability of the New Testament, the historical reliability of his resurrection, and God’s clear direction and presence in my life. Then I would combine this with Jesus own confirmation of the historicity of Genesis (see Matt. 19:3-6, Matt. 23: 29-37, and Matt. 24:37-39 and “Why We Believe in Creation”) and Paul’s clear statement of the creation exhibiting his character in Romans 1:18-20 and it was obvious that something was very wrong with evolution and somehow God’s creative fingerprints are evident in the natural world.
Report Post »That would keep me going.
Now the more I have studied and probed, the more bankrupt evolution has become and the reasonableness and scientific integrity of design becomes more and more self-evident.
hillbillyinny
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:54am“In the beginning, God. . . ” (Genesis 1:1)–The only pre-existant being who made everything. Can’t grasp that? If you believe it, you finally will in the presence of God. Don’t believe it? You will be “shocked”!
“In the beginning, The Word. . . ” (John 1:1)–The expression of the Language of God (the “Communicator,” God on Earth! Believe it and understand all of God. Don’t believe it and never understand the “language” of God!
“And the Spirit moved, blew, decended. . . ” (Many sources throughout the “old” and “new” Covenants of God’s Love in the Bible)–The movement of God’s Spirit (will) on this Earth and all created matter. Believe it and sense wonder in all of created matter. Don‘t believe it and miss out on some of the wonder of God’s Majesty and Wisdom!
Ya, we “believers” are stupid–the question is “By WHOM are we declared ‘stupid’”?
I believe God!
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:00amAll the scientific evidence is meaningless, because a book written two millennium ago and people with no scientific background tell me so!
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:01amby the rest of the educated world. believing and ancient book over proven Science is the penultimate in stupidity.
Report Post »Quack Addict
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:03amHey Bruce, what scientific education did Darwin have? Oh yeah, NONE! He had a theology degree.
Report Post »TomSawyer
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:08am@BruceP, the scientific evidence indicates that things in this universe do not move towards a more organized state. The most organized thing found to date in this universe? DNA.
Report Post »kevin1122
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:09amBruce, there you go again claiming evidence but presenting nothing.
Report Post »hillbillyinny
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:23amI don’t know why you “smart” people limit this to be “stories from an old ‘book’”? What about all the generations previous to writing (even previous to the “Moses history” was written down), these “stories” survived oral delivery for many, many years too!
How, why, and why is the content throughout the COLLECTION OF BOOKS and WRITINGS and STORIES so consistent in basis of thought? Remeber, the BIBLE is a collection of writings, EACH A BOOK IN ITSELF, with additional writings from the same time periods that have not been “collected” into this compliation, but which follow the same message with other “details.”
Yeh, it’s just an “old dusty book,” but I don’t loose anything by believing in it and, if it is correct (which I believe is “supernaturally” is!), look what I gain!
Relligious belief is not antithetical to history or science, nor is it “limiting” in the future, OTHER THAN IN THE AREA OF MORALITY, and THANK GOD, for those limits. (Think of fetal stem cell research that is becoming less desirable because these cells die too fast, compaired to adult stem cell use!)
I’ve made my choice. Yours is up to you!
Report Post »tzion
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:23am@Bruce
Report Post »Einstein believed that G-d existed. In fact, when quantum theory came around, Einstein was extremely skeptical because he didn’t believe that G-d would leave anything to pure chance and spent quite a while trying to come up with an alternative explanation to quantum theory. From my perspective, you’re trying to get me to accept that science disproves G-d when my belief tells me that G-d created science. The existence of an egg doesn’t disprove the chicken.
phillyatheist
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:41amTZION – “The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.” – Albert Einstein
sure sounds like a believer to me!
Report Post »neallo
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 10:21am@BRUCE. Here’s some scientific evidence. DNA, which is life is in our blood right?
Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the green vegetables and plants, I give you everything.
4 But you shall not eat flesh with the life of it, which is its blood.
Anyways, you prob don’t care because once you believe in God you become accountable. Most Atheist after growing up in a organized religious home, became upset with their parents and wanted to rebel in an excuse not to go to church. Once they realized they were many, they formed a group and as natural for humans, formed an organized religion. Now they don’t want to be accountable, they want to be animals. So they come up with every excuse to no believe, no matter what is placed in front of them.
Fairy tales? explain the chariot wheels, horse bones and other artifacts on the sea by the Sinai peninsula? or in the dead sea valley where the same salt and sulfur content is found in japan where the a-bombs dropped? Or explain why during worship I get full of energy and can feel myself being on fire (not literally, but its the best way to explain it) or when I was possessed and got prayed over I lost control of my body. My hair went up, I started crying and then let out two howls, that I could not control?
I pray that you don’t harden your heart anymore but seek truth and the possibility that you could be wrong. Peace bro
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 10:35amQUICK ADDICT — yes, but Darwin did not let his theology degree to dictate his findings.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 10:41amBruce P.
“I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.” – Darwin
a man “can be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist” -Darwin
Report Post »CaptainFinland
Posted on June 5, 2012 at 11:01am@QUACK ADDICT
Correct, Darwin did not have a scientific education. But then again, how many ancient mathematicians had a mathematical education? A lot of them didn’t. You don’t need a degree in biology to understand that species can change over time.
@TOMSAWYER
I‘m assuming you’re referring the the 2nd law of thermodynamics which basically states in a closed system, things go from order to disorder. Well, that’s true, but that only applies in a close system. The universe is far from a closed system, the energy we get from the sun overcomes the need for entropy to decrease.
@KEVIN1122
There is evidence. Open a high school biology book if you want to find something. Here’s a site you can look at and it will have a plethora of evil scientific fact on it.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
@TZION
So what if he believed in God? The existence of a god and evolution are not mutually exclusion. The catholic church in the Vatican has stated that evolution is correct, and a lot of scientists also believe in a god.
Report Post »BO_Bill
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:53amEverybody knows that evolution happened up until 30,000 years ago. At that point Al Gore’s grandfather came down from the mountain and thundered:
Yee thee humans. Goeth thou forth northward where there yee shall encounter SEASONS and intoforth these Seasons thou musteth develop AGRICULTURE in order to survive the winters because there will be no monkeys to chuck spears at like in your former life-cradle. And thenneth thou shall develop CIVILIZATION to administer land ownership, govern commerce, and manage your inventions.
But BE IT KNOWN TO ALL Present, that I, AL GORE’s Grandpa, HEREBY declare, that evolution shall noweth STOP IN HUMANS. STOP I SAY!
And you see children, this is why we are all the same. The only thing different about us is the color of our skin. Now go watch TeeVee.
Report Post »wtimber
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:51amThe Polonium Halos in Granite prove Creation. There may possibly be some real evidence that the earth is older than 10 or 20 thousand years old but I would answer that with, How old was Adam when he was made?
Report Post »RamonPreston
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:00amThe earth is young; less than 25,000 years old and science can prove it. Not enough time for evolution to happen.
Report Post »http://www.creationtoday.org/evidence-for-a-young-earth/
When Adam was created he probably had the development of a 30 year old. He was created, named all the animals and got married on the first day. He was so smart that he spoke every language on the earth.
golfer8805
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 10:00amLanguage was invented by man. Why would language exist before man? This makes no sense. As for the age of the universe/earth, you need to explain how starlight would travel billions of light years in only 25,000 years.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:59amRAMONPRESTON — your website has little scientific facts on it and what few facts it completely twists.
The oldest living things on the planet are well over 4,000 years old…
There are plant, fungal and coral colonies that tens and hundreds of thousands of years old.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_long-living_organisms)
Yes, the world population was only one billion at the beginning of the 1800s. They are somehow making the claim that this growth rate can be extrapolate to mean the Earth is only 4000 years old and not taking into account things like modern medicine, food production and sanitation being responsible for the growth not seen in previous eras.
Yes, the Earth’s rotation is decreasing due to tidal acceleration; however, it is a very, very slow process. So slow, it took over half a billion years for the Earth to gain 2 hours in it’s day.
The Sahara Desert is not 4000 years old either. It goes through periods of being arid and periods of being “green”. We are currently in an arid period…
http://www.livescience.com/4180-sahara-desert-lush-populated.html
And yes, the Earth’s magnetic field is fading. But this is a normal, cyclical process that occurs every 500,000 years (roughly) and is tied to the reversal of the magnetic poles.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-it-true-that-the-stren
SCIENCE!
Report Post »wtimber
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 2:18pmSo many replies, I sence a degree of sarcasm but you don’t realize what we belive. We believe that in the begining there was just one language and that Adam was made understanding it. I don’t believe and no one I know believes that Adam sat down and named the 30 million species on earth in 24 hours or ever, I doubt he saw a percentage of the species on earth. I believe that he named all the animals because it says he did. I beleive it was much like a kindagarder would have. Horse, Dog, Fish, Cat, Camel, Bird, Ape, Elephant… I wasn‘t there but I bet it was much like you or I would do if we woke up in a garden surrounded by thing’s we had never seen before. I think in order for a man to name so many things and remember it you would have to have that knowlage there already when you were made. To me this points to a smart creator not evidence against it happening the way it says it did. I can tell you no matter what you choose to believe, we will all know the truth within 120 years Genesis 6:3 Here’s your modern medicine. We still strive to live up to what God allows. PS want a really eye opener lookup the research on genetic age. I found the study on why the cloned sheep died within a month of it’s two year older original DNA donating sheep.
Report Post »binge_thinker
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 10:54pmBruce,
Despite such bluster from clowns like you,evolutionary theory is in sad shape. Cambridge paleontologist Simon Conway Morris, writing for the premier biology journal Cell, recently remarked:
“When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: ‘It
happened.’ Thereafter, there is little consensus….” To the public, the evolutionary
establishment presents a united front. But this illusion of consensus quickly evaporates
once you know where to look.
The problems and lies of evolution.
http://www.emjc3.com/evolution.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ai-DXFXZr8s
Report Post »POET
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:50amYup there it iz Martha, “Defy Darwin Vote Obama”
Report Post »TROONORTH
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:49amAnd then he pulled a rabbit out of a hat, and then sawed a girl in half, and then set a bush on fire, and then ran some swords through a box with a girl in it, and then pulled a coin out of somone’s ear, and then walked on water, and then . … . .. .. .. . . …….
Report Post »000degrees
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:57amTroo I appreciate the sarcasm, I dabble in it from time to time and like the humor and levity it brings to issues. But are you SURE there is no God??????……………
Report Post »golfer8805
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 10:06am@OOOdegrees, which god? There are thousands. Because none of them have any evidence to back up their existence we are left to believe that the concept of god is as unlikely as fairies, or bigfoot.
Report Post »Noonien_Soong
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:48amIn order for an organism, human or otherwise, to evolve it has to be created. the next question would be, how and when was the living organism created? To answer that one would need to go back numerous generations, at least several hundreds if not thousands.
Report Post »georgepatton
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 7:08pmYes, and who created the very first organisim????????????
Report Post »RightPolitically
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:47amIf one accepts that there is a God in the first place, many do not, then it would be correct to say that the entire universe is God’s creation. If that be the case, the obvious evolutionary development of the human species, along with all others, was done by Him, Her or Whomever. My take on this is that a God did not create the universe but rather, God IS the universe!
Report Post »mikefromaltoona
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:16am@RIGHTPOLITICALLY
Report Post »“My take on this is that a God did not create the universe but rather, God IS the universe!”
I agree with that”
mjazzguitar
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:22amThat is known as pantheism.
Report Post »mikefromaltoona
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 10:00am@MJAZZGUITAR,
Report Post »Yes, that sentence describes pantheism. My belief diverges from that however. While I believe God is the universe, I also believe he is more than the universe. I would call myself a panendeist.
JRook
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:17am@RightPolitically That is exactly the type of progressive logic that intelligent people find laughable. The notion that man can even understand or comprehend whatever higher energy or force there is in the universe. Let alone individuals like yourself who make proclamations about what this energy or force can or cannot do and what unknown things direct the larger patterns or workings of the universe and the countless life forms that may exist.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 5:25pmYou said it yourself. There are many theories of evolution. Evolution itself is not a theory, there are just variant theories of how it occurs. No sane and well-informed person denies that it occurs.
Report Post »lgccac
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:46amThere is absolutely zero proof of macro-evolution – the belief that one species can evolve into an entirely different species.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:50amExcept, for, you know…all the evidence that says animals evolve.
Report Post »johnjamison
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:53amExactly DNA doesn’t change it does mutate and that is how some cancers are formed.
Report Post »Quack Addict
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:56amAmen!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga33t0NI6Fk&feature=related
Report Post »kevin1122
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:58amHey Bruce, show me some evidence. You are making a great claim without presenting anything.
Report Post »Dale
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:01amBruce P;
What evidence to you mean? I’m not aware of ANY evidence of one species evolving into a HIGHER species. If evolution is a downward process where did we start?
Report Post »RightPolitically
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:01amThe Law of the Jungle is still true: Survival of the Fittest. As such, species that failed to evolve along with changing environments disappeared. Stone-age Man, for example, died off, those of whom failed to evolve. Those that did evolve are your friends, neighbors and enemies. THAT’S IT!
Report Post »mjazzguitar
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:01amDNA is a code. So what evolution says is that the code got mixed up and instead of legs you get wings.
Report Post »That’s like saying a computer glitch made the plans for a car into plans for an airplane.
RamonPreston
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:05amCorrect. Only micro-evolution occurs. Foxes, wolves and dogs all come from the same KIND. Noah took pair according to their KIND. A pair of dogs would have done it for that KIND. Notice I didn’t say SPECIES like Charles Darwin.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:10amThere is evidence that there were animals in the past at a time when most of the ones we have today didn’t exist yet. There is evidence of a time when there were fish, but nothing but insects on the land. There is evidence of a time when there were reptiles, but nothing but no mammals. There is evidence that until the end of the time of the dinosaurs the only mammals were small rodent-like creatures. If not evolution then what? A creator who occasionally throughout time conjures up a new batch of species from nothingness? A God who pulled the rabbit out of his hat? The only reason people have for not believing in evolution is their religion, and that’s not what it teaches.
Report Post »TomSawyer
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:15amI agree. The scientific evidence suggests that mutations quickly destroy the organism, which stops it from reproducing. Natural selection can only select from information that already exists. Selecting from nothing to create 15 Tera-bytes of genetic information is very magical and not very scientific. Evolution is a very interesting false religion. It is like flat earth theorizes and man-made global warming.
Report Post »goahead.makemyday
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:16amBruce we have proof of adaptation not evolution. Adaptation is as it says, creatures adapt to more easily live in a certain environment thus creating a separate species. Evolution takes it further saying eventually adaptation goes to a point over time that creates separate genus and then not being able to reproduce. canis lupus (grey wolf) and reproduce with canis rufus(red wolf) but not ursus maritimus(polar bear).
Report Post »goahead.makemyday
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:18amChet point me to this proof please, I’d be happy to look at it.
Report Post »mjazzguitar
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:26amDNA is a code. Codes are instructions. Evolutions say that the instructions got mixed up and the plans for legs turned into plans for wings. That’s like saying a computer glitch messed up the plans for an automobile and what came out instead is plans for an airplane.
Report Post »TomSawyer
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:34am@mjazzguitar, Well said. I like your comment.
Report Post »johnjamison
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 10:50amChet,
Report Post »you’re wrong and the only reason people want to believe in evolution is because of Religion. They don‘t want to imagine they’ll have to pay for their sins. If changed creationism from an all know God to a hyper intelliegnt being from another world seeding the earth with life you’ll find 50% of atheist would say that is in the realm of possibility.
Where as creationist don’t believe in evolution they do believe in intelligent design not just for animals but in all life forms and even in the palnet itself. The idea that the creator created a self substaining planet of life. Where all things even the planet itself adapts to changes.
4GODUSAANDISRAEL
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:48am@Chet
Report Post »There’s the problem with your argument, people don’t “believe” in evolution there are as many THEORIES of evolution as there are types of religions on this earth. It’s the THEORY of evolution, it’s the THEORY of creation. Here’s the thing, scientists can and have slanted their finds to support their specific THEORY of evolution. But I’ve yet to see a scientist, who can disprove that there is a God. I’d rather believe and be wrong, then to not believe and be wrong. Because if God does exist (which for me he does) Where does that leave you? I’m not willing to take that chance.
Bruce P.
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 10:53pmDALE — that is because things do not evolve into “higher” beings. We are no more evolved than the other animals of the planet.
Report Post »kcsparky
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:46amBy this poll, the authors numbers are not holding water. God created man…..Period.
Report Post »BlesstheJews
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:45amIf we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:51amBecause evolution does not say that related animals go extinct when another species evolves.
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:53amand I don’t believe we all came from africa,
Report Post »justangry
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:55amThe wellfar system.
Report Post »qpwillie
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:56am@BlesstheJews
People who don‘t know what the theory of evolution contends shouldn’t attempt to argue the subject. You‘re not helping your case and you’re helping Atheists to paint all of us as being ignorant.
Start with the fact that there is NO accepted theory that man evolved from any species of ape that exists today.
Report Post »kryss187
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:57amAll apes and humans are desceneded from a single proto-ape species that lived millions of years ago and no longer exists. Thus humans can be said to be closely related to the other apes, but we are certainly not descended from them.
Report Post »mikefromaltoona
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:00am@BLESSTHEJEWS,
Report Post »I don’t know a lot about the theory of evolution. However I see questions like yours quite often. I think it’s based on false information. From my understanding, evolutionists don’t propose that humans evolved from apes. Rather, they believe that apes and man evolved from a common ancestor. The so called, “missing link”.
Chet Hempstead
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:01amBecause apes are well-adapted to the environment where they live but not fit to spread out and inhabit the rest of the planet.
Report Post »Lloyd Drako
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:01amWe did not evolve from apes. We and apes descend from common ancestors. Those ancestors were not human, neither were they chimps, gorillas, or any species of ape currently extent. The living apes are just as “evolved” as we are, just in a different direction.
Report Post »Tom K
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:02am@ BLESSTHEJEWS : The animal-like behavior of some in our society makes one wonder. Darwin was WRONG. God created the heavens and the earth and everything else. I was created in God’s Image and you were too. Let’s try to act like it, okay.
Report Post »brntout
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:07amCould be that they chose not to knowing the struggles that lay ahead (sarcasm).
Report Post »kevin1122
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:13amHey Lloyd, what was the common ancestor?
Report Post »Interesting claim. Not a fact.
Lloyd Drako
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:35am@Kevin: It will never be possible to identify the common ancestor with certainty. You commonly see claims to the effect that a new “human ancestor” has been discovered. However, it’s quite possible, because of the way evolution works, the nature of the fossil record, and the difficulty of establishing genetic ties from fossil DNA, that nothing that has been found more than maybe 100,000 years old is directly ancestral to any of us living today. Currently, something called Sahelanthropus Tchadensis, which lived in Central Africa maybe 6 mya, is a good candidate for what the common ancestor would have been like. You can easily learn more about different ways of reconstructing the family tree, if you care to. It’s a fascinating subject!
Report Post »Independent4233
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:36am“Lloyd Drako
“We did not evolve from apes. We and apes descend from common ancestors. Those ancestors were not human, neither were they chimps, gorillas, or any species of ape currently extent. The living apes are just as “evolved” as we are, just in a different direction.”
Well, lo and behold, Lloyd, I think you might be right on this one.
Neanderthal man was a branch of humanoids that MIGHT have had a common ancestor with us in the beginning. Evidence suggests the species split with humans about 600,000 years ago.
Also, rapid advancements are now coming forth indicating that the “Out of Africa” theory might not be valid after all, and that humans developed as distinct races in different parts of the world at about the same time.
Conventional anthropologists will fight over that concept, citing there’s no evidence, but a closer examination reveals that there IS evidence of that theory.
In any event we’ll find out in the next few years. Right now there’s a growing number of professionals who are giving the idea serious consideration.
Too, I don’t discount the proposition that a god force might have been a guiding factor in all of evolution.
We know too little of all of it.
Report Post »qpwillie
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:45am@kevin1122
Report Post »One common ancestor is believed to be a creature that scientists have named “Aegyptopithecus”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegyptopithecus
kevin1122
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 10:10amLloyd,
Report Post »Uuuhhh, your response sounds very UNSCIENTIFIC. So from what you stated, you can believe anything you want. There is no evidence nor can we expect to find any scientific (empirical) evidence to support your claim.
This is ALWAYS the ultimate case with evolutionist. Do you not realize that you have chosen a belief system that is NOT based in evidence? And then evolutionist have the audacity to snear at folsk who beleive the Bible say we have a “blind faith.” Only problem is our faith is not blind and it makes much more sense than evolution. Thank you for admitting you really have no evidence to support your belief system.
kevin1122
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 10:20amQPWillie,
You wrote: “One common ancestor is believed to be a creature that scientists have named “Aegyptopithecus”.
The key empirically scientific word in this sentence is “believed.” Don’t you see? This happens numerous times a year where someone (an anthropologist or other I’ll use the term loosely “scientist”) CLAIMS to have found “the missing link.” This is not empirical evidence. It is a claim or a belief!!!!
Report Post »So, please explain where new information comes from and how it is added to a creature to turn that creature into something else.
Pokerjoe
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 1:01pmYes just why are there still apes? Because thats what God wanted. Why cant people see that is byond me. In any case Im still going to beleve in God because the devil does.And he wants you to turn away from God. Please dont.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on June 5, 2012 at 1:29am@TOM K
Wrong, God was created in our image….since we invented God.
Report Post »FoolishCop
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:42amOf course, you left off your poll an important answer: “Human beings evolved because there is no God.”
Report Post »lgccac
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:49amSomeday when you stand before Jesus, feel free to express your views.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on June 5, 2012 at 1:24amOh man I find it hilarious how humble religion comes off as saying garbage like, “You atheists think you’re so smart, that you understand everything and how everything works.” and then in the very next sentence say, “You’ll have to answer to Jesus after you die.”
You’re all such ego-maniacs it’s hilarious.
I’m sure when you die and you see God, you’ll say, “Hi Jesus.” and God will respond, “Jesus? My name is Allah, to hell with you!” or you’ll say, “Hi Jesus” and God will say, “uh yeah, my name is Zeus, here, have a thunderbolt.”
Or, when you die, you will probably just die and be unable to comprehend that you’re dead because…..you’re dead.
Report Post »binge_thinker
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 10:40pmMod,
Are you talking to yourself again?
Report Post »That type of anti-social defect is not going to help you gain any friends.
RightPolitically
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:41amNo wonder we are (U.S.) in trouble!
Report Post »justangry
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:57amPlease explain. I know we’re in trouble, but it seems it because the financials system is going to collapse and we won’t have the Constitution to fall back on. I don‘t see how people’s beliefs in creationism, evolution or something in between has anything to do with the problems we face.
Report Post »luxlife
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 12:46pm@angry
Providence
Report Post »DogTags
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 5:53pmYeah, there are 47 percent of the people who believe in the silly theory of evolution. That so many people (even those who call themselves Christians) believe in an evolutionary process despite the evidence to the contrary really shows Americans are prone to being duped.
Report Post »Snidely
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 6:49pmI hear you. With all of these creationists running around, you would have to wonder how we could still invent things like the rockets that took us to the moon or magnetic resonance imaging. OK, those are probably bad examples since they were invented by creationists (Wernher von Braun and Raymond Damadian).
But genetics, that would never have any research done if it was up to creationists. Yes, that’s it. Except for Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics or Dr. John Sanford, the inventor of the “Gene Gun”.
Hmmm, what’s your point again?
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on June 5, 2012 at 1:20am@SNIDELY
The only problem is that you have the majority of creationists who will say “those people aren’t really Christians/Muslim/Jewish/Mormon.”
So you point to a few scientists who are also Christians, but what good is that when the average Christian denies the findings of other Christians?
Report Post »Snidely
Posted on June 5, 2012 at 9:27pmMod
Yes, I did only point to a few scientists. I try to keep posts short so that they are more readable. Of course, there are many more professionals trained in science that deny evolution. No one would question the faith the the people I mentioned. I’m not sure if you recognized the names, but they’re kind of a big deal, and evolution didn’t affect their research.
If my only problem, as you state, is that people will say they aren’t Christian, then you are saying there isn’t a problem. I’m not sure what you mean by “ the average Christian denies the findings of other Christians”. Are you saying that Christians deny Saturn V rockets or MRI scanners? Do Christians deny genetics? Of course they don’t. My point is that worms-to-bald-eagle evolution (sometimes called “macro-evolution”) has nothing to do with scientific discoveries and inventions. Even in the medical field. Genetics is very important, as are population biology and microbiology. But evolutionary biology itself, as distinct from these scientific fields, contributes nothing to modern medicine. What some people call micro-evolution is nothing more than genetics – a reshuffling of existing genes. Mutations that add new information are extremely rare.
Even when they do occur, a single mutation cannot create complex systems. You seem like an intelligent person. Can you honestly come up with a scenario where, as Darwin stated, that complex organs could form by numerous, successive, slight modification
Report Post »isur5ed
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:38amWhile I believe that God created humans in our current form, I also believe that He very well may have created through setting the sciences in motion and watched as they obeyed Him. When the time was right he introduced his spirit children to the Earth with bodies created in His image. I embrace fully that God is the creator and author of all that is and will be – and I need not deny the evidences in the earth to do so.
Report Post »qpwillie
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:44amYep.
Report Post »djmaine
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:38amWhen do we get the correct answer? :)
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:47amwhen you die…………maybe
Report Post »Tom K
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:51am@ DJMAINE : ALL questions could be answered on Judgement Day, just after EVERYONE has faced the final judgement of God our Father in Heaven. Those that are NOT sent to eternal seperation from God ( Hell ) may be able to ask God our Father silly questions.
Report Post »Lion420
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:37amI don’t understand why it seems as though you must believe in one or the other? Darwin himself was a Christian wasn’t he?
Report Post »wboehmer
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:45amNo, he was not.
Report Post »kevin1122
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:47amNo Darwin was not a Christian and his entire purpose was to find a way not to have to be accountable to God. That’s what Evolutionist want, freedom from God.
Report Post »RJJinGadsden
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:53amYes, Darwin was a Christian and he eventually recanted his theory that the left and atheist hold so dear.
Report Post »Lloyd Drako
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:08amDarwin moved away from Christianity. He was deeply affected by the death of his daughter, but he followed the logic of his developing theory and the growing empirical evidence and very reluctantly concluded that death is death and that evolution is not directed by any sort of intelligence. He agonized over it, but was courageous enough to stick to reality, not illusion.
Report Post »kevin1122
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:18amLloyd,
Report Post »There you folks go again, claiming empirical evidence. Please state some of the empirical evidence.
Darwin’s evidence was finch beaks changing. And guess what the finches are today? Finches. And guess what the finches will be in 100, 1000, 0r 1,000,000 years? Finches. They will never become anything else but a finch. That is empirical evidence.
Lloyd Drako
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 10:04am@Kevin: In 1,000,000 or 100,000,000 years the finches, if there are finches, will still be finches. But some of their descendants will not be. They will be another sort of bird altogether, or perhaps no longer anything we’d be willing to call a bird, just as the birds are no longer enough like their dinosaur ancestors to be called ancestors.
People are commonly misled by illustrations like the one at the head of this article into supposing that straight-line descent is all there is to evolution. In fact, as scientists commonly–and patiently–point out to questioners such as yourself, lines of descent diverge, sometimes quite sharply in a fairly short time. Often the mutations involved do not code for totally new features such as hair or nerves or skin, but affect embryonic, fetal or larval development. Sometimes features evolved as an adaptation to one set of conditions enable an organism’s descendants to survive (and, of course, reproduce) under entirely different conditions. Thus, limbs enabling bottom-dwelling fishes to scrounge through mud enabled their descendants to walk on land. So the descendants of fishes became frogs, birds and mammals, and so on. Hope this helps!
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 10:36amIn 1879 John Fordyce wrote asking if Darwin believed in God, and if theism and evolution were compatible. Darwin replied that a man “can be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist”, citing Charles Kingsley and Asa Gray as examples, and for himself, “In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.— I think that generally (& more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind.
Darwin was not a gnostic atheist of the type who FOAM at the mouth & like to get in the faces of the religious. He was agnostic.
Darwin replied that a man “can be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist”,
Report Post »BruceHenry
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:36amIf evolution were in fact real, why have the current batch of mammals (chimps, monkeys) evolved at a faster rate with all the things their exposed to now? I don’t believe in evolution myself, but God can do it however he feels like.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:54amThere is no set speed for evolution.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:03amPunctuated Equilibrium I believe that was the theory set forth by Gould.
If you look at bacteria, the can mutate very little. But when a stressor like their food source dramatically decreasing appears, the rate of mutations speed up dramatically. This is testable
We can sequence the genes if bacteria before & after such an experiment.
If God created the physics of the universe, he would know the chemistry & biology that would result. After all God is omniscient. And who are we to say what process God would use to create the universe or mankind?
Report Post »TomSawyer
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:18amBruce P. “There is no set speed for evolution.”
There is a minimum amount of time for the minimum amount of complexity to occur before the organism life span terminates. What enormous amount of complexity occurring in a very very short period of time. How improbable it is. I refer to it as impossible.
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:28amChoice 5: God created human beings and over time MICRO evolution has taken place. Check.
Report Post »TMGallagher
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:52amGonzo… precisely! We have changed by adapting to environment.
Report Post »kevin1122
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 8:56amVery wise assessment Gonzo.
We probably need to educate the Evolutionist on the difference between Micro Evolution which is variation within a species and Macro Evolution which is a change from one species to another, for which there is absolutely NO evidence.
Report Post »We have lots of kinds of dogs, from Great Danes and Mastifs and St. Bernards to Chihauhaus. And they are all dogs. When you breed them you get a dog, not a cat or a pig or a cow or a human.
Evolutionist have hijacked the term science to mean whatever they want. If you stick to empirical science (obeservable and repeatable) there is no science in Evolution. How did life originate? Did anyone see it happen? Has it been repeated? NOPE. So you have a faith question not a science question. Scientifically we know that life comes from life, The Law of Biogenesis. And we know that all life forms reproduce after their own kinds. Again, dogs make dogs, cats make cates, bacteria make bacteria, humans make humans and apes make apes. That is obesrvable repeatable science.
Bruce P.
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:11amDogs make dogs and cats make cats and humans make humans and so forth and so forth, on and one. Except little mutations come into play, adaptations, changes. Little ones. Over millennia, longer, a bunch of little changes add up. Cats make cats, sure. But over time, stretched out, the end result won’t be a cats anymore.
Report Post »goahead.makemyday
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:28amBruce we do have proof of micro-evolution(adaptation) but no proof of macro-evolution(evolution). Therefore macro-evolution is still a theory. Just as Creation is a theory, we have no scientific proof of either. It’s up to you to decide if you want to believe in either one or neither one. However, if you can point me to proof of adaptation to the point of being unable to reproduce with it’s original species therefore becoming a new species,to my satisfaction, I would be happy to alter my beliefs.
Report Post »kevin1122
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:38amBruce, Bruce Bruce,
Report Post »Show me one bit of evidence where your claim has actually happened. So, apparently you are a Darwinian Evoutionist. Why don’t you believe in Punctuated Equilibrium? That is the Evolutionary Theory posed by evolutionaist who admit there is no evidence in the fossil record supporting Darwinian Evolution so instead of small changes over long periods of time, they postualte abrupt, grand changes over very short periods of time.
Besides all that, what causes the changes? Where did the new information come from to change from one thing to another? For example, I give you all the ingredients for a chocolate cake and ask you to prepare a steak and potatoes dinnner from it. How do you accomplish the task? Answer, you don‘t because you don’t have the stuff you need to make a steak dinner.
kevin1122
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:42amBruce,
Report Post »As for Mutations, there are three possibilities for mutations: 1. Beneficial Mutations, 2. Neutral Mutations or 3. Detrimental Mutations. Empirically, what scientist have seen is all most all mutations are either Detrimental which kill the organism and thus do not result in Macro-evolution or Neutral which again, do not result in Macro-evolution. Can you name one example of a beneficial mutation that has resulted in Macro-Evolution?
MicahJank
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:50amFinally….I thought i was alone on the Blaze. YECs believe that evolution(change) has happened but not that evolution(molecules to man) has happened.
Report Post »The evolutionist also need to seriously study up on the difference between Observational science and Historical science. One is repeatable in the here and now, the other comes to conclusions based on assumptions. It gets annoying when they say because we deny molecules to man evolution we are denying all science.
MicahJank
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:56am@ Kevin
Beneficial mutation can occur. But what needs to be pointed out is that information-gaining mutations do not. Indeed the Law of Cause and Effect(the effect can never be greater than the cause) makes information gaining mutations an impossibility.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 10:00amKEVIN — Instead of listening to someone with a doctorate in “Religious Studies” telling you what scientists know about evolution, why don’t you go right to the source? Here’s a good starting point.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
And here’s an example of transitional fossils that your “creationist scientists” lie about not existing. Behold the whale…
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
Report Post »flipper1073
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 10:22amGonzo got it right !
There is plenty of MICRO evolution going on.
Mini Horses,Smaller an smaller Dogs etc.
Species evolve All my ancesters were shorter.
But Macro Evolution, One Species Mutating
into a completely different Species does not Happen.
If You put your Faith in Evolving from Knuckle Draggers
Be my Guest.
But I Put My Faith in GOD !
It’s called Devine Intervention or Intelligent Design for a Reason.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 10:39amBruce P.
Little changers could work. I bet it does at times. I like the theory of “punctuated equilibrium”. I am a big believe in stress.
Report Post »Rayblue
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 3:07pmIt’s spinning to look at the graph at the top of the story. It could also include something past the current homosapien form to supposedly eventuate a bubble headed, superhuman of the future. It’s not much of a stretch to look at the rest of the graph in that manner.
Report Post »Itchy
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 10:17pmFerrets!
Report Post »Pontiac
Posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:37pmIt’s tiresome to arguing with these closed minded halfwits. They do more harm to themselves than any evolutionist or atheist ever could. I don’t have a problem so much with them believing in creationist rubbish so much as their rabid foaming at the mouth idiocy has to be put out there for the world to see and it just alienates people. Their bronze age mythology does nothing to further fiscal conservatism and it sickens me…
http://i45.tinypic.com/1zqxa3d.jpg
tl:dr
Report Post »Creationist please….shut up. You gain nothing and no one arguing about it.
ModerationIsBest
Posted on June 5, 2012 at 9:42am@Kevin
Pluto wasn’t discovered until 1930
Yet we know it takes 248 years for it to orbit the sun.
We have yet to see Pluto go around the Sun once, yet somehow we know it’s orbital period?
It’s called math.
I love hearing non scientists acting like experts on science.
The internet is a double edged sword sometimes.
Report Post »