1. Religion & Spirituality
Send to a Friend via Email
You can opt-out at any time. Please refer to our privacy policy for contact information.

Discuss in my forum

Austin Cline

Discussion: Is 'Lucy' a Fake?

By March 12, 2006

Follow me on:

A forum member writes: I was having a discussion the other day with a friend of mine and, as usual, the topic turned to religion. During the discussion we talked about evolution and he said that he had read that "Lucy," the Australopithecus afarensis fossil, turned out to be a fake. Well, to be specific, he said it turned out to be a non- hominid fossil. Having not heard anything about this I had to simply state that I would look into that further. I have found sites that make this, or a similar, claim but they all seem to be creationist sites.

Sometimes, it seems, creationists will say anything in their effort to discredit science and evolutionary theory. There have been some actual fakes created in the past, but Lucy hardly seems to qualify. What sort of arguments can creationists offer here? Read More...

Comments
July 3, 2006 at 5:45 pm
(1) Karsten says:

I find your post very interesting but rather ignorant. I was pondering what you said and did a little research myself on lucy. I find it ironic that lucys skull was made up of 13 different pieces that were found seperately and spread out over a 1.5 mile radius that were assembled to form a supposed skull. You should be more carful about your research. Email me back.

July 3, 2006 at 5:47 pm
(2) atheism says:

I find your post very interesting but rather ignorant.

Why? What, specifically, is “ignorant” in what I wrote?

I was pondering what you said and did a little research myself on lucy. I find it ironic that lucys skull was made up of 13 different pieces that were found seperately and spread out over a 1.5 mile radius that were assembled to form a supposed skull.

Did any of your research produce any substantive reason to think that the skeleton is a fake?

You should be more carful about your research.

I am more careful in my research than you are in the claims you make.

Email me back.

No thanks, this works fine for me.

May 2, 2008 at 6:57 am
(3) J says:

I also have a problem with evolution, check out THE EDGE OF EVOLUTION its a great book, and you get to watch scientists take them selfs out, if you do the calculations for how many organisms it takes to get a double mutant, a requirement for macro evolution, the chances of life evolving randomly are ten to the twentieth power, thats ten billion billion, more mammals than have ever been on the earth

May 9, 2008 at 2:57 pm
(4) John Hanks says:

It is easier to deny the preposterous stories in the Bible.

May 9, 2008 at 4:40 pm
(5) Drew says:

J:

Whatever the odds happen to be for the evolution of life on a planet, ours apparently fit in that number.

Once single-celled organisms exist, the evolution of life is not only easy, it is inevitable.

Getting to the single-celled organism is the tricky part. We don’t have all the answers to that yet, though we have figured out some of the steps, some of the sequence, and some of the requirements.

Once we do, it will help erode religious belief further. For the ignorant and the fearful, religion will evolve to survive, just like it did when science explained that, contrary to Christian dogma: the earth was round not flat; it went around the sun, not the other way around; disease is not caused by demons; all matter consists of atomic building blocks and changes over time; there is no heaven in the clouds or hell in the earth; the earth is 4.6 Billion years old, not a few thousand; humans evolved from non-human ancestors; there are billions of galaxies and therefore we are NOT the centre of concern for any creator; etc, etc.

May 9, 2008 at 6:18 pm
(6) Bren says:

Why is it that evolution is a common forum subject? Though I am convinced by the evidence, evolution is certainly not central to atheism. One can dispute evolution but it appears the attack is essentially on science, which is in turn an attack on reason and rationalism. So, theists, forgo the proxy battles, cut to the chase and attack reason and rationalism directly. It would save us all a great deal of time.

May 10, 2008 at 12:14 am
(7) Paul Buchman says:

“Why is it that evolution is a common forum subject?”

I think it’s because:
1) If there’s no creation, there’s no fall.
2) If there’s no fall, there’s no need for a savior.

IF xians are being logical about this (not a given), they rightly see evolution as a threat to their whole belief system.
The system is already tottering; they are desperate to prop it up.

May 10, 2008 at 11:57 am
(8) Brent says:

I agree with the theology behind your statement, Paul, but in my experience such understanding is limited to a very few Christian theists. Most tend to have an ambiguous conception of the inner logic of their religion and believe as broadly as any paganist in a divine force at work throughout the universe.

October 21, 2011 at 4:27 pm
(9) Mike says:

In reading some of these post please let me interject a couple thoughts. (1) The pelvis of Lucy was admittedly modified with saw and dremmel to fit the model of upright stance. (2) the very word Atheist suggests opposing God thus the theists tendency to contrdict with them. (3) There are no examples of Macro evolution and any example of micro evolution you site are rather better explained by the term devolution.

October 29, 2011 at 2:07 pm
(10) Tim Lister says:

1) Reference please, and make sure it isn’t just another creationist site.
2) No, a more accurate definition of the word “atheist” is the absence of belief in any gods. If someone has never heard of something how can they possibly oppose it?
3) This is simply not true according to every respectable biologist, but if you do happen to have a peer-reviewed scientific source for this claim then please provide it.

October 29, 2011 at 3:17 pm
(11) Brent says:

(1) Cite the evidence for this claim.
(2) Atheism is not in opposition to god or gods but a lack of belief in them. Atheists do not oppose what they see no evidence for in the very first place.
(3) Birds, horses, whales among others all have documented transitional evidence from earlier forms.

May 10, 2008 at 11:36 pm
(12) Zack says:

I never have understood why so many Christians seem to think that evolution is more central to atheism than any other part of science.

They also really love to talk about the second law of thermodynamics.

May 31, 2008 at 6:18 pm
(13) christian high school-ist says:

christianity is logical, but we think about logic with the recognition that although our universe exists in only the 3 dimensions of space, and progresses only forward through the dimension of time (undeniably so), God does not. and it is because God is not limited by these 4 dimensions, that it is impossible for humans, who exist ONLY in our universe (also undeniable) to disprove His existance, only proveable by personal “contact” with Him. when i say that God is not limited by dimensions, does not mean that He CANNOT exist within them.

May 31, 2008 at 8:05 pm
(14) Austin Cline says:

when i say that God is not limited by dimensions, does not mean that He CANNOT exist within them.

And how do you know this?

May 31, 2008 at 8:26 pm
(15) christian highschool-ist says:

ok, i am sorry, but i do not know this, but by the same token, you do not know that he does not, just like i donot “know” that this laptop is on my lap top, or that that there is more to the world than the paint on the walls arround me, and the grass outside, i donot “know” that the world stops existing when i stop looking at it, i donot know that you are not the same person who has written every singe other post on this sight. heck, you can be gnostic if you continue on that train of thought. you can say that we are all in the matirix, you can say that we are all characters of a story that is being read by someone. no one can “know’ anything; i don’t even know if i am a human! the only thing that i can “know” (as far as human resoning goes… as far as we know and can comprehend) is that i exist. i forget who orrigonally said this, but… ” i know i exist because i think.” but who sais that all of our thought are pre-written (theory of predestination). i don’t know that this life isn’t just a dream of a blob of some cosmic goo, floating arround in a multidimensional chasm of nothing!?!
using this basic thought, you can equilize any two arguments; just keep demanding that the other person prooves the proof of the proof…… of their argument. we can’t proove anything at all, except are own existance, from our own point of view, and even that can be argued.

getting back to your original point/question, i cannot proove this quality of God, i also cannot prove the existance of God, but you can’t disprove him… that is where faith comes in.

for the record, do you claim to ba an athiest?

May 31, 2008 at 9:41 pm
(16) Austin Cline says:

ok, i am sorry, but i do not know this, but by the same token, you do not know that he does not

That’s not a good reason for you to believe the claim you made.

just like i donot “know” that this laptop is on my lap top,

That depends on how strictly you define “knowledge.” Most people do not define it so strictly in common usage. I know that this computer is my computer in the same way that I know there is no good reason to believe the claim you made.

you can say that we are all in the matirix

Sure, I can say it. But what reason is there to believe it? None. Not all claims have the same epistemic validity.

using this basic thought, you can equilize any two arguments

That’s precisely your problem: your train of thought is wrong and you can’t equalize any two arguments. There exists sound evidence and reasons to accept some positions; there is a complete absence of evidence or reason behind other positions. Regardless of how strictly you want to limit what qualifies as knowledge (and it should be noted here that you don’t even try to explain how you are defining it and why — you just take some sort of conception for granted and run with it), the fact remains that we will continue to have strong positive reasons for believing some ideas, strong reasons to reject other ideas, and no reasons whatsoever to give a second thought to still more ideas.

At best, your idea fits in that third category. You can’t salvage it by pretending that every idea is equivalent.

getting back to your original point/question, i cannot proove this quality of God, i also cannot prove the existance of God

Then why bother believing?

but you can’t disprove him…

That depends entirely on how “God” is defined.

that is where faith comes in.

Speak for yourself. Don’t presume to unload your conception of faith onto the shoulders of others.

for the record, do you claim to ba an athiest?

I don’t merely claim it. I don’t believe in the existence of any gods; ergo the label “atheist” applies to me.

June 1, 2008 at 12:07 am
(17) christian high school-ist says:

“ok, i am sorry, but i do not know this, but by the same token, you do not know that he does not

That’s not a good reason for you to believe the claim you made.”

do believe that the physical world? or course you do, but prove to me that it exists… give me something i cannot deny; you cannot. you say “but i can; i can see taste, touch, and smell it” (back to the matrix trilogy) the people in th matrix did see, smell, touch, tate, and hear the fake world they thought they exited in. so you can’t say “That’s not a good reason to believe the claim you made.” becasue you believe in this universe, and have no undeniable data or prof… not sayint that i don’t believe in it, i’m just saying that there is a possibility that the world is not as it seems, and that there is a possibility of God, which cannot be mass-proved, or disproved

when i say “know” that means that i know something, and that there is no, 0%, chance of it being false, incorrect, or wrong at all. granted that that is not the traditional definition, because it is normally confined by what we accept the world to be, even tho there is a posibility that it is not.

“you can say that we are all in the matirix

Sure, I can say it. But what reason is there to believe it? None. Not all claims have the same epistemic validity.”

there is exactly the same amount of information to prove that we are in the matrix, as there is to say that we are not (except that if we were, the “computers” or wahtever higherpower you want for the analogy, would not have allowed the making of thoes movies, except if they were using reverse psycolog, or reverse, reverse, reverse psycology, and so on and so forth). it just depends on how the information is *interpreted*… everything has to do with how you *interprit* information, and your *point of view* – i am a christian, and i believe that God works throughout my, your, and everybody elses lives, and i can see that. you are an athiest (you think you are, and i can talk about that later), so you do not believe in my God, or any other god, and you see through that worldview, and see coinsedence where i see God working (your word vs my word, we are at a stand still there, and cannot argue that headon). i donot believe that we live in the matix, but i do believe in God. of course i have reasons for believing in God, these things are not nessisaraly things that i am able to convey to you; i cannot explain how i have experienced God, but that does not mean that it didn’t happen. for me to have accepted the existance of God, i first saw the posibility of Him, then i *saw* Him through events in life, and experienced Him (i know you will probably debate this, but you can say and debate something literally forever, but it still cannot changed the truth that it happened)(assuming that the world is what it seems).
so for me, personally, i have faith in the existance of God, you have faith that (please correct me if my wording is wrong) the existance of any diety, is a myth, and nothing more. when i say “faith”, yes, i am using it as a religious term (dictionary.com);

“Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust. ”

i can accept that my faith does not rest of any undeniable material truth, just as your faith is only supported by the lack of material truth. but then again, there is the argument of intelegence design (you donot believe in intelegent higher power, or any higher power at all… again, please correct me if your views are any differant than what i am saying), while you probably believe in evolution (“again…”). that can be debated, but i do not want to get into that argument now (i do have arguments about that, but that is not what we are debating). recap: i have faith in christianity, you have faith in atheism (while the material evidence is debateable)

and about when i talked about you “claiming” to be an atheist-
-you claim that God / gods don’t exist. i cannot prove (to you), and you cannot disprove the existance of God, but regardless of the absolute truth of wether He exists or not.
-you are making an absolute truth claim that God does not exist.
-but God/god is the only being that can create absolute truth claims
-because you are creating an absolute truth claim (God/god/gods doesn’t / don’t exist)… you are setting yourself up as god
-you believe in yourself:
-you believe that you are god
-you are not an atheist

June 1, 2008 at 6:49 am
(18) Austin Cline says:

do believe that the physical world?

I’m sorry, that’s not a question. The “that” needs an object.

give me something i cannot deny

You can deny anything; the question is whether you have reasonable grounds to do so.

when i say “know” that means that i know something, and that there is no, 0%, chance of it being false, incorrect, or wrong at all.

That’s not how “knowledge” is defined even in philosophy, normally. So you’ve made up a new definition of knowledge, one that can’t be met, and pretend that this means every claim is equal.

there is exactly the same amount of information to prove that we are in the matrix, as there is to say that we are not

Feel free to demonstrate how.

Oh, wait, but if every claim is equal, then your claim above is no better than if I claim you are wrong. You can’t insist that you are correct here without undermining your own position. Whoops.

so for me, personally, i have faith in the existance of God, you have faith that (please correct me if my wording is wrong) the existance of any diety

Your wording is wrong. I have no such faith.

-you claim that God / gods don’t exist.

Depends on how “god” is defined. I suspect that you are making up a new definition of “atheist,” just as you are making up your own definition of “knowledge.”

I recommend learning first what atheism is and who atheists are before trying to claim that atheists don’t exist.

you cannot disprove the existance of God,

Depends on how “God” is defined.

-you are making an absolute truth claim that God does not exist.

Did you ever consider asking a person what they think before trying to put words in their mouth?

-but God/god is the only being that can create absolute truth claims

This presumes the truth of your own position, which is a circular argument? Or don’t you think that fallacious arguments are inferior to logically sound arguments?

-because you are creating an absolute truth claim (God/god/gods doesn’t / don’t exist)… you are setting yourself up as god

Still a circular argument.

-you are not an atheist

You need to learn the basics of syllogistic logic and argumentation before trying to construct a logical argument like this. Then again, if you really think that all claims are equal, then you can’t think that fallacious and invalid arguments are any worse than sound and valid arguments. All arguments must equal in your mind. If the claim that 2+2=5 is no worse than saying 2+2=4, then an argument filled with fallacies and factual errors can’t be any worse than an argument which make correct inferences and statements at every point. Right?

June 6, 2008 at 4:29 pm
(19) blasius tum says:

everything about god is just superstition.let people stop talking as though it was some tangible thing.superstition is superstition and reality is reality.there is a very big gap btween what someone believes exist and what someone actually has a stone wall evidence to show the entire world like the combustive engine that makes cars run,like anti-biotics that cures syphilis and prayers that are suppose to cure a person on their dying bed who needs blood transfusion that will save them and they dont bcos of their belief and alwyas end up dying bcos the prayers have never cured them.ALL RELIGIONS ARE IMMORAL.SUPERSTITION IS GREAT.OOUUPS!HAHAHAHAAHA

June 6, 2008 at 4:45 pm
(20) Drew says:

Christian High School-ist:

Kudos to you for coming to this site, and discussing things when outnumbered. I don’t know if I would have done so as a teen. You will learn a lot from debating with Austin about how to construct a logical argument, even if you don’t agree with his opinions.

Assuming that you are American (correct me if not), by coming to this site you are doing yourself a huge favour. Today 25% of Americans under the age of 25 are non-religious, and this percentage continues to grow. By the time you are a grandparent, Christianity will likely be a minority viewpoint in your country. Learning how atheists and other non-religious people think will definitely be an asset for you in social situations. It will also help you dealing with Europeans, Canadians, etc, who come from places where Christianity already is, or soon will be, a minority viewpoint.

June 6, 2008 at 7:21 pm
(21) Brent says:

“…Christianity already is, or soon will be, a minority viewpoint.”

That day will not come enough.

September 28, 2008 at 10:44 am
(22) Andre says:

To all of you! Be you atheisths, christians, muslims or whatever. Read and ponder upon this:
http://innerslacker.com/images/argue091204.jpg

November 30, 2008 at 12:38 pm
(23) Hatem Nassrat says:

The problem here is the confusion people have within them. Little know the truth and some of them hide the truth for worldly gain.

Our authors post has less information and more opinion than the first comment, yet he has made it seem that the first poster stated less information.

We have to truly think of what we say and what we believe.

I regret to day, that claimers of evolution say that in these modern times we should look at factual evidence, yet they are the furthest ones away from any factual evidence. Lets start from the beginning, Biologist know that there is no way to create Life out of no Life. Until now they have managed to mutilate living things only.

Not one “missing link” was found to not be a hoax. Can you deny that there were many fake “missing links”. Well what are your explanations to such deceit from your camp.

Here is my challenge to you, create a small fly. You will never be able to even if you combined your “knowledge” (or lack of) and resources.

Mentioned above is how there are “preposterous stories in the Bible”, how does that deny the existence of the one true God. The God that created us all, and can take us all.

If all of humanity stood as the heart of the most pious person, that will be of any advantage to God. Similary, if all of humanity was as evil as the sickest person, that would not decrease of God’s power. We are the losers if we do not claim the opportunity we were given.

There is truly only one thing everybody has in common. We are all to die, some day or the other. If you claim otherwise (ha), it hasn’t been done yet, and my friend you will die too, waste your life figuring it out, but you shall be the loser.

We were given a chance, to live a small and short lifespan, and get unfathomable rewards. Do not miss this chance just because your desires of committing sin.

To People who have been given books to guide them from God: Lets come to common terms and worship none but God. Lets not associate with him anything (neither desire nor any form of partnership).

Don’t waste your life. Act now, life is too short to waste.

I only deal with evidence, do not come with hypocritical hypothesis, show me the truth.

To all that attack the Prophet Mohamed peace be upon him, please go back and read a page. A single page would do. In any book that HISTORICALLY (with factual evidence that have been truly cited back to those days) and then you will know that you were in Err. To people of the book, all you have to do is read and study your books, because all the prophets have foretold about Prophet Mohamed, may Allah’s peace and blessing be on him.

TO ALL WHO READ THIS, KNOW that you can no longer say that you did not know.

November 30, 2008 at 12:57 pm
(24) Austin Cline says:

Our authors post has less information and more opinion than the first comment, yet he has made it seem that the first poster stated less information.

Feel free to show how, if you can.

I regret to day, that claimers of evolution say that in these modern times we should look at factual evidence, yet they are the furthest ones away from any factual evidence.

Prove it.

Lets start from the beginning, Biologist know that there is no way to create Life out of no Life.

Do they? Then prove it.

I only deal with evidence,

Then produce some.

December 23, 2008 at 11:05 pm
(25) H Nassr says:

Buddy stop asking for people to respond then block them off your website. Your as much a fake as your beliefs bozo.

December 24, 2008 at 5:20 am
(26) Austin Cline says:

Why didn’t you answer any of the questions I asked or support any of the claims you made?

Buddy stop asking for people to respond then block them off your website.

Only trolls and spammers get blocked from posting, and none have been blocked commenting on this post.

Your as much a fake as your beliefs bozo.

Feel free to support your accusation.

February 7, 2009 at 4:12 pm
(27) Matthew says:

I thought this post was about Lucy, fake or not.
I agree with Karsten’s original post, that chips of bone were found across a large area, pieced together and declared evidence of a pre-human relative. Give it a nice marketable name “Lucy”, date it ~3.2mn years old, give or take million, and you’ve got evidence … for what? The missing link?

If humans evolved from apes and apes from something else all the way back to deer, snakes and butterflies, (stay with me), the the fossil record would be filled with intermediary species from most rudimentary at the bottom to most complex on top. And not just a few missing links to hold up as evidence, but thousands or millions at every level. But of course you know that’s not what we find.

So if humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? Could they just not make it over the hump? just a joke.

I feel for you if you really believe your great, great, great-grandpa was a frog. And random mutation (which typically results in defects or death NOT new species) and enough time (give or take a billion) transformed your frog-daddy into a person who can design microprocessors.

What a miserable life atheists must have. If there really is no God and we humans are just complete accidents and surviving because we’re the fittest, why don’t we all just kill each other and live a complete hedonistic life. No God, no judgment, no reason for morality (how did that evolve?), no consequences.

Oh wait, I get it. That’s the pay-off. You don’t have to answer to anyone except your self. Rationalize it all away and have a big party.

Austin, As you near the end of your life, I bet you will reconsider what you believe, OR you will remain fearful of death, stubborn and prideful, and you know where that will getcha.

February 7, 2009 at 7:29 pm
(28) Austin Cline says:

If humans evolved from apes and apes from something else all the way back to deer, snakes and butterflies, (stay with me), the the fossil record would be filled with intermediary species from most rudimentary at the bottom to most complex on top.

Why?

So if humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

You don’t know the difference between monkeys and apes, do you?

I feel for you if you really believe your great, great, great-grandpa was a frog.

No, he was human. Frogs aren’t in our lineage.

What a miserable life atheists must have.

Actually, we have great lives.

One reason is what we are knowledgeable about science. We know the difference between monkeys and apes. We understand the process of fossilization. We know where frogs fit in the animal kingdom.

Creationists are ignorant of all this because they are deliberately ignorant of all basic science

If there really is no God and we humans are just complete accidents and surviving because we’re the fittest, why don’t we all just kill each other and live a complete hedonistic life.

Because we care about other’s suffering and happiness. We aren’t psychopaths who have to be ordered not to harm others.

Oh wait, I get it. That’s the pay-off. You don’t have to answer to anyone except your self.

I’m guessing you’ve never heard of the police.

Or maybe you don’t care?

Austin, As you near the end of your life, I bet you will reconsider what you believe, OR you will remain fearful of death, stubborn and prideful, and you know where that will getcha.

Wrong on all counts.

In fact, you didn’t write a single correct thing in your entire post. You are totally and completely ignorant of every topic here.

February 19, 2009 at 8:11 pm
(29) Tom Edgar says:

A scientific theory is followed by investigation into both the evidence for and against the theory. Supporting evidence verifies the original hypothesis. If there is no verifiable nor replication evidence to the contrary the theory stands until such time as the evidence is negated.

What is the evidence that there is no God?

We have searched for verifiable and replicable evidence for the existence of a God and found none. ergo God on available evidence cannot exist.

Evidence that Gods do NOT exist cannot be found either as no evidence can exist therefore this supports the former hypothesis.

This will stand until such times as evidence for the overturn of the previous finding.
The same fundamental principle also applies to “Evolution.” The evidence supporting the theory is overwhelming, it does not have to be unbroken, by its very nature the likelihood that a continuous chain of fossils will be found is unlikely, but the findings so far have not led to any doubts.

Only the poorly educated, and judging by the earlier submissions, evidenced by their
primary school standards, could even think such drivel. Must be from the U S Bible Belt.

February 20, 2009 at 2:57 am
(30) Tom Edgar says:

P S In my eighties so I guess I am nearing the eventual demise with which you try to frighten me.

Dying? Yep that does worry me and I don’t look forward to it any more than the most devout believer. I’ve never heard one yet embrace the
act with acclaim.

Very recently a much loved friend, a lady of ninety, and religious to boot,was in the hospital dying,she turned to me and said,,, “Oh! Tom If this is the road to heaven, I really can’t recommend it.” She never had much of a sense of humour but she left me with something about which to smile.

Death? With that I have no problems. Dying is the hard bit.

February 20, 2009 at 4:22 am
(31) Yueyang Li says:

I love how creationists continue to use the “missing link” argument time and time again without bothering to understand it. The fossil record is incomplete therefore god MUST exist. I find it extraordinary that people can argue fervently about something when they do not have a grasp of the absolute basics.

Fossil formation is really a very rare occurance. For a fossil to form the conditions must be absolutely right, and usually they’re found on the banks of ancient lakes or other large bodies of water, when fine particle build up allows a skeleton to be preserved. Now how often do you think early hominins died next to a lake? Without being eaten? With that in mind can you honestly expect billions of fossils to just be lying around?

Just because humans and apes share a common ancestor, does not mean they cannot coexist. The current estimates are that humans and chimpanzees branched about 5 million years ago. They simply chose 2 different evolutionary paths. This is a pretty bad analogy, but I think it gets my point across: If mobile (or cell) phones evolved from telephones, why do people still have home phones? Mobiles are more advanced, more portable and do more things, yet they coexist with traditional home phones. Why? Because they serve different purposes. If you stay in one place, you don’t need all the fancy gadgets. Chimps chose to stay in the jungles, where they were already adapted. They didn’t need larger brains, bipedalism or more advanced tools, unlike the Australopithecines which chose to venture out and populate a larger area, finding new niches etc.

February 20, 2009 at 11:43 am
(32) Som Sharma says:

Reading views of those like Matthew, I feel lucky I am not a believer. All over the globe you can see what the religious fanatics upto. Ever see a believer terrorist? I am responsible to myself and not to an imaginary god. As a non-believer, i cant even kill a cockroach and am a veggie.

October 28, 2011 at 7:18 pm
(33) Marvin says:

I’m not a veggie, and I can kill a cockroach without a second thought, but otherwise I agree with you.

February 20, 2009 at 7:21 pm
(34) Joan says:

You know, for someone who is so ignorant, Matthew is very arrogant!

February 21, 2009 at 3:56 am
(35) Tom Edgar says:

Joan I will give you gratis one of my late wife’s quips on a relative olimited talent.

“I wouldn’t mind him being so arrogant, if he had the qualities that justified his arrogance.”

About Gough Whitlam our once Prime Minister and a man of towering intellect she said. “I can understand his arrogance, compared to the rest he is the only one in Government with a reason to be arrogant.”

February 21, 2009 at 5:52 am
(36) Fania says:

To Matthew:

It’s you that looks stupid. But then one rarely hears such bollocks delivered with such arrogance except from people who have lost the ability to think. Martin Luther said that intelligence is the enemy of religion. He would be so proud of you and all your ilk.

“Faith does not have answers for the questions, it simply prevents you asking them.”

February 25, 2009 at 12:25 am
(37) free spirit says:

On the fact of evolution there is still evidence missing, the same as intelligent design. There is not enough evidence on both sides. Both evolution and intelligent design, the question is which one you have a greater faith in. Charles Darwin which is the foundation of Evolution even said in the “Origin of Species” stated the eye is so complex that the theory he says as natural selection is impossible for the eye to be formed by this theory. So if we base it on facts, where do we stand now with statement. Now as that stated wouldn’t with the theory of natural selection how did it know that we needed a brain to comprehend what we were seeing, but also how did our eyes exist if we had none, because the natural selection would have thrown it out as a body feature not needed. And if lead by only human mentality they contradict themselves in their writings. Which as the Bible known as a historical document and a closer walk with Christ it has not controdicted itself? So why not believe in a higher power such as God? There is evidence in the Bible that has been proven. There are more facts on the Bible rather than theory. I do understand the idea of evolution but there is still a huge gap on how we became who we are today. If I go by facts of science the five senses: see, smell, touch, hear, taste. Going by these tests that is to say that the human race has a brain or even organs. I cannot touch my science professor’s brain, i cannot see her brain, I cannot hear her brain, taste her brain, and smell her brain, so is it real?

February 25, 2009 at 4:49 am
(38) Beelzebubba says:

“Going by these tests that is to say that the human race has a brain or even organs. I cannot touch my science professor’s brain, i cannot see her brain, I cannot hear her brain, taste her brain, and smell her brain, so is it real? “

Yes you can, quite easily. Just get hold of an axe, chop her head open, and then see, taste and smell her brain as much as you like. I can’t, however, be held responsible for the consequences of your actions should you actually need to try this to convince yourself of the existence of brains. I suspect the test would fail if applied to your own head.

February 25, 2009 at 6:37 am
(39) Austin Cline says:

On the fact of evolution there is still evidence missing

Since when?

harles Darwin which is the foundation of Evolution even said in the “Origin of Species” stated the eye is so complex that the theory he says as natural selection is impossible for the eye to be formed by this theory.

No, he didn’t. Someone lied to you and you never bothered to check it out to be sure it was true

So if we base it on facts, where do we stand now with statement.

Here’s where we stand: apologists for creationism lie.

Now as that stated wouldn’t with the theory of natural selection how did it know that we needed a brain to comprehend what we were seeing, but also how did our eyes exist if we had none, because the natural selection would have thrown it out as a body feature not needed.

That is completely incoherent.

So why not believe in a higher power such as God?

Because there are no good reasons to think it exists.

There is evidence in the Bible that has been proven.

Like what?

I cannot touch my science professor’s brain, i cannot see her brain, I cannot hear her brain, taste her brain, and smell her brain, so is it real?

Of course you can see it — just visit a hospital and learn about some of their equipment. I know exactly which apologetics tale you are referring to here and you should take care not to rely upon tales which are so completely lacking in facts and reason.

March 3, 2009 at 4:07 pm
(40) Boydicus says:

re: freespirit
“On the fact of evolution there is still evidence missing, the same as intelligent design. There is not enough evidence on both sides. ”

Not enough evidence? Evolution is supported by a huge amount of evidence. How much do you need?

“Both evolution and intelligent design, the question is which one you have a greater faith in. ”

Actually, the question is “which one has best supporting evidence?” Evolution has a large quantity of high-quality supporting evidence, whereas intelligent design has very little if any.

“Charles Darwin which is the foundation of Evolution even said in the “Origin of Species” stated the eye is so complex that the theory he says as natural selection is impossible for the eye to be formed by this theory. ”

Even if this quote is accurate, who cares? Darwin started a long chain of research and discovery in the field of evolution, but he is hardly the ultimate authority on the subject. If Isaac Newton was unable to explain every detail of gravitation, do we throw out the entire field of study and call it invalid? Of course note, we look at CONTEMPORARY research. Contemporary scientists have no problem explaining the development of the eye through the processes of natural selection as they are now understood.

March 3, 2009 at 8:23 pm
(41) RT says:

The Coelacanth is a fish previously declared to have become extinct some 65,000,000 years ago. It is said that fossils of this fish have been found which are 400,000,000 years old. Since that claim, these fish have been found ALIVE, near Indonesia and Australia. Evolutionists call this fish “a living fossil” sure proof of evolution. In this they are clearly showing their bias and predisposition to believe what they want. THIS FISH IS COMPLETELY IDENTICAL TO IT’S FOSSILS. There is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between this fish and it’s fossils. So, I ask; WHERE IS THE EVOLUTION? Our young people have been taught, for generations now, in our government schools that there is no provable answer to the question; What came first, the chicken or the egg? The idea that there is no scientific answer to this question is now so deeply ingrained into our society that no one even bothers to think otherwise. Now, this may seem like a trivial question, but it is in fact, very important. It’s very importance is the reason why such effort has been made to obscure the issue.

The answer to the question is obvious and easily provable. The proof can be demonstrated and repeated in a scientific manner and is unimpeachable.

And now the answer. It takes a mature and fertile male and a mature and fertile female to produce a fertile egg! Yes, it takes two, together in the same place at the same time, with the same idea! There is no way a fertile egg could just suddenly appear on it’s own. There is no way that male and female could have just evolved into that status. They are both necessary to reproduce a species, both must have been present together at the beginning or each species could not reproduce and thereby would die out, before they could evolve!

Yes friends, our generation, so fixated on sex, lacks even a basic understanding that the existence of sex itself, proves the existence of a Creator God. Evolution simply is not possible, for our God in His wisdom made all living creatures, above bacteria, male and female.

March 4, 2009 at 2:31 am
(42) Tom Edgar says:

And I guess Mama God and Papa God Begat all the other little Gods, before and after, ad infinitum?

There are fish to this day where both sexes lay eggs and both sexes fertilise them. Coral similarly.

You also distort matters. The Coelecanth was thought to be extinct and known only by fossil records. Finding it still living only confirmed the existence of the fossil. The fossil didn’t confirm the existence of the fish. Nowhere can you find a claim that it was anything but a confirmation of the ability for some animals to live aquatically and terrestrially. This confirms the credibility for the hypotheses that there was, in the past, a possibility for a transitional marine/land life period. Do not distort for your own purposes the facts.

To be pedantic.There is NO PROOF of evolution. There is a theory and so far there has been found mountains of proof supporting the theory and none negating it.
Therefore the theory stands until such times proven incorrect BY EVIDENCE.

Creationism on the other hand is a theory for which not a single piece of verifiable evidence in support has been found. Until supporting evidence that is scientifically verifiable surfaces, then I am afraid the theory is unfounded on facts. There is no need to find negative evidence because the theory having no positive foundation negates itself.
The theory fails for lack of supporting EVIDENCE.

I for one, and I think every other atheist, would certainly love to hear of any factual, verifiable, evidence for a god’s existence. Christian three in one, Judaic/Islam single, or Hindu by the thousand. Any of them will do
just a hint of proof would help.

March 5, 2009 at 12:31 am
(43) Zack says:

Charles Darwin which is the foundation of Evolution even said in the “Origin of Species” stated the eye is so complex that the theory he says as natural selection is impossible for the eye to be formed by this theory. — free spirit on February 25, 2009 at 12:25 am

The creationist lie that you uncritically parrot here is, as it happens, the proximate cause of my own atheism.

When I was about 11 years old, I read a creationist “textbook” from the library of my church, and it contained exactly the same lie that you have repeated above.

I didn’t know the first thing about evolution or Charles Darwin, but when I read that creationist claim about Darwin and the eye, it seemed natural to me to get a copy of Origin of Species and read the relevant passage. When I did, the words on the page struck me like a thunderbolt.

Three facts became instantly apparent:

1) The creationist author had utterly misrepresented Darwin’s point.

2) The misrepresentation was deliberate. It could not possibly be an honest mistake.

3) The creationist author clearly had written in the rock-solid confidence that his intended readers could be counted upon to never, ever crack open a copy of Origin of Species and directly investigate Darwin’s words.

Of these three facts, it was the last that really rocked my back on my heels — the author’s absolute contempt for his audience, his smug certainty that they possessed not a scintilla of real curiosity or even simple integrity.

You could say that this episode of the eye caused the scales to fall from my own eyes. Within a fairly short time I ceased to be a Christian and became an atheist.

Your writing suggests that you are quite young, or that English is not your first language. In either case, do not let the creationists treat you like a rube.

Go down to your local library and check out a copy of Origin of Species and read it for yourself — then come back here and tell me what you find within its pages.

Or, if that’s too much trouble, you can always find it online. You may be particularly interested in Chapter 6:

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/

March 6, 2009 at 2:35 pm
(44) Todd says:

The Coelacanth can’t be a bizzillion years old because the universe is only 6000 years old!

March 6, 2009 at 2:47 pm
(45) Doug Shaver says:

“There is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between this fish and it’s fossils.”

Hmmm, lemme see. The coelacanth apparently has undergone no evolution since about 65 million years ago, therefore it is not possible that species has undergone any evolution at any time.

I’m pretty sure there is a fallacy somewhere in that argument.

March 6, 2009 at 3:08 pm
(46) MrMarkAZ says:

Tom @ #38:

Creationism on the other hand is a theory

If you take “theory” to mean “speculative notion,” that statement is true. But it is not a theory in the way that Evolution is. Given the abundance of “only a theory” memes that keep popping up during these discussions, I think we have to be very clear in delineating between the common and scientific definitions of the terms.

March 6, 2009 at 8:44 pm
(47) Tom Edgar says:

Mark

Interesting that you ignore completely evolution has mountains of supporting verifiable evidence. Creationism has none.

March 6, 2009 at 9:05 pm
(48) George says:

So free spirit (33)
From an earlier post: There is evidence in the Bible that has been proven.

One of the earliest discoveries of the “hidden” order of the world was that the Earth orbited the Sun in contradiction to the apparent mechanics. However, in one of my favorite Biblical passages, Eccl 1:5, to state in full;

The Sun rises and the Sun sets and He returns to the place from which He arose.

Soooo could someone please find on that shining disc in the sky some evidence of sex? And some guy riding in a chariot up there doesn’t count unless you have a really interesting photo.
I’ll wait for your reply.

March 7, 2009 at 8:34 pm
(49) John Hanks says:

The Babylonian skygod sure does get around. Some of the Jews discovered him around 400 b.c.

March 8, 2009 at 8:18 pm
(50) Bob says:

Why argue, you will find out in time that life is very short. You were not asked if you wanted to be born, nor will you be asked if you want to die.Humans, male and female have been systematicly destroying where thay live,a place we named EARTH.This shows a lack of what we call intelligents, would you cut off your ears so that you will not hear, pluck out your eyes so that you may not see,I think not.If you feel that it is necessary to respond, bob56061@sympatico.ca. Life every day as if it is your last.

March 8, 2009 at 8:28 pm
(51) Bob says:

I am human also and make mistakes. The last sentence should read “Live every day as if it is your last”.

March 9, 2009 at 11:53 am
(52) elentir says:

Live every day as if it is your last

This is generally very bad advice. If I did this, I would never be able to retire, buy a house, buy a car, even pay bills as I would be constantly broke.

March 11, 2009 at 4:27 am
(53) PesceStecco says:

Tom Edgar (38)

The fossil didn’t confirm the existence of the fish.

If fossils don’t confirm the existence of the creature, how does fossils prove missing links. Therefore dinosaur bones don’t prove that dinosaurs existed? So dinosaurs only exist in our imagination and hollywood movies?

So in effect fossils is not proof of evolution.

March 12, 2009 at 6:20 am
(54) Tom Edgar says:

Pesky

Like every other “Creationist” you twist the sentence to suit your convenience

Obviously a fossil confirms the existence of a specie at the time of the fossils existence. It doesn’t indicate nor confirm the present day existence of an identical living specie. But it does indicate , in this instance, and what you deliberately avoided addressing,confirmation of the probability of the hypotheses that animals in
a transitional stage could live both terrestrially and aquatically. Secondly the discovery of the fish, still living, proved the original theory, based upon the fossil’s initial discovery(ridiculed by Creationists”), to be correct in every detail.

Your lack of ability in the English language, I presume, is the reason for your not understanding that discovery of fossils can be verification or denial of the evolutionary theory. So far the mountains of evidence has been positive, none negative.

Furthermore you ignore completely that believers in the fiction of “Creationism” Gods etc, have never produced any verifiable, confirming evidence for their theory of life’s beginnings. If you have one single piece of proof for any of the (imaginary) thousands of gods I, and many others, would be pleased to peruse the evidence.

So far, after many requests, not one of you has produced a single thing.

March 12, 2009 at 5:13 pm
(55) Seeker says:

[Note. Austin, can you delete my message in #51, something in the HTM got messed up.]

Karsten (1)
I find your post very interesting but rather ignorant.

I could easily say the same about your reply. Except the “interesting” part.

I was pondering what you said and did a little research myself on lucy.

Next time, you might want to look beyond creationist sources of “information”

I find it ironic that lucys skull was made up of 13 different pieces that were found seperately and spread out over a 1.5 mile radius that were assembled to form a supposed skull.

Actually, the fossil of Lucy was found in one specific location. Care to back-up your claim that the fossil remains were found “spread out over a radius of 1,5 miles”? I can’t even find a creationist source for this claim, and they are notorious for misinterpreting data in the worst way possible.

You probably got confused with the clearly documented fact that another A. afarensis knee joint, was discoverd some 2 to 3 km from Lucy’s fossil. No scientist has ever claimed that the other knee-joint belonged to Lucy, though. (see here for more detail.)

Also, I find it ironic that you seem to be obsessed with Lucy’s skull, while the real interesting part of Lucy’s fossil was that it was undeniably a bipedal species.

You should be more carful about your research.

And you owe me an irony-meter.

March 12, 2009 at 5:42 pm
(56) Seeker says:

Matthew (24)

I agree with Karsten’s original post, that chips of bone were found across a large area, pieced together and declared evidence of a pre-human relative.

And I’ll rephrase my question to Karsten: Your evidence for “bones were found acreoss a large area” is what exactly?

Give it a nice marketable name “Lucy”, date it ~3.2mn years old, give or take million, and you’ve got evidence … for what? The missing link?

The dating of Lucy is certainly not “give or take a million”.
And what Lucy is, is one of the many fossils that show that characteristics which we consider to be typical for humans slowly accumulated in the family of Homininae during millions of years.

If humans evolved from apes and apes from something else all the way back to deer, snakes and butterflies,

Apes did not evolve from deer, nor snakes and certainly not butterflies.

(stay with me),

Too late. Bad science always makes me run away.

the the fossil record would be filled with intermediary species from most rudimentary at the bottom to most complex on top.

Well spank my a$$ and call me Judy! that’s exactly what we find.

And not just a few missing links to hold up as evidence, but thousands or millions at every level.

You do realise that terrestrial animals fossilize only rarely, don’t you? And that only a fraction of all fossil-bearing strata is actually physically accessible?

So if humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

If US citizens came from European immigrants, why are there still Europeans?


I feel for you if you really believe your great, great, great-grandpa was a frog.


Actually, I know that my great-great-great-greatfather was a farmer somewhere in the Dutch polders.
However, some 350 million years ago, our ancestors were indeed amphibians (but nothing as modern as a frog)

And random mutation (which typically results in defects or death NOT new species)[...]

And another creationist lie. Most mutations do not result in defects or deaths, but are neutral (neither benificial or detrimental) or have minor “modifying” results (like a little more or a little less of enzyme X)

What a miserable life atheists must have.

I seem to lead a much happier life than most religionuts I encounter on-line.


If there really is no God and we humans are just complete accidents and surviving because we’re the fittest, why don’t we all just kill each other and live a complete hedonistic life


Because such a lifestyle is not “fit”. We’d go extinct in one (or at most a few) generation(s).

No God, no judgment, no reason for morality (how did that evolve?), no consequences.

Wrong. The genes that motivate us to be altruistic and search the safety of a stable society have been positively selected over thousands of generations.
And I’d call life in prison quite a serious consequence.


OR you will remain fearful of death, stubborn and prideful, and you know where that will getcha.


In my experience, fear of death and stubborn pride usually leads to theism or some other silly life-after-death belief.

March 16, 2009 at 5:52 pm
(57) Seeker says:

On the fact of evolution there is still evidence missing, [...]

That depends on what you mean with “missing evidence”. It is true that we don’t know all the ancestral species (or even families) of current biodiversity. That’s why biological research and paleontology are still challenging fields of study.

There is, however, not a shred of doubt that evolution did occur. Everything we know about current and past biodiversity, biochemistry and even geology points in the same direction: All life on planet Earth comes from the same pool of proto-life.

[...]the same as intelligent design.

Actually, there isn’t a shred of evidence that only favours intelligent design.

There is not enough evidence on both sides.

Wrong. The evidence for evolution against the “evidence” for ID creationism is as overwhelming as the evidence for the periodic table of elements against the “evidence” for phlostigon.

Both evolution and intelligent design, the question is which one you have a greater faith in.

Wrong. The question is: which one gives the clearest explanantion for current biodiversity. Which one leads to predictable results.
Hint, it isn’t any of the forms of creationism.

Charles Darwin which is the foundation of Evolution

For starters, Charles Darwin was a human. As such, it’s “Charles Darwin, who…”
Second, the idea of evolution (or at least that life on earth changed with time) predates Darwin by several decades. Charles Darwin was the first person to formulate a concise and well-documented mechanism that explains how evolution takes place. (And as in any scientific disciplin, his conclusions were modified by later research)
Finally, Charles Darwin wasn’t the only one to arrive at the same mechanism in the same time-period. People often act as if there would be no theory of evolution if it weren’t for Darwin. This is demonstrably wrong.

even said in the “Origin of Species” stated the eye is so complex that the theory he says as natural selection is impossible for the eye to be formed by this theory.

Absolutely wrong. Darwin stated that it might seem impossible for his theory to explain how the eye was formed, but immediately afterwards, he goes on to explain in detail (using extant species to illustrate the various evolutionary steps) exactly how the eye probably evolved. (more on this particular quote mine here)

So if we base it on facts, where do we stand now with statement. Now as that stated wouldn’t with the theory of natural selection how did it know that we needed a brain to comprehend what we were seeing, but also how did our eyes exist if we had none, because the natural selection would have thrown it out as a body feature not needed.

English speak now, you try to, Okay? Yoda not are we all.

And if lead by only human mentality they contradict themselves in their writings.

Who do? Which writings?

Which as the Bible known as a historical document and a closer walk with Christ it has not controdicted itself?

Fail. The bible isn’t a historical document.

So why not believe in a higher power such as God?

Because it’s silly?

There is evidence in the Bible that has been proven.

Really? Which ones? Other than the obvious historical generalities like “there were Romans in Palestine” and the names of some local places.

There are more facts on the Bible rather than theory.

True. There is absolutely no theory in the bible at all. It’s all fairy tale with the occasional reference to an existing place.

I do understand the idea of evolution but there is still a huge gap on how we became who we are today.

Really? Care to elaborate on that so-called gap?

If I go by facts of science the five senses: see, smell, touch, hear, taste. Going by these tests that is to say that the human race has a brain or even organs. I cannot touch my science professor’s brain, i cannot see her brain, I cannot hear her brain, taste her brain, and smell her brain, so is it real?

Oh please, that old non-argument again.
Actually, you can perform all of those 5 tests, just don’t expect the local police to have sympathy for you after they’ve arrested you for murder and cannibalism.

March 17, 2009 at 2:52 pm
(58) Seeker says:

to RT (37)

The Coelacanth is a fish previously declared to have become extinct some 65,000,000 years ago. It is said that fossils of this fish have been found which are 400,000,000 years old.

First mistake. “Coelacanth” doesn’t refer to a single species but to a whole class of fish. It is an old class of fish that can be found in the fossil record (represented by widely different species) from the Devonian to the late Cretaceous.

It was never “declared extinct” (that’s a terminollogy used for species that became extinct during the life-time of human beings).

What’s interesting about the class of Coelacanths is that they are lobe-finned fish and as such, belong to the group of fish from which the tetrapods evolved. However, Coelacanths are not the ancestral class from which Tetrapods arose, but a “cousin” class.

Since that claim, these fish have been found ALIVE, near Indonesia and Australia.

Actually, the first discovery of Latimeria chalumnae occurred near Madagascar, in 1938. And most discoveries of Latimeria have been done in Africa. Only later were they discovered in other Pacific regions as well.

It was a great surprise to find an extant representative of a class thought to have gone extinct millions of years ago, but certainly not and impossibility.

Evolutionists call this fish “a living fossil” [...]

Actually, it’s mostly popular language that uses the terminology “living fossil”. But even then, Latimeria does NOT conform to the definition of a “Living Fossil”. A “living fossil” is an extant species (or genus) that through a noticeable period of the fossil record, doesn’t seem to have changed in any fundamental way. Latimeria is only known as an extant genus, and the later genera of Coelacanths were fundamentally different from Latimeria (see later)

[...] sure proof of evolution.

No biologist has ever claimed that “Latimeria is proof of evolution”. What is interesting of this species from an evolutionary biological point of view is that it gives us an insight in the musculature and movements of lobe-finned fish, but that’s about it.

In this they are clearly showing their bias and predisposition to believe what they want.

Er, no…. that would be the Creationists’ M.O.

THIS FISH IS COMPLETELY IDENTICAL TO IT’S FOSSILS. There is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between this fish and it’s fossils.

Oooh… Epic fail. At least 500 MilliHovind.

The extant genus Latimeria is profoundly different from the fossil species of Coelacanths, at least to people who have a basic understanding of biology.

One of the major differences between most fossil Coelacanths (and certainly the late Mesozoic ones) and Latimeria is that most known fossil species are fresh-water species. On the other hand, Latimeria is a deep sea species (surviving up to 700m depth, but typically dwelling around 200m and deeper).

If you don’t see how this is a fundamental and major difference, take a very common sea fish and try to keep it alive in fresh water. You could go to the nearest tropical aquarium dealership and buy a coral-reef species, put it in a salt-water aquarium that conforms to all required physical conditions, only fill it with fresh water. See the fish die.

The other way around doesn’t work either. Catch a carp (or trout) from the nearest stream or lake and take it to the sea. You’ll be amazed how quickly the poor thing will croak.

The physiological processes of salt-water fish and fresh water fish are substantial, as anybody with half a brain will understand.

So, I ask; WHERE IS THE EVOLUTION?

Either it was the evolution from early sea-dwelling Coelacanth to fresh-water Coelacanth who got extinct in the late Cretaceous, while Latimeria evolved from an earlier the sea-dwelling form, or it was a direct evolution from fresh-water Coelacanth to sea-dwelling Coelacanth who led to Latimeria

Our young people have been taught,for generations now, in our government schools that there is no provable answer to the question;

Excuse me? Any school that’s worth its salt and has a halfway decent biology course will show its students that there’s a lot of proof that biological evolution occurs and through which mechanisms.

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

Irrelevant. The bird from which the chicken evolved already laid eggs. As did the dinosaur the birds evolved from, as did the reptiles the dinosaurs evolved from, as did the amphibians the reptiles evolved from, as did the fish the amphibians evolved from as did… oh well, you get the idea. It isn’t a “circle” it’s a line.

The idea that there is no scientific answer to this question is now so deeply ingrained into our society that no one even bothers to think otherwise.

Sorry, but there’s a very clear answer to that question. They laying of eggs predates chickens by millions of years.

Now, this may seem like a trivial question, but it is in fact, very important. It’s very importance is the reason why such effort has been made to obscure the issue.

It is indeed trivial, and as such, irrelevant.
Nobody has ever even thought of “obscuring” that issue.

The answer to the question is obvious and easily provable. The proof can be demonstrated and repeated in a scientific manner and is unimpeachable.

Ooh… sounds intriguing. So why don’t I have high hopes for your “answer”?

And now the answer. It takes a mature and fertile male and a mature and fertile female to produce a fertile egg! Yes, it takes two, together in the same place at the same time, with the same idea! There is no way a fertile egg could just suddenly appear on it’s own.

Wow! Sexual animals need to have sex. Now there’s a shocker!
Our ancestors have only been doing so for the last 1 billion years or so, and Creationuts already found out about it!


There is no way that male and female could have just evolved into that status.


And no reputable scientist would ever claim that they did.


They are both necessary to reproduce a species, both must have been present together at the beginning or each species could not reproduce and thereby would die out, before they could evolve!


Another epic fail. This one at least 2 CentiBodhitartha (Note: 1 CentiBodhitartha is 1000 MilliHovind)
Evolution is a matter of change within populations. Genetic traits slowly accumulate within the populations, both female and male. If a (sub)-population is seperated long enough from the original population, the accumulation of genetic differences will mean that with time, there are two species.

Your basic error is the gravely mistaken notion that a species “begins” with one breeding pair.


Yes friends, our generation, so fixated on sex, lacks even a basic understanding that the existence of sex itself, proves the existence of a Creator God. Evolution simply is not possible, for our God in His wisdom made all living creatures, above bacteria, male and female.


As shown above, sexual reproduction is one of the major motors of evolution, and certainly not the “counterproof” you think it is.

So… final grade: F-!!! See me after school!!

March 18, 2009 at 5:49 pm
(59) Seeker says:

to Tom (38)


To be pedantic.There is NO PROOF of evolution.


Wrong, there’s lots of proof for biological evolution. Just like “things fall down” is proof of gravity, so is “life is not the same now as it was X generations ago” proof of biological evolution.

There is a theory and so far there has been found mountains of proof supporting the theory and none negating it.

It’s more than one scientific theory. It’s a complex set of scientific models built around several core theories (Natural selection, kin selection, Red Queen, Genetic code, allopatry, etc)

You’re right that there has never been a shred of evidence that has been able to fundamentally upset the modern synthesis of Neo-Darwinian Evolution.

Therefore the theory stands until such times proven incorrect BY EVIDENCE.
True.


Creationism on the other hand is a theory for which not a single piece of verifiable evidence in support has been found.


I disagree. creationism isn’t a theory. It’s a flight of fancy, a fairy-tale. At best, wild guessing.
Using the term “theory” for creationuttery after you’ve just used it to mean “scientific theory” is giving creationism way too much credit.

[PS: Austin, I hope you don't mind I hijacked this thread for a while.]

March 18, 2009 at 10:03 pm
(60) Zack says:

Chuck Norris fears Seeker.

March 25, 2009 at 10:37 pm
(61) Kate says:

I haven’t made up my mind about either side, but I learned about Creationism and Intelligent design. I may or may not be wrong
I went to a public school and was taught evolution, then transfered to a private school and was taught creation. I realized both had evidence against them, for them, and both require an extreme amount of faith and belief. In public school I learned about Heckle’s embryos, but then learned that they were faked. Plus, the embryos were the middle stages, and the most important stages were in the beginning. Miller and Urey’s experiment was bogus as well, they used the wrong ingredients, wrong procedures, and had the wrong outcome. The peppered moth experiment was apparently staged as well. My Biology textbook talked about these experiments, but then mentioned in little words that they were not true.
People criticize Christians for always talking about the missing links, but the problem really is in there not being any transitional fossils, the in-between stages. Evolutionists blame it on punctuated equilibrium. Creationists also say that we are making too big of a lead from adaptation of species to evolution and creation of new species. The Cambrian explosion is an event that scientists cannot really explain, where almost all animals seemed to appear almost over night.
Evolution takes alot of faith to believe in, it would be amazing if it were true that the hundreds of proteins in our body, for example, were created by chance. A simple strand of protein of maybe 10 parts had to be put in place in a certain order. Imagine having the numbers 1-10 and putting them in a hat, the chance of drawing number 1 would be 1/10. The chances of drawing 1 then drawing 2 would be 1/100, and so on. The chances keep getting smaller and smaller. Eventually the chance of one protein rising spontaneously is 1/10 to the 321st power.

March 27, 2009 at 4:08 pm
(62) Todd says:

“A simple strand of protein of maybe 10 parts had to be put in place in a certain order. Imagine having the numbers 1-10 and putting them in a hat, the chance of drawing number 1 would be 1/10. The chances of drawing 1 then drawing 2 would be 1/100, and so on. The chances keep getting smaller and smaller. Eventually the chance of one protein rising spontaneously is 1/10 to the 321st power.”

Improbable does not mean impossible. If you drew numbers out of a hat 100^321, the chance of getting 1 through 10 one of those tries is fairly high. Furthermore it’s not a die roll or coin flip. It’s chemistry. Chemicals combine in certain ways with certain other chemicals and not with others. It would be more like shaking a bag of magnets. The incompatible parts repel, the compatible parts attract.

Creationism and Evolution have one thing in common – a big stack of paper that tells what each is. But that’s where it ends.
Creationism says “This stack of papers states the absolute proof and if you challenge it you are a heretic who will burn in hell.”
Evolution(ism) says “These papers say the way we think things are based on the information we’ve found so far. If you can refute the evidence and findings in them, please do so, and add your evidence and findings to the stack of papers.”
One requires blind belief in “information” that cannot be examined or refuted. The other requires no belief and encourages examination and refutation.

March 27, 2009 at 7:58 pm
(63) John Hanks says:

I find it just as hard to believe that a Babylonian skygod created everything with just a few words.

March 27, 2009 at 8:18 pm
(64) John Hanks says:

Fascist manipulate with lies. Nazis manipulate with intimidation. They are sociopaths. I would guess that half of the right-wing is made up of sociopaths.

March 29, 2009 at 12:05 am
(65) Zack says:

I realized both had evidence against them, for them, and both require an extreme amount of faith and belief. — Kate on March 25, 2009 at 10:37 pm

Given the uneven competence of science education in the public schools, it is not entirely impossible that you are telling the truth about the education you have received in biology.

However, there is a vagueness to your critique of evolution that wears the stink of creationist literature. It seems likely to me that your knowledge of evolution comes to you entirely second-hand, via its creationist detractors.

Return to support your views and we shall quickly know if I am right.

March 29, 2009 at 3:13 am
(66) Tom Edgar says:

Hey Kate. Each time you took a number out of the hat the rest left have lessened the odds.

Childish argument at the best, Totally irrelevant and without any scientific basis.

March 29, 2009 at 7:02 am
(67) Blunderov says:

Probably the most common misunderstanding of evolution is that it is ‘random’. Let’s put this in caps for the hard of hearing. EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOM.

There are random mutations that take place all the time. But this is not what evolution is. Evolution is the selection, or not, of those mutations according to their usefulness.

April 2, 2009 at 9:37 am
(68) Mollie says:

I was raised in the church and chose to go to a Christian college. I went on to get my Master’s Degree in Earth Science. I have never seen the least contradiction in my strong belief in both evolution and the Bible.
The Bible was written for man so that man could understand it. No matter how we try to wrap our minds around it, an eternal “being” is hard to comprehend. Therefore, the Bible is written in a way that makes sense to human beings. Is there evolution? Absolutely! None of us looks like a Neanderthal. Elephants do not look like wooly mammoths. Evolution simply means change. Just because the Bible says God created something in a day, I hardly believe he operates on our 24-hour time schedule since he is dealing with eternity. And how perfectly the Big Bang theory fits with the Bible! One minute there was nothing; the next there was Earth. People make their God too small. Moreover, I don’t think this delicate balance between life forms and environments just happened randomly and continues along by a fluke.

April 4, 2009 at 6:14 pm
(69) Seeker says:

Kate (57) [part 1 of 3]

I haven’t made up my mind about either side, but I learned about Creationism and Intelligent design.

Kate, I hope that you’re genuinely interested in the subject and will check the replies here on a later date, so you might get some more information that might help you to “make up your mind”.

The different points you raised are quite typical for ID and creationist lies about biological evolutions. It is often sad for me to see that they keep being repeated by “advocates” of ID/creationism, even though they have been repeatedly exposed as the lies they are, including Johnatan Wells’ Icons of Evolution from which most the points you’ve raised seem to have been lifted verbatim (though highly simplified).

I may or may not be wrong I went to a public school and was taught evolution, then transfered to a private school and was taught creation. I realized both had evidence against them, for them, and both require an extreme amount of faith and belief.

It depends on what you call “evidence”.

Biological evolution is supported by mountains of evidence discovered over more than 150 years in diverse fields such as biology, paleontology, geology, genetics, medicine and even psychology.
There isn’t a single piece of evidence that has come close to raise a fundamental challenge to our understanding of biological evolution.

ID/creationism has evolved to incorporate various concepts of biological evolution which they could no longer reject (even though earlier incarnations of creationism rejected those same concepts). However, there isn’t a single “tenet” of ID/creationism that’s unique to them which is supported by factual evidence.

Understanding biological evolution doesn’t require a shred of “faith and belief”. Just like gravity or the periodic table of elements don’t need “faith and belief”.

In public school I learned about Heckle’s embryos, but then learned that they were faked.

I seriously doubt that you learned about “Heackel’s embryos”.
What you probably learned was the homologies of embryos, and that Haeckel was one of the the first to recognize the evidence for evolution these embryos represent.

However, Haeckel’s theories are not accepted in modern biology and haven’t been for more than a century now. Haeckel’s law was “ontogeny is recapitulation of phylogeny” which suggested that during embryological development, the embryo goes through the various stages of evolutionary descent. Later researchers concluded that Haeckel’s theory
about embryonic development was overly simplistic. It has also been noted by several researchers that some of Haeckel’s comparison drawings were a little to optimistically interpreted in favour of his theory. It is a major exaggeration, however, to suggest that they were a faked.
Later publications include new drawings, and even photos (how do you fake those?) which show the basic characteristics that were shown in Haeckel’s drawings as well. The only “discredited” information from Haeckel’s drawings are the “recapitulation” characteristics, which is exactly the part of Haeckel’s theories that are not accepted in modern
biology.

Now what is truly important about the vertebrate embryos is the following: they show a surprising homology both in form (in the earlier stages) and in the sequence of development. This similarity in embryos had been known for decades (if not centuries) before Darwin wroth the Origin. It is this homology that is a very strong indicator that all these different animal groups can be traced back to a common ancestor that already had this basic mode of embryonic development.

Another interesting fact about embryonic development is that in some groups, the embryo starts to develop body-parts that are common to related species, but are later resorbed because they are no longer present in the adult. A well-known example would be the hind limbs of Cetaceans (dolphins and whales) which in many species are still present in early development. This is perfectly explainable in light of biological evolution, however, you’ll never hear a creationist suggest a half-way decent explanation for them.

Plus, the embryos were the middle stages, and the most important stages were in the beginning.

Wrong. Every developmental stage is important in embryology, you can’t just point at an embryonic stage and claim “that is the most important one”.

Haeckel’s drawings are from early and middle foetal stages, and it was never claimed that they weren’t. However, the early foetal stage is not exactly the “middle” stage. . Wells likes to use that claim as well, but his representation has been exaggerated to highlight the differences and suggest there is “only a short moment of apparent homology”.

Wells (and other like him) like to claim that because the earliest embryonic stages look differently, they disprove the common ancestry (which is actually strange for an IDist like wells, who claim that they don’t deny common ancestry). What is truly important, however, and what the ID/creationists miss, is that the PROCESS of early embryonic development is the same and that they all pass through the same stages. The physical appearance basically not relevant, because it might have been “squished” to accomodate for the yolk (in reptiles and birds). What is important is that the same kind of cell-groups follow the same developmental patterns in all vertebrates (or in all insects, etc). All vertebrates follow the same pattern of cleavages, gastrulation, neurulation, pharyngulation (which is, btw the stage where embryos are the most physically similar) organogenesis and gestation.

There is no logical reason why humans follow the same development of the central nervous system during neurulation like all other vertebrates do (namely, the neural tube closes from the midle and spreads out to top and tail end. If the Designer is so intelligent, why doesn’t our central nervous system “zip down”. You know, first start with our brains, which are so important to us.

There is no reason for a Cetacean to start developing 4 limbs and then resorb the hind limbs. Except, of course, because all Tetrapods develop hind limbs, and Cetaceans have the same early embryonic development as their land-dwelling ancestors did.

I hope this short explanation gave you some insight in why embryonic development is such a strong evidence for common ancestry and why it should be included in every biology book. (though making use of correct drawings, or even photographs. Not blindly copying Haeckel’s drawings which are only interesting from a historical perspective)

April 4, 2009 at 6:16 pm
(70) Seeker says:

Kate (57) [Part 2 of 3]

Miller and Urey’s experiment was bogus as well, they used the wrong ingredients, wrong procedures, and had the wrong outcome.

The first Miller-Urey experiments were anything but bogus. These (repeatable and repeated) experiments show conculsively that in sterile conditions anorganic ingredients will, when being subject to external sources of energy, combine to form amino acids: the same organic molecules that we know as “the building blocks of life”.

The ingredients weren’t “wrong”. However, later insights suggest that the relative quantities of the ingredients were different, and other anorganic molecules would also be present. Repeating Miller-Urey experiments with those ingredients will result amino acids and other organic molecules. No matter which “primitive atmosphere” is used, no matter which external source of energy is used, well set-up Miller-Urey experiments yield organic molecules, and among those molecukes, the “building blocks of life”.

The Miller-Urey experiments are undeniable proof that there is nothing special about the formation of organic molecules, and that is what makes Miller-Urey experiments so important.

Finally, how can the outcome of an experiment be “wrong”? Whatever comes out of an experiment is the outcome. Period. There is no “wrong” or “right” outcome of an experiment. At most “unexpected”.

The peppered moth experiment was apparently staged as well.

No it wasn’t.

BTW, the analyses of peppered moth (Biston sp.)melanism wasn’t an “experiment” but an observation: In regions where industrial pollution killied most of the (light colored) lichen on (otherwise dark) trees and branches, the dark colored variety of Biston would occur in significantly higher frequencies (when compared to non polluted areas) than the light colored variety.

What is really strange about this objection by IDiots/creationuts is that the peppered moth example is a classroom example of natural selection, and nothing more. Natural selection is fully accepted by ID/creation advocats, so personally I am completely baffled by why they have such a beef with the peppered moth example. (except of course, that it is such a clear example of natural selection, and how it fits in the general theory of biological evolution that it has a tendency to evoke an “of course. so simple” reaction with many people.)

The reason this “complaint” originated in the anti-science camp is because the textbook photos that contrast the camouflage properties of light colored and dark colored Biston against both a dark and a light background had been set up to be able to get a good photograph. So yes, the photos were staged for illustration purposes (as are nearly all photos in textbooks, history books, your local newspaper, etc…). But nowhere has it ever been suggested that those photos were representative for the place where Biston rests. They were only meant to illustrate the contrast in camouflage and that is the only way how they have been presented.

My Biology textbook talked about these experiments, but then mentioned in little words that they were not true.

I seriously doubt that your biology textbook mentioned that the Miller-Urey experiment and the case of Biston were not true. And they shouldn’t.

If your biology textbook included Haeckel’s drawings and mentioned that these are no longer accepted, it told you the truth, didn’t it?

I wonder, do you still have your biology textbook… it would be fun to check reality with your memory (especially since your memory seems to be tainted by IDiot/Creationut propaganda)

April 4, 2009 at 6:56 pm
(71) Seeker says:

Kate (57) [3 of 4... for some reason, the site doesn't seem to accept the larger post I had prepared. Austin, if it duplicates... I'm sorry. Please delete as you see fit]

People criticize Christians for always talking about the missing links,

For starters, the creationists don’t talk about the missing links, or rather the found links. That’s the whole problem.

There are so many no-longer-missing links out there that it’s nearly impossible to provide a comprehensive list. An exhaustive list on the other hand is very easy to draw up (if you’ve got a few days of time to spare).

Also, it’s not only Christians who bring it up. Let’s be fair and remember that Islamic and Judaic creationuts are just as capable of spouting the same creationist rethoric.

No, what we do criticize the more outrageous creationuts for is that they raise completely crazy straw-men of what they claim should be a “missing link”. The “corcoduck” of Kirk Cameron for instance. There is no direct link between crocodiles and birds, their last common ancestor lived more than 200 My ago. So there is NO WAY that any normal interpretation of evolutionary theory could come up with such a silly “missing link”.

but the problem really is in there not being any transitional fossils, the in-between stages.

The fossil record litterally overflows with intermediary forms, since each group is an intermediary group between earlier species and later species.

But what people think of when they hear “intermediary stages” is, of course the interesting species that indicate where two branches fork off. Even there, we have an already impressive record of fossils of transitional forms

“No transitionals” indeed.

Evolutionists blame it on punctuated equilibrium.

For starters, there’s no such thing as “Evolutionists”. That’s pure creationist propaganda. I guess you mean to say “evolutionary biologists.”

Second, evolutionary biologists don’t need to “blame” the lack of transitional fossils on anything, because we already have so many of them.
Second, we won’t be able to find all transitional fossils due to the incompleteness (or physical inaccessibility) of the fossil record.

Finaly, punctuated equilibria is an effect of the fossil record when studying evolution on the species/genus level. Certainly not on the level where we start talking of transitional fossils.

Creationists also say that we are making too big of a lead from adaptation of species to evolution and creation of new species.

Yeah, just like you can walk one meter. Or even one thousand parts of one meter. But walking a kilometer would be too big of a leap from one meter to a kilometer.

The Cambrian explosion is an event that scientists cannot really explain,

It is perfectly explainable.
Once exoskeletons (and other “hard parts”) evolved the probability of fossilisation increased spectacularly.

where almost all animals seemed to appear almost over night.

If you call 50 million years, give or take a decade, “overnight”.

You do realise that the “Cambrian explosion” represents a period of about 1/11th of the whole Phanerozoic, don’t you? The Phanerozoic btw is the last 550 My, and was called that way because originally, it was thought that “visible life” only existed during the Phanerozoic. Later discoveries have shown that some visible (so bigger than microscopic) fossils can be dated back as far as 1,25 billion years

Evolution takes alot of faith to believe in,

As mentioned above, no it doesn’t.

April 4, 2009 at 7:18 pm
(72) Seeker says:

Kate [4 of 4 ... PS, Austin. I found why the earlier post failed. Bad HTML in the part that is posted here. Solved it now]

it would be amazing if it were true that the hundreds of proteins in our body, for example, were created by chance.

But since they were not “created by chance”, it’s a moot point.

The hundreds of proteins being used in our body are the result of billions of years of evolution. They didn’t originate “by chance”. They were incorporated in our life-cycle by a “whatever works, is kept” out of a nigh inexhaustable depot of potential sequences.

Allow me to illustrate:

A simple strand of protein of maybe 10 parts had to be put in place in a certain order. Imagine having the numbers 1-10 and putting them in a hat, the chance of drawing number 1 would be 1/10. The chances of drawing 1 then drawing 2 would be 1/100, and so on. The chances keep getting smaller and smaller. Eventually the chance of one protein rising spontaneously is 1/10 to the 321st power.

The problem with your “probability calculation” is that you look at one end result out of an enormous base of possible end results and expect the end result to happen exactly like that without any intermediary steps.

Say that you’re standing on the top of an irregular slope which ends in a plateau that’s 10 meters wide and 50 meters long. You devide that plateau in a grid of squares of 1×1 cm. (that means 100 x 10 x 50 = 50,000 squares). Now, at the top of that slope (which is, say 100m long) you let go of a marble. The marble will run down, but due to the irregularities on the slope, it will sometimes go left, sometimes go right, maybe even bounce upward again. Now let’s say that the marble is tagged so we can exactly follow it’s erratic course.

The path of the marble is like the gradual changes that happen in a DNA sequence over the course of time. At one time, the marble will end up on the plateau and roll to a specific square. This square would then be like the DNA sequence for a specific protein in a living person now.

Now what you could you say is “The chance that the marble would roll to that specific grid following the specific line we tracked is 1 in (50,000 x a gazillion)” which would be true, but still, despite the huge improbability, the marble lies exactly in that square, doesn’t it?

What evolutionary theory states however, is “The chance that the marble will continue along the slope, following a path that leads it downwards and ending on one of the squares is 1/1″

Do you see the difference? The end result is not “the one and only thing that would work” it’s just “the one that worked best with the changes that happened along the way”.

To put it differently. According to the creationist way of looking at probabilities, the chance that you are you was so astronomically big that it’s rediculous to assume possible. According to the way scientists look at statistics, the chance that you are you is one.

It goes like this. Let’s say for the sake of just slapping a number on it, 10,000 of your father’s genes and 10,000 of your mother’s genes are unique (in other words, all other genes would be the same in every living person).

So the chance of getting the combination of genes that form you is (10,000 x 10,000) [for your father's half of your genome] x (10,000 x 10,000) [for your mother's half of your genome]. That’s 10 to the power of 16 so a chance of 1 in a 10 million billion (10,000,000,000,000,000) to get that specific gene combination. But wait, that’s not all. Let’s say that in an average life-time, a woman has (40 x 12) = 480 ovulations (let’s round it to 500). The chance of having the right maternal gene combination at the right time would then be 500 times greater.

Then there are the millions of sperm cells of your father. The chance of the right sperm cell reaching your mother’s egg at the right time would also be millions times bigger… gosh… I’m starting to lose count of the zeros I should use to express the small chance of getting exactly your gene combination.

The scientific look at the probability, however is: a male and a female have intercourse. Whatever sperm reaches whatever egg there is at that moment will fertilize the egg. Chances for offspring: 1/1

Do you see the difference?

Well Kate, I hope you got this message and it helped you re-assess what you think you know about biological evolution. I also hope it made you take creationist propaganda with a grain of salt. As you can see, it’s easy for creationists to just blurt out things that sound reasonable, but it takes a little work togive a decent answer to their rapid fire of “common sense.”

If you have any other questions, don’t hesitate to contact me. You can often find me in the forum of this site (Just post a shout-out to Seeker, I use the same nick there. Or use a post with “evolution” in the header. I usually frequent those threads)
Or if Austin is willing to do so, you might ask him for my e-mail. I hereby grant Austin permission to disclose the e-mail used to post this message to you, Kate (who posted message 57).

July 17, 2009 at 8:08 pm
(73) Burhan says:

Did any of you read Darwin’s book. Despite his assertions he still applied reasonable amount of science to his work. If not we wouldn’t be talking about this. He mentioned in his book that in the process of evolution the previous version would have been wiped out by the following generation. He also talked about how there would have to be millions of fossils that would link these generations together. He asserted that they would be found deep under the ocean.

There is a problem with evolution that Darwin pointed out. They use bits of bone to prove their theories. We will use 1 thought the human eye. Evolution could not produce an eyeball, due to the reality that it is an organ that is all or nothing, remove one part and it no longer functions. Like anything else you should be able to reverse engineer anything in creation. Evolutionists will always run into brick walls, small ones, simple ones. A human fetus is a process that you can simply understand a comprehensive process that even still hold secrets. But we can observe and analyze. Science is about observation. You guys study the scientific process in school? Around say 5th grade. No scientists in his right mind can legitimize a process he has never witnessed. Nor draw conclusions on origins he has no way of knowing this whole thing is conjecture , that’s why its still is and always will be the Theory of Evolution.

July 17, 2009 at 9:13 pm
(74) Austin Cline says:

Evolution could not produce an eyeball,

Prove it.

due to the reality that it is an organ that is all or nothing, remove one part and it no longer functions.  

Really? Prove it.

Science is about observation.

Nothing more?

No scientists in his right mind can legitimize a process he has never witnessed.

So, plate tectonics is not science?

that’s why its still is and always will be the Theory of Evolution.

Do you know what a “theory” is in science? Since you have so much to say about what science is, you must.

July 28, 2009 at 5:56 pm
(75) Marc says:

69) Burhan: “No scientists (by the way it’s no scientist) in his right mind can legitimize a process he has never witnessed.”

Which part of the creation theory did you witness?

You condemn scientists for legitimizing a process they never witnessed? This while apparently trusting a completely “faith based” belief system? By definition, “A belief that is not based on proof?”

You need to rethink! Or maybe just think!

July 28, 2009 at 9:45 pm
(76) sornord says:

There have been several good videos showing how eyes can develop over time from simple ones that can just detect light or dark, to the complex mammalian eye. One that comes to mine, though it’s older, is The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins.

And there are living animals have all nearly all the intermediate steps in eye evolution.

July 29, 2009 at 2:17 am
(77) PercyF says:

Burhan said
“Evolution could not produce an eyeball, due to the reality that it is an organ that is all or nothing…”

This argument was demolished 150 years ago by Darwin himself in the same book you claim atheists need to read. Did you?

You should read the book before you claim knowledge of it. It is not ggo enough to quote fellow creationists as you source of information; they are notorious for quote mining and other citation errors.

If you wish to critique science, then you ought to become familiar with it.

Know thine enemy.

July 29, 2009 at 2:18 am
(78) PercyF says:

mmm … It is not GOOD enough … mea culpa.

July 29, 2009 at 4:02 am
(79) Mark Barratt says:

Here’s a great link to a properly embarrassing collapse of the common creationist quote mine of Darwin about the eye.

“Keep reading…”

July 29, 2009 at 1:40 pm
(80) MrMarkAZ says:

Evolution could not produce an eyeball, due to the reality that it is an organ that is all or nothing, remove one part and it no longer functions.

Wrong..

Experimental data shows eyes evolving within about 400,000 generations.

Wrong again.

Darwin himself provided an explanation for how the eye could have evolved. Note that he lacked any knowledge of the existence of DNA or genes when he did so.

You’re still very very wrong.

Genetic research shows that the eye evolved not just once but multiple times, with different results. The eye is complex, but not IRREDUCIBLY complex.

July 30, 2009 at 2:01 am
(81) Zack says:

Evolution could not produce an eyeball, due to the reality that it is an organ that is all or nothing, remove one part and it no longer functions. — Burhan on July 17, 2009 at 8:08 pm

If for just one minute you can stop vomiting up the talking points that some creationist website fed you, you might possibly realize that there is evidence to contradict your claim all around you right now, today.

The eyeball, all or nothing, hmm? So a person who needs eyeglasses has no advantage over, say, a person whose eyes have been gouged out?

Remove one part of the eye and it no longer functions, eh? Ever heard of cataract surgery? It’s a very widespread procedure. They sometimes remove the lens of your eye so that you can see better.

Did any of you read Darwin’s book. — Burhan on July 17, 2009 at 8:08 pm

How did you ever manage to compress this much ignorance, arrogance, hypocrisy, intellectual dishonesty, and unintended irony into a single sentence? Oh, wait — you’re a creationist. It comes to you naturally.

July 31, 2009 at 12:16 am
(82) Lloyd says:

I bet if Seeker jumped into a lake he would not get wet, the water would get Seekerd! In other words, I’m a fan. I thought your explanations were easy to follow and as complete as anyone could hope to find in the comments section of a blog.

July 31, 2009 at 12:52 am
(83) Tom Edgar says:

Oh dear!! Now Ida has been found and makes Lucy just a “Jillie come lately.” but nevertheless completely validates, and reinforces all the findings from Lucy, just another confirmatory link in the evidence continually being found for evolution, and still not a single piece of evidence for the existence of any God nor for creationism.

October 2, 2009 at 7:24 pm
(84) AllmostIllmatic says:

Now we’ve got an “Ardi”. What else are you guys gonna cook up?

October 12, 2009 at 1:28 pm
(85) Brian B says:

“Sometimes, it seems, creationists will say anything in their effort to discredit science and evolutionary theory.”

What a stupid comment to make….’discredit science’?

Have you read anything of importance. It’s like a 1st grader saying that man can’t fly because he doesn’t have wings. And then he ventures out past the back yard and…wah lah. Information overload.

Pay attention my little uninformed friend…SCIENCE is used all the time to make valid judgments about how preposterous evolution and many of it’s THEORIES are. It is also used to show how creation SCIENCE has valid points. Ahhhhhhh, who cares….right. The evolution minions don’t have the brains to understand simple concepts….

October 12, 2009 at 2:13 pm
(86) Austin Cline says:

Pay attention my little uninformed friend…SCIENCE is used all the time to make valid judgments about how preposterous evolution and many of it’s THEORIES are.  

Feel free to show how.

It is also used to show how creation SCIENCE has valid points.  

Prove it.

Ahhhhhhh, who cares….right.  The evolution minions don’t have the brains to understand simple concepts….

But it shows how great your “brains” are that you can’t support your claims?

October 20, 2009 at 1:52 pm
(87) Sami Mattila says:

I have never yet encountered a human being who could deal with these issues without emotion.

The emotional ‘reasoning’ seems almost embarrassing on both sides.

One side claims that…
“God exists because I want him to exist.” (Very logical.)

The other side side is even more illogical…
“God can’t exist because I don’t want Him to exist.”

I’m almost embarrassed to hear people claim that the Earth was made in six 24h days. (Or was it in two 12hour periods? If you live in US.) There are several scriptures in Genesis that make it clear those ‘days’ were “long” periods of time. (Ever heard of the ‘Biblical’ term “In the Day of his… etc.”

I’m even more embarrassed to hear ‘scientist’ prop up other ‘scientist’ by voicing their belief systems out LOUD.
You really need a STRONG belief system to believe that any organism could ever reach the ‘Single celled’ state of Left handed Amino Acids only – that could start dividing and eventually through some ‘not yet know’ method evolved to any species that had males and females.

This is your wake up call.

Examine why you want to believe in something and only then start talking about ‘rational thought’ to me.

Sami Mattila

October 27, 2009 at 2:50 pm
(88) Ex Patriot says:

All I can say is that Lucy is not a fake, she is a real fossil of our way past ancestors. The beeble is nothing more than a book mof mythology

October 27, 2009 at 5:05 pm
(89) George says:

@Sami Mattila;
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. Gen 1:5, also And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for day, and years; & etc.
It is obvious from your very own Bible that the earliest references to a day are about one rotation of the Earth. If not then the “darkness” would have lasted for thousands or millions of years in which nothing but fungus would grow. It is obviously a fable, a just so story.
Also if the stars were left out there for signs then we’re talking astrology now ie. the sweet influences of the Pleaides (Job).

October 27, 2009 at 5:16 pm
(90) AtheistGeophysicistBob says:

Mollie (64). I would like to know the name of the Xtian college that awarded your (MA; MS?) in Earth Science. Can you please list some of your graduate courses? I have several questions for which you probably have the answer.

October 27, 2009 at 8:05 pm
(91) John Hanks says:

Bluster.

October 28, 2009 at 12:58 am
(92) Zack says:

The other side side is even more illogical…
“God can’t exist because I don’t want Him to exist.” — Sami Mattila on October 20, 2009 at 1:52 pm

Tell me, did you stop believing in the tooth fairy so you wouldn’t have to floss?

October 28, 2009 at 7:27 pm
(93) AtheistGeophysicistBob says:

Mollie (64); I find it difficult to believe that an eternal “being” would have difficulty writing for man in a manner that man would have no difficulty comprehending. If the Bible is the eternal “being’s” best effort to write in a way that man can understand, I am sorry to report that it failed miserably. If I were writing for man to understand and meant something other than a 24 hour day, I would have said my day means a much longer period of time than 24 hours. Ever wonder why it would be so difficult for an “eternal being” to say something as simple?

Your assessment of the Big Bang Theory suggests that your former Earth Science Dept. needs to brush up a little on Cosmology.

I don’t understand your statement that there is no contradiction between the Bible and evolution.

The delicate balance between life forms and environments is explained by Evolutionary Theory, not by random happenings. Your former Earth Science Dept. needs to review a little evolutionary biology.

November 6, 2009 at 5:59 am
(94) Brian says:

As we all are not going to dispute (macro)evolution (AKA: change from one species to another)is a theory not a fact and as science progresses it becomes more preposterous. Also for the ignorant-the bible says the world is round (Isaiah 40:22). All real science has proved Scientific concepts in the bible correct. In fact some scientist rejected some biblical statements only later to prove them. These Scientist Thought creation was a very reasonable belief (Copernicus, Galileo, Pascal, Isaac Newton, Carl Linnaeus, Johannes Keppler, Robert Boyle, Louis Pasteur, Jean Henri Fabre, Michael Faraday, John Ambrose Fleming).

November 6, 2009 at 7:28 am
(95) Austin Cline says:

As we all are not going to dispute (macro)evolution (AKA: change from one species to another)is a theory not a fact and as science progresses it becomes more preposterous.

Prove it.

All real science has proved Scientific concepts in the bible correct.

For example?

November 17, 2009 at 9:30 pm
(96) listen to me says:

in school you are teached that lucy is proof for evolution. some friends of mine and myself have done some research and found out that a few years ago lucy was actualy proven to be an ancient orangutan but years later they put it back in the text books for the good of science. my friends told this to their teachers and a dentist and they said they didnt believe in lucy anymore. do it yourself!
and how did the big bang happen without a beggining? like exploding hiroshima with out the bomb beig made, something made the big bang happen; you cant start a theory without the beggining of the story, the big bang only has the middle and the ending. go to compass.org to learn more! try jesus on dont worry the devil will always take u back.

November 17, 2009 at 9:32 pm
(97) avp says:

go to compass.org and that convinced me

November 18, 2009 at 3:09 pm
(98) AtheistGeophysicistBob says:

listen to me (92). What school did you attend, which teached you…?
I would like to comment on both Lucy and the Big Bang, but you obviously do not have the educational capacity to understand anything beyond maybe the 2nd grade (I am being generous). I went to compass.org; pure drivel (and I am again being generous).

November 18, 2009 at 3:09 pm
(99) George says:

So @92 yu sai “how did the big bang happen without a beggining? you cant start a theory without the beggining of the story,”. Sew howdid Gawd strt? Huh? Gawd strted humins cuz he alreedy cnew theid turn bad, Gen 3:22. Sew he’s as evel as he clams tobe if he exits, Is 45:7 .I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Pruve Gawd’s begginning brainiac.

November 18, 2009 at 3:29 pm
(100) AtheistGeophysicistBob says:

Yes, Isaiah 40:22 does say the earth is round, or does it? “It is he that sitteth on the circle of the earth…” That statement is open to interpretation. I interpret it to mean “he is sitting on the margin of the horizon (edge of the earth)”. Actually, the earth is not round; it is an oblate spheroid.

However, I like to think Isaiah meant the earth is round; Jesus said the earth is flat. I have asked this question numerous times, and no Xtian has ever answered “Did Jesus lie?”

November 18, 2009 at 6:32 pm
(101) John Thomson says:

The fundies that posted here all seem to have OD’d on their stupid pills.

Mollie#64-You might consider suing the school that gave you a degree in Earth Sciences.They’ve failed you completely.

The three reasons for not believing in evolution:
1.Never heard of it.Very unlikely in this day and age.
2.One lacks the basic scientific education to understand it.
3.Willful ignorance.Having the knowledge but not using it.

November 18, 2009 at 7:00 pm
(102) AtheistGeophysicistBob says:

John Thompson (97). I agree with your comment to Mollie. I still would like to know the name of the college that awarded her the MA or MS degree in Earth Science. I would not have made her profound statements after my 1st 2 Freshman Geology courses (Physical and Historical). Maybe her college only teaches such deep subjects at the Doctor of Earth Science level.

November 18, 2009 at 7:06 pm
(103) AtheistGeophysicistBob says:

Sorry, John (97), my finger slipped; I meant Thomson. Should have edited before sending.

October 28, 2011 at 3:08 pm
(104) John Thomson says:

Thank you for the correction. :-)

November 19, 2009 at 4:05 am
(105) Beatnik Bob says:

Molly (64) is “interpreting” the Bible and trying hard to remain a Christian and a scientist. Some people are good at compartmentalising. She gets hammered from one side on this site. If she sent that e-mail to some site that believes in the “inerrent Bible”, she’d be hammered from the other side.

“Six days doesn’t mean six 24 hour days” is not new – the William Jennings Bryan character admits to believing that in “Inheirit the Wind”.

November 19, 2009 at 9:32 pm
(106) John Hanks says:

Why do ignorant people accuse others of being ignorant?

November 23, 2009 at 8:21 pm
(107) AtheistGeophysicistBob says:

I re-read my comment in (96). I should have said a prolate spheroid; should have edited more carefully. Did no one catch my mistake?

December 1, 2009 at 2:02 pm
(108) Todd says:

“Actually, the earth is not round; it is an oblate spheroid.”

Oblate/prolate spheroids ARE ROUND. Round does not mean perfectly spherical. Stop picking nits, Rotsky. Relax, you’ll live longer.

December 1, 2009 at 2:39 pm
(109) atheistone says:

Todd 103, The bible also claims the sky is held up by pillars in Psalms, that the unicorn exists, thatthe sun moved backwards and that the sun stood still for a whole day.

December 1, 2009 at 4:21 pm
(110) Tom Edgar says:

Actually it is an asymmetrical spheroid.
Just another word where the A means “Without”

December 1, 2009 at 5:51 pm
(111) AtheistGeophysicistBob says:

Tom Edgar (105). You are correct; Earth is an asymmetrical spheroid. I need to brush up on my solid geometry. I was correct the 1st time; it is an oblate spheroid; prolate is egg-shape.

December 1, 2009 at 8:24 pm
(112) Zack says:

What I appreciate about Tom and Bob’s exchange, and what I think is fairly typical of atheists who post regularly on these pages, is the way they give and receive correction graciously.

To me, it provides an instructive contrast to theists who we see here, who so often seem to spend enormous energy explaining why a clear error isn’t really an error at all.

December 2, 2009 at 12:27 am
(113) Tom Edgar says:

Hell’s Bells Zack … I did what I advise the “Fundies” never to try. Corrected A G B. I’m embarrassed. The only thing I find amusing is that none of these semi literate Religionists
were able to pick up on it . But then who would expect them to? They are, probably, still searching in the dictionary
trying to find out what is a sphere.

December 2, 2009 at 12:17 pm
(114) Bob Wood says:

If the bible is the inerrant word of God why does it require any interpretation ? Shouldn’t it be pretty straight up ? Just curious…

December 2, 2009 at 7:51 pm
(115) Tom Edgar says:

Bob Wood.

You miss the point. EVERY word is the word of the Gods.
Contradictions, inexactitudes, fables, lies, fantasies,
tricks of legerdemain, all the fiction, facts and fables.

Every single word by the Gods. Mind you they had to get earthlings to do the writing, and most of that on clay tablets. I mean they could invent and manufacture a Universe, Solar systems, human beings, animals, vegetables and minerals, but couldn’t invent the pen, pencil, paper, printing or the computer. Humans did that.

Ah! He was the “Dictator” Humans merely the Stenographers.

Even more so with Allah and Mohammad. Neither did any writing, well we know the latter couldn’t, so many years later, others wrote what they claimed Allah had said through the mouth of his Prophet.

Jesus never left a single written page, many years later others wrote what they claimed he said. Sound familiar?

Even the Mormons carry on the tradition. Only the founder
ever saw those golden plates with funny writing and the followers have built, orally, on the claimed words.

History, any history, is a collection of stories and interpretations of events that the interpreter wishes others to believe. Churchill’s recollections of Gallipoli, Jutland WW1, Arnhem, Singapore, and so much more in WW2 are so different to the actual participants memories.
Try the History of the Raj in India from the perspective of the English, and the Indians. In Eire the Irish and the English, or for that matter the U S A from the Native Americans and the interlopers…..Very close similarity.

December 2, 2009 at 10:49 pm
(116) AtheistGeophysicistBob says:

Todd (103). The terms oblate and prolate spheroid means that the object IS NOT ROUND; it only resembles a sphere. Both sphere and round (like a ball), which are equivalent terms, are defined as 3-dimensional surfaces, all parts of which are equidistant from a fixed point (the center). Equidistant means PERFECTLY ROUND or SPHERICAL.

A round object, such as a wheel, has every part of its circumfrence equidistant from a common point (the center). Equidistant means PERFECTLY ROUND.

Thanks for the advice, Todd, but I choose to continue picking nits. If more Bible readers picked nits, there would be fewer believers.

December 3, 2009 at 10:55 am
(117) AtheistGeophysicistBob says:

Tom Edgar (108). Please don’t feel embarrassed. You did not contradict me in any way, only extended my comment. A spheroid can be either symmetrical or asymmetrical. Earth is an asymmetrical spheroid, as you stated. Actually, its very minor assymetry changes constantly as its equatorial bulge (the result of rotation) shifts very slightly in response to the 27 degree wobble of the polar axis, which causes the North Pole to describe a cone every 26,000 years.

Astronomers discovered the wobble many years ago, but was first measured precisely by GPS to within a few millimeters over a period of over 10 years, by Geoff Blewitt, a research geophysicist at the Univ. of Nevada at Reno, and colleagues Richard Gross, Jet Propulsion Laboratory; Peter Clarke, Univ. of Newcastle-upon-Tyne; and David Lavalle’e, Univ. of Colorado. The research (funded by NASA) and a theory of the cause of the wobble “GPS as a global sensor of systems Earth” was presented by Geoff Blewitt at a Joint Assembly of American Geophysical Union, Canadian Geophysical Union, The Society of Exploration Geophysicists (world’s most prestigous geophysical organization, of which I am a Member. I have been awarded Emeritus Member status beginning 1, 1, 2010, if I want it, for being a Member continuously for 30 years), and Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society, on May 20, 2004, in Palais des Congre’s, Montreal.

Several other theories of the cause of the wobble, and results of it have been proposed, but this Site is not the place to discuss it. If anyone is interested, I will briefly discuss Blewitt and colleagues’ theory, and mention a few possible results of the wobble proposed by others.

The

December 3, 2009 at 3:26 pm
(118) AtheistGeophysicistBob says:

Zack (107). Thanks for the comment. I appreciate it when anyone points out a mistake so I can correct it. Also, if someone disagrees with me, I enjoy commenting about the disagreement.

December 3, 2009 at 3:35 pm
(119) AtheistGeophysicistBob says:

Todd (103). Jesus said the world is flat; is it flat? Or did Jesus lie? When Fundies preach, I always ask this question and watch them run. None have yet answered.

December 4, 2009 at 11:44 am
(120) AtheistGeophysicistBob says:

listen to me (92) and Todd (103). Did both of you brilliant Fundies run from one (1) ignorant Atheist?

January 6, 2010 at 8:09 pm
(121) Luckettaj says:

Wow, this thread took a while to read through. I don’t want to bash on anyone here (or be bashed on for that matter), but I wanted to ask a few questions to see where they lead.
First of all, I am a Christian who believes in a literal 7 day creation by God. Now, please don’t assume that this belief automatically makes me ignorant/christianut/IDiot etc. I spent 7 years in military intelligence and will soon be graduating magna cum laude from the university I attend. I have spent quite a bit of time studying creation science, but not nearly as much time studying evolutionary science.

So here are my questions (followed by what I know on the subject):

1) Why is the moon so close to the earth? It is known that the moon is moving away from the earth. I don’t know the exact yearly distance, but I believe it’s something like a few inches a year. If the earth is 4.6 billion years old would that mean that the moon was touching earth at some point in time?

2) Why are there celestial bodies (including galaxies) that rotate in opposite directions? My understanding of the “Big Bang” theory is that all matter began in an infinitesimal region which spun faster and faster, eventually to the point of explosion (or w/e a better word is), creating the universe. The conservation of angular momentum says that in a frictionless environment this spinning would cause everything that breaks off from the center to spin in the same direction unless an object collides with another object.

3) Was there ever a “top-speed” of the Earth’s rotation? It is fact that the rotation of the Earth is slowing down which means that it was going faster. If the Earth is 4.6 billion years old the Coriolis effect would create winds at amazing speeds. Centrifugal force would knock everything off the planet.

4) Why isn’t there a larger desert on Earth? The Sahara desert grows by approximately 4 miles a year. The desert has been dated to have began approximately 4,000 years ago

5) Why aren’t there more people on the planet? World population growth charts make it quite feasible that a worldwide catastrophe (such as a flood) could have reset the population around 4,400 years ago. If modern humans have been around for 200,000 years what events have taken place to restrict the population to what it is now?

I have many more questions, but I can see that this post is already growing fairly large. If someone here can’t answer these questions can they please point me to a resource that can? Thanks for any input

January 6, 2010 at 9:03 pm
(122) Austin Cline says:

First of all, I am a Christian who believes in a literal 7 day creation by God. Now, please don’t assume that this belief automatically makes me ignorant/christianut/IDiot etc.

It does make you ignorant — just as ignorant as if you believed the sun orbited the earth. That said, ignorance isn’t necessarily bad. I’m ignorant of lots and lots of things too. Everyone is. Being ignorant says nothing about one’s intelligence or character because even the most moral and most intelligent people in the world are ignorant of lots of things.

What does say something about one’s intelligence and character is what a person does about their ignorance. An intelligent person tries to cure their ignorance when it becomes relevant and necessary. A person of good character doesn’t persist in ignorance when it appears necessary to preserve some ideology.

1) Why is the moon so close to the earth?

Because it was once touching the earth. Indeed, it was once part of the earth. This is basic geology. We didn’t have the hard evidence we needed to prove that until astronauts came back with rocks from the moon, but it’s no longer question that the moon was formed when some other massive body smashed into the earth and created two new bodies with related mineral and chemical characteristics.

2) Why are there celestial bodies (including galaxies) that rotate in opposite directions?

There is no reason why it shouldn’t. Even if everything started rotating in the same direction, a collision could cause a body to start going in the opposite direction.

3) Was there ever a “top-speed” of the Earth’s rotation?

Yes, there was a time when the planet rotated faster than it does now. It’s slowing down due to friction. Days were once… oh, around 7 or 8 hours. I don’t remember exactly. Yes, it would have been awful to be standing on the surface then, even ignoring all the other bad conditions.

4) Why isn’t there a larger desert on Earth? The Sahara desert grows by approximately 4 miles a year. The desert has been dated to have began approximately 4,000 years ago

You seem to be assuming that environmental factors only work in one direction. There can be all sorts of changes that cause deserts to grow more slowly or even reverse for a time. Glaciers once grew to cover Europe, then retreated, then advanced, then retreated, etc.

5) Why aren’t there more people on the planet?

Because population couldn’t grow very fast when we were hunter-gatherers. I think the first large-scale towns/cities started around 26,000 years ago and that’s when populations started to take off: women could have babies faster, more kids were needed, etc. Hunter-gatherer groups are estimated to have been around 30 people total and be stable in size over time.

January 19, 2010 at 2:11 pm
(123) Todd says:

Wow. Finally, some new and interesting questions!

Creation science is an oxymoron. Science changes it’s theories to match the evidence. Faith changes the evidence to match the belief. It’s not anything that should be called science.

i wouldn’t be proud of placing so high in a school that would let you graduate with such silly ideas. It’s like being first in the special olympics.

They didn’t educate you. i’d ask for my money and time back.

January 19, 2010 at 4:01 pm
(124) Marc says:

Agreed, Todd. You can’t study ‘creation science’ since it doesn’t exist. Theists attempt to fill gaps in their knowledge with faith, not increase their scientific knowledge. The literal xian ‘creation’ is ALL faith and no science.

Also, agreed. If you are studying in a university that has not given you a thorough background in evolutionary science they are severly lacking. I can only guess that this is a school run by a religious organization?

If you really want some answers to your question #5, read ‘The Axemaker’s Gift’ by Burke and Ornstein.

January 19, 2010 at 7:05 pm
(125) Tom Edgar says:

If ever there was an example of education not necessarily imparting intelligence this is it.

Military intelligence. Now THAT is an oxymoron.

A close friend of mine, in WW2, was an Intelligence Officer, he arrived at a posting in Northern Queensland to be greeted by the irate Commanding Officer who, furiously, remarked. “I didn’t ask for a bloody Intelligence Officer, I asked if they could , for once, send me an intelligent Officer.” Same applies to the Government Intelligence Services.

Austin has to be right. If he has studied “Creation Science.” It must be a Fundie college. No respectable institution of higher learning would stoop so low as to have that as a course.

Why ask the questions here for Austin and others to so easily,answer? You could have found the answers yourself just by “Googling”. The first thing that should be taught is “How to learn.” You learn by investigating, not by just accepting somebody else’s thoughts.
A hefty dose of skepticism is the antidote to any indoctrination, religious or military.

January 19, 2010 at 7:43 pm
(126) WhiteKnightLeo says:

I suppose that the basic problem here is conceptual.
All monotheistic religions have a “static universe” concept that is central to the religion. This is why such questions get asked, as though they were supposed to be difficult for nonbelievers to answer. Similar conceptual problems abound for other doctrines.
For example, the “flat Earth” concept is central to both Christianity and to Islam. In the New Testament, there is a passage where Satan takes Jesus to the top of a tall mountain, and can somehow “see all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor”. There is also the idea of “ascending into heaven”: this, too, is a flat Earth concept.
In Islam (I don’t remember where I read this story, I think it was Hitchens) believers must pray towards Mecca, and in the Western Hemisphere this means east. However, the straightest path to Mecca isn’t east, its through the ground. Does that mean that prayers have mass (or else why would they curve around the Earth to strike Mecca properly? why wouldn’t they travel straight out into space?)? Islam, too, talks about Muhammed
“flying bodily to Heaven atop a winged horse”.
These things reflect the ancient “three-tiered universe” concept, one that has been outdated since ancient Greece when [I don't recall the name] determined that the Earth was a sphere, and accurately calculated the circumference using sunlight angles and properties of spheres. Christendom forgot this, because the use of Greek pagan texts, other than Plato, were forbidden. Since Islam got all of its concepts from Judaism and Christianity, anything that Christendom believed formed the basis of Muslim belief.
The fact that these ideas are -conclusive evidence- of the time period in which they were written, and -proof- of the fact that the people who wrote these books had no idea what they were talking about, never occurs to those who read these scriptural fairy tales.

January 19, 2010 at 7:51 pm
(127) Zack says:

You could have found the answers yourself just by “Googling”. The first thing that should be taught is “How to learn.” You learn by investigating, not by just accepting somebody else’s thoughts. — Tom Edgar on January 19, 2010 at 7:05 pm

Amen, brother. The answers can be located in less time than he took to post the questions. Makes me wonder about his intelligence-gathering skills. No wonder we’re still in Afghanistan.

I also notice that there has been no thanks or any other response to Austin’s answers. How much real interest do you suppose Luckettaj has in them?

January 21, 2010 at 3:17 pm
(128) Gerald Moore says:

Interesting thread. I don’t have anything else to do, so here’s my two cents…

Regarding comment 116, I was both entertained and educated by several great programs on either the Science channel or the History channel regarding the current theory of earth’s moon formation. Good graphics and good explanations. Perhaps some of you folks have seen some of them. Luckettaj must have never watch these channels or his curiosity about the subject would have prompted him watch one or two of them. Regarding the second question, I had never heard anything like “spinning faster and faster eventually to the point of explosion” in regard to the Big Bang theory. After googling I found it is a mistake made by Kent Hovind when trying to explain the Big Bang. He was pointing to a slide of stellar matter against a backdrop of stars and perhaps conflating solar system formation with the Big Bang. The third question is also addressed in quite a few science channel programs. I can’t recall the program names.

Why aren’t there larger deserts on earth? Science channel has lots of shows on plate tectonics. Large continents and mountain building causes deserts. Mountains ranges and oceans come and go and continents collide and split apart distributing water in various ways around the earth.

What explains the current earth population? The equilibrium between birth, death, resources, wars, catastrophes, famines and plagues has determined the current population. The population of Europe was “reset” several times due to the plague, wars and climate/resources and today is controlled through knowledge of human reproductive chemistry and, as in China, by laws limiting family size. Graphs can only predict if variables remain constant (population growth). Besides, the Earth is bigger than the middle east, populations grew and collapsed throughout the world (asia, americas, etc.) well before 4400 years ago. Could this be more Kent Hovind stuff?

This “soon be graduating magna cum laude” has been studying “creation science” too long. I wonder how long would it take to know all there is to know about “creation science”? “God did it” answers all the questions. One might need to learn what science can’t now explain in order to fill in “see, God must have done it”. To bad we have been to to moon and now have good explanations for questions 1 and 3. A few years earlier and science would not have had the answers yet. Perhaps by the year 2310 science will have worked out the mechanism for the formation of the first biological “cell” and why life develops in planetary systems. Usually, however, creationists ask questions that have already been answered. Why can’t they google the answers or just watch the science channel?

January 24, 2010 at 10:53 am
(129) Pimpinello says:

Dear readers of this site, how can you dare to reidicule somebody like Luckettaj who is going to graduate summa cum laude and has worked a long time in mlilitary inelligence. Can there be a better intelligence then the military one. Such a guy is almost infallible. His convictions are sound and his reasoning very, very lucid. Philosophically the most interesting part was that he states that god created the world in 7 not only six days as the same bible he believes is seems to say. No, is Luckettaj’s answer. Very insightful. On the seventh day god rested, but this is the point. With his resting he sanctified the lazy guys who do not really their duty in researching the truth. E. g. that the earth is a disc and not – as some atheists would have it – a sphere. That there are angels as is proven beyond any doubt by Thomas Aquinas, that the pope is infallible… eh… the protestants do not believe this? Luckettaj, please help me, there must be some murky reasoning hidden I can’t solve myself.

April 7, 2010 at 1:07 am
(130) Naved Haqqi says:

On Evolution: When I look at my face in the mirror and smile, ooooh… I have cool K9s!!! I may have used them when I was a kid, but they’ve been pretty useless ever since. Wonder why do I have them??!!

On God: Can’t seem to connect with him somehow. In a given day, I have to rely on my choices alone. Never once did I hear a voice telling me otherwise, or stopping me when I was….err you know what I mean.

But wait! I do know of a God! It helps me earn my living, it answers my questions, It solves my problems, It helps me vent, like I am doing now, and so on…Come to think of it, I should say OMI instead of OMG! Fellas, is there a church, a mosque, a temple or a synagogue where I can go and pray to Internet? Nevermind, I just called my phone company….they are making arrangements for my worship, and yes they charge too, just a different way.

April 18, 2010 at 8:09 pm
(131) listen to me says:

hey havent been on a while

i read ur comments about how long a day was and i know that…..

god said that to him a day is a thousand years soo my theory is……

God said he made everithing in 6 days… who knows it could be 6 DAYS or 6,000 years. when he made adam and eve and were kicked out…. the bible doesent say how long they stayed untill they were kicked out so… they could have been there 4.3 billion years like scientist think the EARTH is(god made both the garden were they lived and the earth.. who knows wat god was doing to earth before they were kicked out…maby the fossils left behind can tell this) or they could have been there less time. wat i am sure of is that that the book of adam(not included in the bible) says that when humans apeared in the earth(not in the garden) they lived 4000 years untill jesus came(BC-AD) plus 2010 which is 6010 years.( they say they still found human bones?) in the bible theres also stories of giants in the earth which were killed by the isrealites.(the jewish calendar starts in 4000BC to the present 2010AD and so on) NO ONE is sure how old the earth is NO ONE but there are theories( im a christian but still know that the bible doesent say the age of the earth). also….. israel and arabs are from the saem family(both sides are correct when they say jerusalem is theirs but the isrealites had it first) abraham had ismael and isacc. from ismael(who was kicked out of the tribe) came the arabs. from isacc came the isrealites. adolfo hitler came from the isrealites(he was jew and german he turned wacko becouse he couldent draw a hand and become a famouse artist whoch was his dream) . terrorists(9/11), sadam husanne, nabuconoser(from babylone), and islams come from arabs. haly wars…. catholics killed gods people and thought they did the right thing(i think jews were bad and some werent)wacko. islamss did the same things.

and i thought we were talking about lucy? why all the religion fuzz?

and when i said compass.org.. i never visited the website i saw their television shows(the videos were to expensive)

April 18, 2010 at 9:10 pm
(132) listen to me says:

o yea i almost forgot u guys i dint answer couse a year later i was curious who would answer back.

first george(95) prove gods beggining?

heres ur answer
god has no beggining. our brains are to small to understand but heres an easy way tu put it….

wat is space? anithing w/o mass. space is every where or how could u fit then? space has always existed too like God. burned! also God said his a verb(when i run i do an action(a verb)) god is just a name we gave him. replace gods name with space and spaces name with god. now wat? ur going to go on and fight that space is fake? i belive in spacew and good. if there was a religiona bout space i would fallow it. the moto would be (socae is spacw and he wants us to move around and move) lmao! gods religion(he is wat gives us life the moto(fallow him to give life) very similar no? lol

heres my brainiac answer!
this is fun.

and i still think lucy is an orangutan skeleton and its not even a complete skeleton!

how can scientist even measure lucys skull! its incomplete it only has 3 little skull pieces and the jaws!
everyone go too google..images…and put fossil remains of lucy to see wat i mean that it doesent look like anyone can measure anithing from that skeleten but the jaw and back legs. it doesent even have hands or complete ribs! they dont evewn look like ribs there completely small and straight sticks not curved like a ( they look like this.. |

(104) Atheist u say psalms says the heaven is holded by pillars, unicorns and other things! thats a lie! and if it does sound like something like that… psalms is a poem book for songs! u liar

Atheistgeophistbob (94)
ur a ignorant(im being polite could have said something worse!):D

listen to my other comment before this one and compass.org was a mistake website i put.

still not satisfied? i can answer any questions.
by the way i always wanted to talk by email i have one but i have no comtacts. yust ask me for my email!

ill answer anithing!!!!!!! u were burned by a teen!

April 18, 2010 at 9:20 pm
(133) listen to me says:

o yea (94) atheistgeowatever BOB the pillars holding the skie is actually and asian folktale

u got to be carefull wat u sa and not be an ignorant
lmao:D

April 20, 2010 at 7:31 pm
(134) listen to me says:

sorry about all the spelling errors i dont have time to edit

April 23, 2010 at 9:26 pm
(135) Biscuitboogie says:

“Oh wait, I get it. That’s the pay-off. You don’t have to answer to anyone except your self.”

“I’m guessing you’ve never heard of the police”

Austin, thank you for the longest laugh I’ve had in a long time.
I’ve never posted before, just followed, but I had to say thanks for the laugh.

April 26, 2010 at 2:57 am
(136) Lisa says:

All I can say is…wow…listen to me…some people might actually listen to you if your grammar wasn’t so poor that I could actually understand what you’re saying. I just spent the last half hour reading this whole thing. It astounds me at the level of ignorance and arrogance christians have. What I also find interesting is that most of the creationists that posted on here never bothered to check back or if they did they never had another argument to post…wonder why that is?

April 26, 2010 at 12:26 pm
(137) Todd says:

“sorry about all the spelling errors i dont have time to edit”

Liar. You’re just lazy and ignorant.

May 3, 2010 at 11:42 am
(138) Ninja says:

I hope one day someone can see all of this fighting and read my post… I dont see non believers going to war for god…. but i do see all of us going to war because of him… Higher your senses and see what i mean

May 3, 2010 at 6:51 pm
(139) listen to me says:

fianlly someone answers i wonder if the guy who asked this question even reads this anymore

May 3, 2010 at 6:53 pm
(140) listen to me says:

anyone can believe wat ever they want im just putting the facts on my side of thye argument

May 3, 2010 at 6:59 pm
(141) listen to me says:

here is a premis

1.we cant prove that god doesent exist

2.we cant prove god exists

3. therefore noone can prove that god exists or doesent exist

its all based on opinions and facts people!!!!!!!!!!
wat ever u believe cant be proven

the bible can be a proof but sime people cant prove its real

scientific hypothesis can be real and reasonable but no one was there to see wat really happened.

who likes ice cream:D

May 3, 2010 at 7:22 pm
(142) Austin Cline says:

1.we cant prove that god doesent exist

2.we cant prove god exists

3. therefore noone can prove that god exists or doesent exist

And how do you know any of this?

May 25, 2010 at 2:08 am
(143) Lisa says:

Austin, why are you still giving a semi-literate kid any attention at all? I don’t even understand what he says in many of his posts due to his poor grammar and even poorer spelling. Don’t feed it…it’ll grow!

August 4, 2010 at 8:47 am
(144) rofl says:

well… this is a big fail. He never asked about theology or about God in general. He was asking about Lucy and whether or not Lucy was fake.
to the asker: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080622204822AACLK7M
you’re much better off with this explination. everyone here is silly. grow up please.

August 4, 2010 at 11:18 am
(145) Austin Cline says:

well… this is a big fail. He never asked about theology or about God in general. He was asking about Lucy and whether or not Lucy was fake.

Since the only reasons for doubting Lucy are religion and theology, it’s only natural that those topics come up.

you’re much better off with this explination.

How can anyone be “better off” with an “explanation” that is little more than lies?

everyone here is silly. grow up please.

That’s exactly what I think when I see pseudo-scientific nonsense from creationists: grow up.

October 6, 2010 at 7:54 pm
(146) I dont get you says:

I realize this topic is about lucy and im a bit late on the input and please dont judge my intelligence on incorrect spelling and horrible punctuation but there is so much more about every little thing mentioned like evolution in some aspects can be disproved along with intelligent design look into the types of evolution and take a step back science and religion are suppose to co inside they could be argued to be based on one another. from my understanding looking back on history the first things written down were bibles and palms (the palms im pretty sure were written down first in the golden age) but this may just be my ignorance talking but i think everything we base our world and our lives on is from the bible and please dont correct me on that statement because i realize anyone could have a feild day with it. what im trying to say is no one thinks its funny that evolution is basically the exact opposite of the bible. which i find to be quite humorous. and as far as you being an atheist well unless you truly believe in nothing other than whats literally here in font of you i wouldnt consider yourself an atheist a lot of people who consider themselves atheist but many of those people have some sort of belief system which doesnt have to be God or gods but even evolution itself could be considered a religion or belief system. you cannot dismiss that God doesnt exist (if your looking at whatever you want to call evidence) but also all the so called evidence of things existing billions, millions, or even thousands of years. what im trying to say is the way us humans classify evidence is all by theories and hypotheses which arent proven fact. even the way we determine the age of things supposedly is flawed. how do we know what is fact and what is just speculation or theory. you as an atheist how do you believe in evolution even when you do not know for fact if it is true. things beyond even a few thousand years ago are not certain in our wolrds history. im not trying to claiming one side or another and i realize there are many flaws in what i am saying and i may not be explain myself well. but i tried i dont know your values or belief system im trying to say almost everyone has one and people cannot say one side is right over another its all about experiences. and as for the Christianity becoming a minority well basically 2 out of 6 people are christian and thats world wide i dont foresee that happening but then again a minority to what im pretty sure its only religious competitor is Islam and thats just by the statistics. Christianity a minority to atheism i honestly hope not, this subject is so deep its hard to get a point across and explain it well. but religion affects everything in our world, behavior, politics, values, opinions, views, our history everything in our world revolves around religion and this is one of the topics id like to see you try to prove me wrong. and i think atheists become atheists either because they dont like an idea or concept or either they dont care. but it just amazes me how people just dont acknowledge simple ideas like these.

October 6, 2010 at 9:08 pm
(147) Austin Cline says:

I realize this topic is about lucy and im a bit late on the input and please dont judge my intelligence on incorrect spelling and horrible punctuation

It’s impossible not to.

(the palms im pretty sure were written down first in the golden age)

Psalms?

What golden age?

but this may just be my ignorance talking but i think everything we base our world and our lives on is from the bible and please dont correct me on that statement because i realize anyone could have a feild day with it.

Why shouldn’t people correct you on something you get so incorrect? The statement is completely false.

what im trying to say is no one thinks its funny that evolution is basically the exact opposite of the bible.

How so?

which i find to be quite humorous. and as far as you being an atheist well unless you truly believe in nothing other than whats literally here in font of you i wouldnt consider yourself an atheist

You’d be wrong on that, too. Atheists simply lack belief in gods.

a lot of people who consider themselves atheist but many of those people have some sort of belief system which doesnt have to be God or gods

Yes, they are atheists — everyone without belief in gods.

but even evolution itself could be considered a religion or belief system.

No more so than plate tectonics — which is to say, not at all.

you cannot dismiss that God doesnt exist (if your looking at whatever you want to call evidence) but also all the so called evidence of things existing billions, millions, or even thousands of years.

Why not?

what im trying to say is the way us humans classify evidence is all by theories and hypotheses which arent proven fact.

Evolution is a proven fact.

even the way we determine the age of things supposedly is flawed.

OK, demonstrate how.

how do we know what is fact and what is just speculation or theory.

Facts are confirmed by evidence.

you as an atheist how do you believe in evolution even when you do not know for fact if it is true.

I know it is as true as plate tectonics.

things beyond even a few thousand years ago are not certain in our wolrds history.

Why not?

im not trying to claiming one side or another and i realize there are many flaws in what i am saying

Flaws?

but i tried i dont know your values or belief system im trying to say almost everyone has one and people cannot say one side is right over another its all about experiences.

Why not?

and as for the Christianity becoming a minority well basically 2 out of 6 people are christian and thats world wide i dont foresee that happening but then again a minority to what im pretty sure its only religious competitor is Islam and thats just by the statistics.

But “minority” is only very relevant in the context of a specific political unit.

Christianity a minority to atheism i honestly hope not,

Why not?

but religion affects everything in our world, behavior, politics, values, opinions, views, our history everything in our world revolves around religion

And not for the better.

and i think atheists become atheists either because they dont like an idea or concept or either they dont care.

Or because they don’t think there are any good reasons to believe in gods.

but it just amazes me how people just dont acknowledge simple ideas like these.

I acknowledge all of your simple ideas. I simply acknowledge that they are all simply false.

February 13, 2011 at 6:45 pm
(148) Brainwashed says:

So I just left the museum of natural history and my belief in evolution has been destroyed.. As I walked through the “proof” of evolution i ended up talking to a black man… This fellow had very similar facial features to some of the “early” humans.. During conversation he added that if this evolution is true he must be at least 100,000 years behind. So.. Black people are still trying to evolve into white people but not quite there yet? Also if we evolved from aps then well someone tell me why there ate still aps around? Maybe some of them missed the evolution banquet…lol. Macro evolution is the biggest lie taught to recent generations.

February 22, 2011 at 12:10 pm
(149) Todd says:

Brainwashed,

You’re giving me a Poe’s Law moment. Are you trolling or incredibly ignorant?

February 22, 2011 at 10:21 pm
(150) Zack says:

If you saw a museum exhibit that actually claimed blacks are trying to evolve into whites, then by all means name the museum and the exhibit. You won’t, of course, because you made up the whole thing — a trait one finds all too often in creationists.

As for why there are still apes, there are two points which you ought to understand.

The first: humans did not evolve from modern apes — humans and modern apes share a common ancestor.

The second: a new species does not always displace its ancestor. Your parents didn’t vanish from the scene just because you were born… or did they?

October 30, 2011 at 5:39 am
(151) OZAtheist says:

Touche Zack, well said. Brainwashed parents may well have abandoned him, or vanished, after they dropped him on his head.

February 22, 2011 at 12:58 pm
(152) James says:

I get really tired of these sophomoric, asinine “discussions” about whether god exists or not and whether evolution is a hoax or not. It all boils down to three simple points:

1) If you state that your god exists, PROVE IT! It’s that simple.

2) Belief systems such as Christianity remove the believer’s ability to reason.

3) There is a PREPONDERANCE of evidence for evolution.

February 24, 2011 at 10:05 am
(153) The Big Blue Frog says:

J: In order to ascertain the chances of something happening, we have to know how many times it has been possible for that thing to occur. For instance, if we have 100 pennies and we want to find out how likely it is that 50 of them will land on heads and 50 on tails, we need to know how many times the whole set of coins has been flipped.

But if we look at a pile of 100 coins and 50 of them are on heads and 50 on tails, then it doesn’t matter what the odds were. It happened anyway. Long odds don’t matter when you’ve got the data to show an event has already happened.

February 24, 2011 at 3:15 pm
(154) Austin Cline says:

Long odds don’t matter when you’ve got the data to show an event has already happened.

It matters when we’re trying to figure out what the odds for or against an event were before it occurred. Why would we care about this? Because we might care whether the event was rigged. Long odds matter a lot if we were on the wrong side of a long odds bet that someone else won. Casinos care about whether the odds against some event are long or short because they have to pay out and they don’t want to pay out if the customer slipped in loaded dice.

In retrospect, the odds of an event happening are exactly “1″ when it’s already happened, but if odds before hand were one in a million we are justified in wondering if the dice were loaded.

October 21, 2011 at 4:34 pm
(155) Mike says:

Odds are the concern when things are left to chance. Theists know that chance was not at play and atheist need millions and billions of years to justify their long odds. How long does it take light to travel to earth from Alpha Centauri ? What if the light was already half way here? Created Here?

October 28, 2011 at 8:20 pm
(156) OZAtheist says:

It is such fun reading the posts of theist evolution denying imbeciles. I must admit they can be creative non the less.

I remember being told by one of these folk that a fossil once thought to be a human skull was later identified to be the kneecap of an elephant! This was the cornerstone of his argument to dismiss evolutionary theory.

March 22, 2012 at 3:28 am
(157) randini692000 says:

Maybe the fact that the “scientist” who found it admitted that the femur that seemed to prove it walked upright was found over 10 miles away and in a different level of strata. It was just another person looking to make some money and get some fame of a fake.

March 22, 2012 at 12:18 pm
(158) Austin Cline says:

Maybe the fact that the “scientist” who found it admitted that the femur that seemed to prove it walked upright was found over 10 miles away and in a different level of strata. It was just another person looking to make some money and get some fame of a fake.

Evidence, please.

March 29, 2012 at 9:58 pm
(159) Jesse says:

Maybe someone can help explain to me how the dating is done for fossils. I know there is carbon dating but it’s inaccurate past a certain amount of years (prove me wrong). What I’m getting at is when scientists date a particular fossil and find it to be X amount of years old and then archeologists also date something say the dead sea scrolls for instance and find it to be dated to be X amount of years old then because they would both be dated using similar methods then they should both be counted as accurate right? So for instance, say part of the dead sea scrolls is dated around 403 B.C.E and there’s a particular prophecy that is mentioned and that particular prophecy takes place 70 years after when it was written than how is that possible?

March 30, 2012 at 11:21 am
(160) Austin Cline says:

Maybe someone can help explain to me how the dating is done for fossils.

The information is readily available, not just on Wikipedia, but science texts. So if you need help, what exactly do you need help with? I’m assuming you’ve already invested some time and effort into educating yourself, so which parts are you having trouble with and why?

So for instance, say part of the dead sea scrolls is dated around 403 B.C.E and there’s a particular prophecy that is mentioned and that particular prophecy takes place 70 years after when it was written than how is that possible?

Depends. How genuine is the prophecy, really? A genuine prophecy has to be demonstrably older than the event, it has to be specific rather than vague or ambiguous (see most horoscopes), and it has to be something that an educated human wouldn’t be able to guess simply by observing events around them (i.e., predicting war in Europe in 1938).

May 14, 2012 at 12:32 pm
(161) Joel Montes says:

OK, demonstrate how.

Demonstrate how you can PROVE evolution is true

September 12, 2012 at 8:14 pm
(162) Paul says:

I read thru this thread and each side responds by saying “Prove it” but no one has offered up any true proof. I’ve learned that both sides lie to prove their theory. So, what is the truth? To me, you still need faith to believe either side.
Evolution – a big bang happened where all the nothingness came together, exploded, and over billions of years, we evolved to this wonderful, argumentative, human form.
Creationism – God, a superior being, created us and everything
I believe each species evolve within their species, like wolves becoming dogs, but we don’t know if a minnow can become a dog. Evolution biologists use time as their ally to explain how a minnow can become a dog. Well, if time is what it takes, science must disprove the factors that limit the time theory.

Why are petrified trees standing upright through different layers of strata, each layer being millions of years old?
Why are oldest historical documents only approximately 4,000 years old?
Why are human footprints found next to dinosaur footprints in the same fossilized stone?
Why are there pictures drawn by many different ancient civilizations depicting all kinds of dinosaurs with humans?
If the moon is moving away a couple of inches a year and the earth is billions of years old, then how close was the moon billions of years ago?
Pangaea theory….why is Africa 40% smaller and we are missing some countries in there?
Why did it take millions of years to create oil from fossils when oil has been created in less than a day by pressurizing and heating organic material?
Some of these come from Hovind videos, which can be farfetched in some areas, but the questions are valid.
A completely flooded earth would easily bury all the organic material to create oil quickly. The earthly flood is told in many legends in many different cultures so could the legends be true?
Until evolutionist biologists can disprove the factors limiting an old earth theory, I can’t find the faith to believe their theory.

September 15, 2012 at 9:04 am
(163) Austin Cline says:

To me, you still need faith to believe either side.

Science doesn’t require faith.

Evolution – a big bang happened where all the nothingness came together, exploded, and over billions of years, we evolved to this wonderful, argumentative, human form.

No. That’s not evolutionary theory. For you to say it is reveals that you haven’t actually studied the subject and don’t actually know what you’re talking about.

I believe each species evolve within their species, like wolves becoming dogs

Wolves and dogs aren’t the same species, they are the same genus. Once again, you demonstrate just how ignorant you are.

Why are petrified trees standing upright through different layers of strata, each layer being millions of years old?

First, cite a single example of that happening.

Why are oldest historical documents only approximately 4,000 years old?

They aren’t. The oldest writing goes back 6000-8000 years ago; cave paintings go back 20,000-30,000 year ago.

Your “source” is clearly Hovind, who is a liar.

Why are human footprints found next to dinosaur footprints in the same fossilized stone?

They aren’t. Hovind is a liar.

Why are there pictures drawn by many different ancient civilizations depicting all kinds of dinosaurs with humans?

There aren’t.

If the moon is moving away a couple of inches a year and the earth is billions of years old, then how close was the moon billions of years ago?

Well, about 4.5 billion years ago it was probably part of the Earth. The best explanation for how it formed was a large impact that broke off a piece of the early earth.

You’d know this if you studied science instead of reading lies written by people like Hovind.

Pangaea theory….why is Africa 40% smaller and we are missing some countries in there?

We aren’t missing any countries.

Why did it take millions of years to create oil from fossils when oil has been created in less than a day by pressurizing and heating organic material?

You can short the time by increasing the heat and pressure. Just like you can cook food faster with higher heat/pressure.

Some of these come from Hovind videos, which can be farfetched in some areas, but the questions are valid.

No, they aren’t valid because they are based on lies.

A completely flooded earth would easily bury all the organic material to create oil quickly.

No, it wouldn’t, because it wouldn’t create sufficient heat and pressure.

Until evolutionist biologists can disprove the factors limiting an old earth theory, I can’t find the faith to believe their theory.

All of those “factors” have long since been disproven, in the sense that science has long since rejected the lies of pseudoscientific creationists.

And you’d know this if you read science. The fact that you haven’t gone to read primary scientific sources demonstrates that you aren’t really looking for answers.

September 16, 2012 at 3:55 pm
(164) Paul says:

Wow Austin, you have succeeded in calling me ignorant more than throwing out facts. You state writings being found older than 4,000 years and that heat and pressure can cause oil quickly. Oh… And a perfectly round moon was part of the earth billions of years ago. Tiger Woods must have used a 9 iron to knock that one into orbit. Everything else was called a Hovind lie or I’m ignorant. No wonder creationists think so little of evolutionists.

Your fact of heat and pressure creating oil quickly actually does give credence to the young earth theory of everything being buried in a flood. Imagine all the animals and plants being buried in all that dirt and water.

Carbon dating is said to be only accurate to 50k years, which disproves a bible earth theory assuming your calculations are correct that carbon has fluctuated some but not a whole bunch.

So Austin, please point me in the right direction for the answers I’m seeking without calling me ignorant. Give me videos or books to read that will prove a billion year old earth and that we came from a single organism.

September 20, 2012 at 8:13 am
(165) Austin Cline says:

Wow Austin, you have succeeded in calling me ignorant more than throwing out facts.

Actually, I provided several facts; you, in contrast, were wrong in everything you wrote.

Oh… And a perfectly round moon was part of the earth billions of years ago.

You demonstrate once again that you haven’t made any effort to study any science.

No wonder creationists think so little of evolutionists.

People who have nothing to run on but faith are often upset at those who bring facts and science to the table.

Your fact of heat and pressure creating oil quickly actually does give credence to the young earth theory of everything being buried in a flood.

Except for the fact that a flood wouldn’t produce enough heat and pressure to create oil quickly.

Carbon dating is said to be only accurate to 50k years

The accuracy depends on the method.

So Austin, please point me in the right direction for the answers I’m seeking without calling me ignorant.

No.

First, you have to acknowledge your own ignorance on a subject before you will ever be able to start a genuine search for answers. If you think you already know it all, then you won’t really believe that you need answers because you’ll be convinced that you already have them all.

Once you are mature enough to acknowledge that you are indeed ignorant of quite a bit of science, the path before you should be obvious: start reading basic science texts that have been written by genuine, working scientists.

June 11, 2013 at 11:36 pm
(166) becky says:

I’m a christian, and not a scientist or super smart, but i tend to be very logical. What bugs me about evolution is this, if we all evolved from one organism to another, to survive at a higher level, then why do we humans not have all of the best evolutionary triats. Why aren’t our offspring smart enough to walk at birth, and why don’t they follow their parents around like little ducks to stay safe, and why don’t we have speed superior to those animals that are a danger to us, and why can’t we just fly away from danger, if evolution causes the mutants to live who have the superior traits for survival, then why don’t we as the top of the evolutionary chain, have all the superior traits?

Leave a Comment

Line and paragraph breaks are automatic. Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title="">, <b>, <i>, <strike>

©2014 About.com. All rights reserved.