Arizona Biology Teacher Mocks Jesus, Biblical Creation in Lecture Slide

TEMPE, AZ – A biology teacher who describes himself as ‘an open-minded skeptic’ purportedly showed a slide in one of his classes that mocks Jesus and describes biblical creation as ‘magic.’

Christofer Bang is a lecturer at Arizona State University who teaches biology and ecology courses. According to his academic profile page, his areas of “expertise” include ecology, evolution and plant biology.

According to news reports last week, Bang mocked biblical creation and Christianity during a lecture in his biology class. A student who wished to remain anonymous shared information on Bang’s lecture with Campus Reform.

According to the student, Bang began his lecture by showing a slide titled “Evolution vs. Creationism.” The slide featured two cartoons—one depicting Charles Darwin with the words “genetics,” “adaption,” and “natural selection,” along with images of an ape-like creature gradually evolving into a man. The other cartoon showed a caricature of Jesus creating a man, with the words “zap!” and “magic!”

Bang reportedly showed the evolution vs. creation slide in his BIO 100 class, which covers basic principles of biology. The student who anonymously captured the picture and sent it to Campus Reform explained that “the actual presentation itself, beyond that slide, didn’t really discuss creationism.”

According to the student, several students thought the slide was inappropriate.

“Quite a few students in the lecture hall were bothered by the picture, and it didn’t contribute to the lecture besides adding spite,” the student said.

Sandy Leander, manager of media relations for ASU’s School of Life Sciences, told Campus Reform that the slide was intended to stimulate discussion about evolution and creation.

  • Connect with Christian News

“The image you are referring to is on the title page of a [PowerPoint] and sets the stage for a discussion about the extremes of the public discourse on evolution/creationism,” she stated.

Bang describes himself as “an open-minded skeptic” on his Twitter profile. His personal Twitter page features Tweets mocking pro-life groups, Fox News, and various conservative political figures.

On his personal blog, Bang says he tries to cultivate “sound skepticism” in his students.

“In my teaching, I try to engage students using examples from familiar surroundings to increase their awareness of nature,” he states. “We are constantly exposed to examples of bad science in media, so by exposing flaws in ‘sciency’ products I try to teach my students sound skepticism and critical thinking.”

After reports of Bang’s lecture surfaced last week, many people expressed dismay and concern, saying the disparaging of Christianity in a public classroom was grossly inappropriate.

“All the professor needed to do was state the facts about evolution and move on,” one commenter opined. “There’s no need to attack Christianity in the process.”

“Professors’ opinion on religion has no place in the discussion,” another asserted. “Their only stake should be in the presentation of data and facts. Let students draw their own conclusions about how it will interact and intersect with their faith and understanding of their religious doctrine.”

“Instead of ridiculing the absurdity of Christianity, perhaps Professor Bang should learn a little more about the U.S. Constitution, read the Federalist papers, or take a religion class,” a third commenter suggested. “At the very least he could cite a verse from Genesis in his next presentation.”

Photos: Campus Reform


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Gary

    The “expert” on evolution should know that the universe, and living things, had to be created or they would not exist. He should know that, but I wonder if he does? If he knows it, then his promotion of evolution is a scam. If he does not know it, then he is not an expert.

    • Glenn Boyce

      On what basis do you assert that the “the universe, and living things, had to be created or they would not exist”? That’s an assertion without any backup.

      • Gary

        See my reply above to billybobibb.

    • http://billybobsbibleblog.blogspot.com/ billybobbibb

      If all things require a creator, then so does God, and God’s creator, and so on ad infinitum. Even with this assumption, exempting God from being created is disingenuous special pleading.

      You may be an “expert” in the Bible, but I wouldn’t expect you to have all 51 books memorized, down to who begat who. Likewise, there are many unanswered questions in science, and unlike religion, science adapts its knowledge based on new information as our understanding of the universe grows incrementally.

      • Peter Leh

        If we can assume the universe has always existed without a creator and to exempt the universe from being created will that not also be as you say, “disingenuous special pleading.”?

      • Gary

        All material things require a Creator. You have never seen anything make itself, and nothing just pops into existence without being caused to. Everything your eyes can see, and many things your eyes cannot see had to be made by someone who had the ability to make them, and the desire to make them. You didn’t make yourself, and neither did any other biological thing.

        • James Grimes

          Gary, the Atheists believe nothing x nothing = everything. Get them to explain that one. Blessings Brother.

    • M Green

      I am sure Dr. Bang’s PhD. is worthless compared to the wisdom of “Gary the Truck Guy”…

      • Spicy Ray Swinehart-Patrick

        Is there something wrong with his picture of a truck?

        • Liam

          We could all touch Gary’s his truck. The same is not true of anyone and Gary’s “god”.

          • Spicy Ray Swinehart-Patrick

            Yeah, so what?

  • James Grimes

    “After reports of Bang’s lecture surfaced last week, many people expressed dismay and concern, saying the disparaging of Christianity in a public classroom was grossly inappropriate.”
    Liberals and Atheists will consider this appropriate, but for all decent people, this was an insult.

    • Jim Jones

      > Liberals and Atheists will consider this appropriate, but for all decent people, this was an insult.

      Liberals and Atheists ARE the decent people. They don’t lie to children and threaten and bribe them with more lies.

      • Solomon Jewel

        Don’t worry about Grimey Jim, his God is smaller than his ego.

    • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

      Decent people? You mean the ones who think that a Bronze Age tome of mythology is an accurate history of the universe, and who also tell people who don’t believe in their god that they will suffer for eternity after death? Right.

      • James Grimes

        Hahaha. Trolling again?

        • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

          Not really. Trolling is making intentionally inflammatory comments for the sole purpose of evoking a reaction. I’m simply responding to your absurd claim that “liberals and atheists” (which aren’t synonyms) aren’t “decent people”.

          • James Grimes

            You’re bothering me again with your Atheist crap. I’m not interested.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            Yeah, sorry about making you ponder reality. Back to your fantasy now.

  • Neiman

    Evolution has always been about placing man on God’s Throne, thinking themselves wiser and greater than God. (a) If evolution between species is true, why are we not up to our hips in lots and lots of fully developed vertical transitional forms? (b) How can everything come from absolutely nothing? (b) How can there be overwhelming evidence of complex design in nature and there not be a preexisting designer greater than the things designed. Scientists just make up new theories for these questions and never answer them convincingly.

    At the end of the day the existence of life through random mutations over time and cosmic accidents cannot be duplicated in the laboratory and there are no living witnesses of the beginning, so these scientists must have faith to bridge the gap, it is a secular faith based religion. Creation science is the excat same scientific data as secular science discovers and while we too must have faith to bridge the gap between what we know from God’s Word, divine creation far better fits the facts.

    • Sparky

      By your logic, no crime can be proved unless you saw it happen.

      • Neiman

        Thanks, I needed a good laugh and your stupid reply was funny.

        There are all sorts of evidence that exist in our time, it can be tested and can prove a crime.

        Unless you were there at the beginning of time, far in the distant past, secular scientists using the same data as creation scientists interpret the data and hold it up to their life model, Christians – creation, secular scientists – evolution. But neither can empirically recreate the genesis of all life. Only Christian scientists have direct eyewitness testimony, secular scientists none. So both must rely on faith to bridge the gap. Both are faith based systems.

        • Kyoju Konton

          You lack of knowledge is certainly on display. Try catching up on the literature instead of trying to cram the evidence into your magical framework.

        • mattdocmartin

          What “eye-witness” testimony? Did a “god’ somehow actually appear at a conference and present something?

          • Neiman

            God provided his eyewitness testimony in a massive document that we call the Bible. We know that his testimony is true because of the fulfillment of many prophecies and by observing the incredibly complex design of all things, from the subatomic level to the universe.. We know that the scientific data best fits the creation model and has to be forced into the evolutionary model, by ever changing theories that must be created in order to deal with new scientific data, which shows that previous theories were false.

            Now all that your secular scientist have to do is produce their own eyewitness testimony. Or, they have to apply faith to bridge the gap between their theories and their lack of empirical evidence, wherein they can exactly duplicate how evolution could be responsible for everything we see in the universe, resulting from nothing.

          • http://billybobsbibleblog.blogspot.com/ billybobbibb

            The Bible is hearsay, and would never be allowed in a court of law.

          • James Grimes

            Every court has a Bible. Every court!

          • OrCoastTheo

            That’s absurd. There are many courts around the world that do not have a bible.

          • M Green

            Every court… in America… That’s not every court.

          • Neiman

            It is in every court, it has been used in arguments of cases. It is the most investigated and substantiated document in all history.

          • Jim Jones

            > It is in every court, it has been used in arguments of cases.

            Examples?

          • Neiman

            Although no longer required, we still mostly take our oath on the Bible!

          • Mitch Craft

            You do know that this bible you speak of was written like 5 hundred years ago right? By British monks.

          • G Chris Larson

            Careful Mitch you are sowing your lack of education. Moon landing didn’t happen either?

          • Mitch Craft

            Then tell me when the King James Bible was written?

          • G Chris Larson

            Ahh that would be in the time of king james. Translated from documents in arabic and latin. The vatican is full of these old documents. And then there are teh dead sea scrolls.

          • Mitch Craft

            well actually its not. But if it makes you feel better. Its actually a revised version of the Geneva bible. That and TKJ bible was also revised about half a dozen times. If its directly translated these ancient sacred texts what exactly would need revision? Perhaps a King wanting his will implemented on his subjects?

          • G Chris Larson

            Good point Mitch. You are right IF God is not keeping his hand in it. the real issue in all these discussions is: Does a loving God exist that created the Universe? You can find out for yourself if you want to. If you really wnat to know then step into your closet or into your back yard and ask him. If He is a loving God that knows you and loves you He will answer. If not then no worries about eternity. If He does answer then you have a BIG decision to make. This is what I did and over two years God proved to me that he exists, that he loves me and that He does work in this world. So in two seconds I changed from a materialist/evolutionist into a Christian/creationist.

          • Edward Seibert

            Well, I’m convinced.

          • James Grimes

            We’re being trolled by The Useless.

          • dem0n0cracy

            The napkin religion is the one true religion because it says so on this napkin. Take your circular arguments elsewhere.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            Unless it’s a feminine napkin, it’s just another misogynistic religion

          • mattdocmartin

            Actually, it is mythology, written by man, edited by man, and believed in by those who lack education and intelligence.

          • Jim Jones

            > God provided his eyewitness testimony in a massive document that we call the Bible.

            “Then I began to see that not just the scribal text but the original text itself was a very human book. This stood very much at odds with how I had regarded the text in my late teens as a newly minted “born-again” Christian, convinced that the Bible was the inerrant Word of God and that the biblical words themselves had come to us by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. As I realized already in graduate school, even if God had inspired the original words, we don’t have the original words. So the doctrine of inspiration was in a sense irrelevant to the Bible as we have it, since the words God reputedly inspired had been changed and, in some cases, lost. Moreover, I came to think that my earlier views of inspiration were not only irrelevant, they were probably wrong. For the only reason (I came to think) for God to inspire the Bible would be so that his people would have his actual words; but if he really wanted people to have his actual words, surely he would have miraculously preserved those words, just as he had miraculously inspired them in the first place. Given the circumstance that he didn’t preserve the words, the conclusion seemed inescapable to me that he hadn’t gone to the trouble of inspiring them.”

            “Misquoting Jesus” – Bart Ehrman

          • DrychronRed

            Sura 17 of the Qu’ran says that Mohammed went up to heaven on a Buraq, a winged horse of some sort, and that thousands of people witnessed it. Did that happen? It’s eyewitness testimony! Um, no. Sorry. Evolution has overwhelming evidence to support it, and there’s none whatsoever for a magical creator. Even if there were, which one? The one your mommy and daddy said was true? It’s repeated fail. Now I know that you are sure you believe in the one true god (just like all people of all religious faiths do), but there’s not a shred of evidence. All those things you said are claims, not proof. It’s just people talking in your book, just like the Qu’ran, it’s not proof.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            Indeed!

          • Eric Rexer

            Good one. No one would believe God anyway. He would show up looking like one of the Koch brothers and the AGW science-is-settled Pharisees would have him nailed to a cross in no time.

        • Guest

          Come on Neiman tell us how a viable mutation takes place at the genetic level. Most secular molecular and developmental bioogist are desperately searching for an alternative to Neo-darwinism because they have seen that it fails at the genetic level.

        • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

          There’s nothing funny about it, it is an entirely valid point. Crimes are far easier to prosecute when we have copious amounts of forensic evidence. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

    • Glenn Boyce

      Simply this: there is no evidence for a creator – none. Science, including cosmology and evolution, are not a “religion” – religion means believing assertions based on faith alone, in the lack of (of often in direct contradiction to) all the available evidence. Science is the search for how the universe truly functions, based on reason and observation. This tiny planet is the only spot in the entire universe where life has yet been detected – so it’s not like the universe is “tuned for life”. Why would a god create an entire universe to only populate a tiny spec of it? Why do men have nipples? Why does the vas deferens loop through the lower abdomen instead of taking a straight shot from gonads to the penis? Why do we have an appendix? Why do whales have vestigial hind leg bones encased in their bodies? These are all phenomena with explanations from science (gradual evolution from simpler forms), and would be examples of LOUSY design! So god is either a truly incompetent biological engineer (an “Unintelligent Designer”) OR he does not exist at all. I’ll go with the latter option.

      • Neiman

        The Embryo and Eternal Life

        “If you were invited to a feast with all kinds of good meats to eat, would you believe that there has been nobody to cook them? They just
        appeared out of nothing? After lots of time and random accidents they just
        cooked, sliced and prepared themselves. NO! That’ stupid, of course you wouldnot! But nature is a banquet prepared for us! You have tomatoes and peaches and apples and milk and honey. Who has prepared all these things for mankind? Nature is blind. If you believe in no God, how can you explain that blind nature succeeded in preparing just the things which we need in such plentitude and variety?”

        “Suppose that we could speak with an embryo in his mother’s womb and that we would tell him that the embryonic life is only a short one after which follows a real, a long life. What would the embryo answer? The
        embryo would say just what atheists answer to us, when we speak to them about paradise and hell (another, longer life). The embryo would say that the life in the mother’s womb is the only one there is and that everything else is just so much religious foolishness. But if the embryo could think about his body, he would say to himself, “Wait, arms are growing on me. Why? I do not need them. I cannot even stretch them. So, why do they grow, why do I have them? I am probably growing them for a future stage of my existence, in which I will have to work with them. Legs grow on my body, but I have to keep them bent towards my breast. Why do they grow, why do I have them at all, I cannot possibly use them? I probably have legs for a life in a large world follows my life here in the womb, a life where I will have to walk. Eyes grow in my head,
        although I am surrounded by perfect darkness and don’t need them at all. So, why am I growing eyes? I probably have eyes because a world with light and colors will follow this one where I will need them.”

        “So, if the embryo could reflect about his own physical development, he would know about a life that exists outside his mother’s womb, without this ever having seen it. For now, he would just have to accept that fact by faith because he is not outside the womb, but all the evidence testifies that such a life must exist. The same it is with us. As long as we are young, we have vigor, but we no mind to use it aright. When, with the years, we have finally grown in knowledge and wisdom, the funeral wagon awaits us to take us to the grave. So why was it necessary to grow in a knowledge and wisdom, things which we can no more use in the annihilation of eternity? Why do arms, legs and eyes grow to an embryo? It is for what follows. So it is with us here. We grow here in experience, knowledge and wisdom for all that follows. We are prepared to serve on a higher level which follows death. We cannot prove it because we are still experiencing physical life in the here and now, but all the evidence
        testifies that such a future life must exist.”

        • OrCoastTheo

          You do understand that nearly all these wonderful foods you mention in their original form were hardly recognizable compared to what we eat today. They are the result of extensive selective breeding by humans which is in a sense simply a form of managed or directed evolution.

          • Jim Jones

            Yes. Most of them are pretty disgusting in their original forms. Bananas. for example, have many seeds.

        • DrychronRed

          Someone doesn’t understand how evolution works. Back to grade school!

          • G Chris Larson

            I do. do you? can you explain genetically one viable mutation? Using words like introns, the four bases of DNA, statistically,? How do mutaions happen at the genetic level. The secular biologists who wrestle with this have become convinced that Neo-Darwinism lacks the tools to cause viable mutations.

          • Glenn Boyce

            I don’t know what creationist websites you get your propaganda from, but evolution by natural selection and random mutation is the overwhelming scientific consensus. Of course, the sheep will believe what they must to prop up a bankrupt belief system. I honestly pity people like you, with some intellectual capacity but having roped off Religion from your critical faculties. What a waste.

          • Demopublicrat

            “…overwhelming scientific consensus…” A popular opinion religion.

            “Of course, the sheep will believe what they must to prop up a bankrupt belief system.” Or make stuff up – Piltdown Man.

            I honestly pity people like you, with some intellectual capacity but having roped off Religion from your critical faculties. What a waste.

          • david ramseur

            You are lemming having faith in the “expert lemmings”. I mean really, are you staking your belief in Evolution simply on the fact that other people believe it? If you can, give me just one piece of scientific evidence that Darwinian Evolution exists. Something that is observable and that doesn’t need to be taken on faith.

          • Glenn Boyce

            Embarrassing ignorance. Ok, I’ll give you an example of evolution. Do you get a flu shot each year? Ever wonder why you need a new one each year? It’s because the flu virus is constantly mutating into new strains, for which new vaccine must be made. This is why some years the vaccine works better than others. If there was no mutation/change, you wouldn’t need a new vaccine each year.

            There is a difference between 1) educating oneself on the current scientific consensus (and accepting that) versus 2) listening to some ill-educated preacher spout 2000 year old nonsense from a vile, musty book, and accepting it on faith even in the face of contradicting evidence. If you can’t see that, then I have little “faith” in your critical thinking skills. It is a key distinction.

          • david ramseur

            Category error. Your example is one of adaptation, also known as variation or micro-evolution. The existence of adaptation is not in debate. Both sides agree that adaptation exists. Since the virus continues to be a virus, albeit a virus with different characteristics, it is an example of adaptation not Darwinian macro-evolution. Try again smarty pants….I am asking for just one example, open book/open note, of observable scientific evidence for Darwinian macro-evolution. If it really does exist should it really be so hard to find?

          • Glenn Boyce

            The distinction you make is an imaginary one; “macro” evolution is the accumulation of mutations over many generations of “micro” evolution. This distinction is used by theists to confuse the matter – scientists do not use these terms. I understand your belief system force’s you to obfuscate and confuse the matter, but I recommend you educate yourself outside of talking points from Answers in Gensesis. YOU are an example of evolution, per the 99% of your DNA which is shared with chimps.

          • david ramseur

            If what you say is correct we should expect to see thousands of transitional forms in the fossil record. Examples of organisms in the process of transitioning into a different species. These forms would include skeletal structures in process, such as half a foot, fin, lung, wing, tail, etc… We do not see any transitional forms in the fossil record though. What we do see are fully formed, distinct species. So either Darwinian evolution, the changing from one species to another, happens too slowly for us to observe (millions of years), or it happens too quickly for us to observe (punctuated equilibrium). The Darwinist simply slows down or speeds up the process until it is invisible! Is this really objective science? Sounds more like wishful thinking to me.
            That 1% of difference in our DNA code with that of chimps makes a world of difference. You are not suggesting that we are the same as chimps are you? We cannot reproduce with chimps. We have genetic information in our DNA that chimps do not have in their DNA. The information we have in our DNA could not have been added to chimp DNA because DNA is hereditary. Gene mutations are rare and almost always deleterious resulting in birth defects and health issues.
            How does purposeless, molecules to man Darwinian evolution, which is different than adaptation, get past the hurdles of irreducible complexity, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and information not arising out of matter itself but from the realm of the mind?
            I have seen the clear truth that the universe and everything in it (life included) is intelligently designed. This is deduced by studying the world, biology, paleontology, cosmology, etc… The Darwinists always come up with the same tired arguments: giving examples of adaptation for Darwinian evolution, multi-verse theory, self-knowing universe theory, stacking the deck against the improbabilities with trillions of years. Yet they do not deny that the universe seems to be designed. They just claim that this appearance of intelligent design is a façade, a trick fobbed off on us by our genes. We creationists really do have the most straight forward reading of the evidence. Darwinists claim to know science and to be objective, but their reasonings are anything but when compared to the observable evidence/natural laws of the universe/life.

          • david ramseur

            Oh, and by the way, can you please give me JUST ONE example of Darwinian Evolution that is observable, something that doesn’t have to be taken on faith?

          • Glenn Boyce

            David, I’m genuinely not trying to be insulting – but that is a whoooole lot of nonsense, a littany of oft-repeated, oft-debunked claims that just reappear like zombies in virtually every “debate” between creationism and evolution. In the interest of fostering understanding of REAL science, I have included several links below. I hope you will avail yourself of this knowledge – and if you truly care about determining the truth about reality (versus fairy tales), you’ll take the time to do so.

            There ARE thousands of transitional species – you could argue that ALL species are transitional.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
            http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms

            Here’s what you would expect to see if evolution were true:

            1) Multiple lines of testable, verifiable, falsifiable evidence supporting the evolution of life forms from the simpler to the more complex over time. That is a exactly what we DO see – all evidence from the geologic, genetic, and morphological records support a gradual change from simpler to more complex life forms over 4 BILLION years of history.

            2) You would expect to see simpler organisms in the “deepest” (earliest) strata of the geological record, and a gradual progression to more complex life forms as you near the “surface” layers. Again, that is exactly what you DO see. You don’t see rabbit fossils from a billioon years ago, and you don’t find dinosaur fossils in the newest layers. The fossil finds at various strata are consistent with the deduced evolutionary path through time – and we are talking about an ENORMOUS amount of time.

            http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IIIAchronology.shtml

            3) Finally, you would expect to find genetic evidence for evolution that indicates connections between existing creatures (and among existing and extinct ones). And we find that, too. Chimps have 24 pairs of chromosomes, humans only 23. AHA! Huge difference, right? Well, not so much – it is very clear that two chromosomes from our common chimp-human ancestor, at some point in the past, fused into ONE, and then those creatures evolved into our human ancestors (the chimp-human chromosome segments are still remarkably similar when lined up and compared). And there is abundant evidence from other creatures that this kind of chromosomal fusion happens more often than you might think.

            http://www.indiana.edu/~oso/evolution/EvolMorphol.htm

            Your then repeat a ridiculous (and deliberate) misunderstanding of how evolution works. You don’t evolve “half an eye” and wait for the other half to evolve later… No proponent of evolution by natural selection has ever speculated such a a nonsensical thing (though creationists love to use this strawman). Animals evolved (several times, actually) light-sensitve cells that over LOOOONG periods of time organized into better, more complex organs for sensing light (which helped them survive better). So no, you would NOT expect to find “half a foot, fin, lung, wing, tail, etc.” You WOULD expect to find (and we DO find) evidence of simpler feet, fins, lungs etc. evolving into ever more complex and better ones.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHgHI8YnsF8

            And then, some animals evolve in ways that clearly show changes in habitat and lifestyle, like the whales’ ancestors returning to the sea where their hind legs atrophy and become vestigial, without use or advantage to the animal in its new environment. https://stangbio.wikispaces.com/file/view/07bioHSq27.gif/63842878/07bioHSq27.gif

            Re: chimps and humans: Actually, it is NOT completely certain that we couldn’t mate successfully with chimps and produce offspring. Some have attempted to breed a hybrid by insemination, so far unsuccessfully.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee

            However:
            “This degree of chromosomal similarity [between chimp and human] is roughly equivalent to that found in equines. Interfertility of horses and donkeys is common, although sterility of the offspring (mules) is nearly universal (with only around 60 exceptions recorded in equine history). Similar complexities and prevalent sterility pertain to horse-zebra hybrids, or zorses, whose chromosomal disparity is very wide, with horses typically having 32 chromosome pairs and zebras between 16 and 23 depending on species. In a direct parallel to the chimp-human case, the Przewalski horse (Equus przewalskii) with 33 chromosome pairs, and the domestic horse (E. caballus) with 32 pairs, have been found to be interfertile, and produce semi-fertile offspring: male hybrids can breed with female domestic horses.”

            Your other claims:

            “Gene mutations are rare and almost always deleterious resulting in birth defects and health issues” – the key being “almost always”. Given long time horizons and thousands of generations, beneficial mutations WILL happen.

            “How does purposeless…evolution get past the hurdles of irreducible complexity… See the eye example above.

            “…2nd law of thermodynamics” – requires a CLOSED system, and the Earth is an OPEN system, receiving energy from the sun (which powers essentially all life processes).

            http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=441

            “Yet [Darwinists] do not deny that the universe seems to be designed. They just claim that this appearance of intelligent design is a façade, a trick fobbed off on us by our genes.” Thank you for answering your own question! Humans have been described as “meaning-making machines”, and we find patterns everywhere, even places where they don’t exist! See the faces?

            https://www.google.com/search?q=faces+in+objects&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=995&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=X-eRVNPiNq7GsQSksYKoBg&sqi=2&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ

            “We creationists really do have the most straight forward reading of the evidence.” No, you have a flawed and (wilfully) simplistic understanding of the evidence, because you START with the CONCLUSION and try to backfill a case to support it. Science starts with the EVIDENCE, and follows the facts to their logical conclusion.

          • david ramseur

            Their are known limits to adaptation (micro-evolution). Once those limits are passed the organism becomes sterile and ceases to reproduce. The health of the organism is also negatively affected once those limits are passed. Therefore, micro-evolution cannot go on indefinitely. This is widely known by geneticists, breeders, and those who take an objective look at the evidence.

          • Glenn Boyce

            Not a single word of your comment above is supportable by the evidence. Stop making baseless assertions and repeating often-debunked creationist talking points.

          • david ramseur

            You are projecting. For it is you who are believing Darwin’s theory simply because other people believe it. How could one species evolve into a different species? They are constrained by genetics from becoming another species. For instance, genes are hereditary, they are passed down from parents to offspring. The DNA code for that species has genetic information that is not present in the DNA code of a different species and vice versa. Now mutations to the genetic code may occur, this happens on rare instances. However, gene mutations are almost always deleterious. They are responsible for birth defects or errors in the DNA code. Gene mutations certainly do not add new genetic information into the pre-existing, hereditary, DNA code. But new genetic information is precisely what is needed for cross species evolution to happen. Therefore, genetics destroys the argument that one species can evolve into another species (Darwinian Macro-Evolution), certainly not a more complex organism. Since species can only reproduce after their own kind, it is impossible to pass on new transitional genetic information to offspring.

          • Glenn Boyce

            I think this is the end of the discussion for me, David, as you are starting to just repeat yourself. But you really should investigate mutation further to clear up your closely-held but mistaken understanding of it (and please do yourself a favor and look beyond creationist/apoplogist sites). Evolution is the gradual change in organisms over long periods of time based on the accumulated mutations all populations of creatures experience. Most mutations are actually neutral, meaning no noticable effect. Many are harmful. A few can HELP an organism survive better in its environment. These beneficial mutations that allow a creature to survive/reproduce better are retained (along with a bunch of neutral ones, and often, a few negative ones, too).

            Your assertion that “Gene mutations certainly do not add new genetic information into the pre-existing, hereditary, DNA code” is simply false. See this link: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

            The rest of your argument follows from that point, which is simply not true. Thus, I ignore it.

          • G Chris Larson

            I am talking about materialist scientists like Shapiro and dawkins,not creationists. the molecular aspects of DNA/mutation have shown to be impossible. Sorry. And as far as God wanting you to be an athiest? Don’t get Jesus confused with teh hardheads we all encounter in churches. He loves you no matter what and will continue to call you. just listen.

        • Glenn Boyce

          Again, it is the theist who believes in abracadabra. I recommend you educate yourself on the curent science of the formation of the universe by googling Lawrence Krauss and his Lecture “a Universe from Nothing.”

          • G Chris Larson

            Come on Glenn, tell us how a mutation takes place at the genetic level? Its gonna make you frustrated.

        • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

          Speaking of embryos and whatnot, how come at least 30% of fertilized eggs never even implant in a woman’s uterus? Do these zygote souls go straight to heaven? How come the rest of us unlucky enough to actually be born have to jump through a bunch of hoops just for the same reward?

      • G Chris Larson

        You nailed it Glenn. It is all about whether there is a God. But it can be proved or disproved that he exists and cares for you. If there is a loving God that knows you and cares about you, then all you have to do is ask Him to prove to you that he is real (you being serious of course, because you really want to know) and if he is real He will prove it to you. then you have the most important decision of your life to make. I asked HIm and over the course of two years He proved to me that he knows me and cares for me. I switched from an atheism to Christianity, from evolutionist to creationist in 2 seconds.

        • Glenn Boyce

          It is apparently god’s plan that I am an atheist. Who am I to argue with him/it? He could provide the slimmest evidence and many atheists would believe. And yet, for over 2000 years, nothing. I grew up in a church, listening to the happy horse-hockey that issued from half-witted pastors, deluding themselves that they serve some higher purpose. It’s all nonsense, and I will never give another penny to those ignorant charlatans, nor another moment of my time. Chris, do yourself a favor and stop wasting the one life you DO have pining for an afterlife that is just wishful thinking.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            God created us as atheists just to watch us suffer. We’re his personal schadenfreude.

        • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

          There’s a reason that God only ever enters your “heart” and not your “brain”, and that’s because only through emotion clouding your judgment can you accept absurd claims without evidence simply because they make you feel special.

      • MarcAlcan

        Simply this: there is no evidence for a creator – none

        Oh really? How do you know that for a fact?

        Science, including cosmology and evolution, are not a “religion” – religion means believing assertions based on faith alone,

        Wrong again. Religion comes from “religare” to bind. So yes, you are partially correct. Science is not religion. It cannot be, because it is merely a field of inquiry. Scientism however is a religion. It is a blind faith in science.

        And it is the most irrational religion of all.

        Your post is full of dumb comments like: Why would a god create an entire universe to only populate a tiny spec of it?

        The sad part about it is you probably think you are being intelligent.

        • Glenn Boyce

          Please provide a speck, an iota, of evidence for the existance of a creator. The bible does not count. Extraordinary claims require at least SOME evidence in order to be taken seriously. Which is why religious mythology and superstition fail that test.

          “Scientism” – please educate me on who the Pope of the Church of Scientism is, provide the location of a Church.

          Science is based on evidence and inquiry. Religion is based in faith and dogma.

          Science constantly questions it’s assumptions and conclusions. Doing so in religion will often get you stoned or tortured to death.

          • MarcAlcan

            Please provide a speck, an iota, of evidence for the existance of a creator

            Where did you come from?

            Before you answer, let me say this now. For every answer you give me, I will ask you “and where did that one come from?.” So you might just do that exercise before you reply.

            Science is based on evidence and inquiry. Religion is based in faith and dogma.

            Indeed, and they are not mutually exclusive. Only the dim think they are.

            Science constantly questions it’s assumptions and conclusions.

            And its purview is limited to the material world.
            And that is fine. Stupid people think that somehow they can come to conclusions about something other than the material world.
            The most stupid proposition is “Science is true so therefore there is no God”. Such statements just show how logically the adherent of scientism is.

    • Jim Jones

      > At the end of the day the existence of life through random mutations
      over time and cosmic accidents cannot be duplicated in the laboratory.

      Oh dear.

      Super-fast evolution

      And that argument is lost. Next?

    • William Magoffin

      A) There are about 15-20 different transitional forms of what are now humans. Almost all of them have multiple fossilized examples.

      B) It doesn’t, all the matter and energy that existed in the universe has always existed. At one point in time it was so compacted in to a singularity that it’s high mass distorted space-time so much that time stopped. Eventually enough matter from the singularity evaporated away (probably has Hawking radiation), that the singularity no longer had enough gravitational force to hold together and space-time stopped being distorted. (this is a very basic explanation)

      • Neiman

        A) There are about 15-20 different transitional forms of what are now
        humans. Almost all of them have multiple fossilized examples.

        You do realize that virtually no fully developed, vertical transitional forms have ever been found that have stood up to the test of time. They have virtually all been debunked. Further, a few would not be enough, they could be aberrations, if evolution between kinds is true, one species in transition to another, we should be up to our collective buttocks in such evidence in the fossil record, not just a few.

        B) It doesn’t, all the matter and energy that existed in the universe has
        always existed. At one point in time it was so compacted in to a
        singularity that it’s high mass distorted space-time so much that time
        stopped. Eventually enough matter from the singularity evaporated away
        (probably has Hawking radiation), that the singularity no longer had
        enough gravitational force to hold together and space-time stopped being
        distorted. (this is a very basic explanation)

        This is all theory, it cannot be proven, as no one was there to see it happen (except God). Secular scientists are always developing theories, but they cannot duplicate them. Lastly, they must force them into the naturalistic, evolutionary life model or they will die professionally. No one is allowed to get published nor will they get their work peer reviewed nor will they get tenure if they buck the politically correct theory of evolution.

    • DrychronRed

      There’s overwhelming evidence for evolution. Your choosing to ignore it doesn’t change that. Furthermore, you take a book as being proof, when it is a claim, not the proof, and there’s no proof the Bible has any more truth to the supernatural bits than the Qu’ran. In Sura 17, it says that Mohammed went up to heaven riding a Buraq, a winged horse with the face of a woman (or some such). It says thousands of people witnessed it. Did that really happen? Why not, it’s in the book? it’s no different than the Bible. The authors may have based their writings on real people and places, but no proof of anything supernatural, and no reason to believe anymore than any of the other 760+ religions practiced today. They believe their god or gods are the one true god or gods just like you do, and they have EXACTLY the same amount of proof – none.

    • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

      No, evolution has been about what the evidence demonstrates. At the end of the day, Biblical creationists refuse to accept it because it completely destroys their myth.

      • Demopublicrat

        “A five million-year-old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib, …He [Dr. T. White] puts the incident on par with two other embarrassing [sic] faux pas by fossil hunters: Hesperopithecus, the fossil pig’s tooth that was cited as evidence of very early man in North America, and Eoanthropus or ‘Piltdown Man,’ the jaw of an orangutan and the skull of a modern human that were claimed to be the ‘earliest Englishman’.

        “The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone.'”

        Dr. Tim White (anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley).

        • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

          Oh, cool, you’re cherry-picking random hoaxes and examples of bad science to pretend like all the evidence for evolution is fabricated. I guess by that logic, I can find one error in the Bible and then declare the entire book is false.

          • Demopublicrat

            Apparently the meaning of the quote escapes you as you cherry pick reality. Again, another person’s belief isn’t relevant to you proving yours.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            The quote has no meaning, it is one guy’s opinion. I’ll take the overwhelming evidence and scientific consensus over a few nut jobs with confirmation bias who think that we were created by magic.

          • Demopublicrat

            “..overwhelming evidence..” Must be a big secret, I’ve never seen any, just a few nut jobs with confirmation bias who think that we accidentally arrived through random chance with no proof.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            Your ignorance is not an argument. I’m attempting to educate you, but your desire to believe that you were created by a Bronze Age war god who will grant you eternal bliss after death is overriding your ability to think critically.

          • Demopublicrat

            Your attempt was pathetic, you offered nothing but unsubstantiated religious belief, appeal to authority nonsense and ad hominem attacks. I’ll leave you to your exploding dot, if you actually come up with something worthwhile, let me know.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            Please, by all means, describe in detail which of my points were fallacious and attach the appropriate fallacy to them. All you’ve done is accused me to using fallacious logic, but you haven’t demonstrated it.

            Do you feel the cognitive dissonance creeping in yet?

          • Demopublicrat

            Now for some psychobabble, nice!

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            Now for some deflection and ad hominem argument. Nice.

          • Demopublicrat

            I would expect nothing less from you.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            You’re openly soliloquizing on the internet now? Seek help.

          • Demopublicrat

            Whatever religious boy.

          • Demopublicrat

            Your feeble attempts at education are an epic fail, you’ve offered nothing substantive.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            They’re only failing because you are determined to remain willfully ignorant.

          • Demopublicrat

            Back atcha.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            Yeah, except that I clearly understand the subject matter, and you’re not offering any rebuttals, just terse replies without any substance.

          • Demopublicrat

            Right, that’s why you haven’t posted any substance on the matter yourself. I have offered the statement “evolutionism is a religion”, even Bill Nye with his “somehow, probably” speech on evolution attests to that.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            I’ve posted all sorts of logical and evidence-based arguments. You simply ignore them to continue on in your fantasy.

          • Demopublicrat

            They must have been posted in invisible ink.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            What do you want to know?

          • Demopublicrat

            Proof of speciation the pillar of your religion.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

            Not that “speciation” is all that important, because a “species” is a false category used to better study and organize biodiversity. There’s no universal definition. Sure, the concept of reproductively isolated individuals works for most animals, but not all. Ring species, for example. Also, when you get to plants and other lower life forms, it gets a whole lot trickier.

            The simple fact is that all life is related. The fossil evidence shows this, along with phylogeny, genetics, comparative anatomy….

          • Demopublicrat

            “developed hybrid sterility of male offspring ”
            “Note that polyploids are generally considered to be a separate “race” of the same species as the original stock”
            “forced breeding experiments”
            “Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding.”

            Bacteria is still bacteria, mice are still mice, fish are still fish – one still needs faith that a fish transformed into a mouse, or that a mouse came from bacteria or _______ evolved into_______.

            http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/07/16/there-are-no-ring-species/

            “The simple fact is that all life is related.” – Just as much common designer evidence as anything else.

            “The fossil evidence shows this” The fossil record shows only a creature existed, nothing else, that is where faith comes in.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            What defines a “fish”? What defines a “bacteria”. Oh, that’s right, WE do. We’ve come up with arbitrary designations for the biodiversity on Earth. We classify things by common traits, but oftentimes there are not clear dilineations. For example, almost all mammals give birth to live young, but there are some oviparious species like the platypus and echidnas. Are they not mammals because of this? Or have they just evolved from a separate lineage of mammals to have this different trait? Trying to put the diversity of life on Earth into rigid boxes doesn’t work.

            You’re being intentionally obtuse. No, there is no “designer”. Even IF there was, it’s not the god of the Bible.

            No, the fossil record does not just show that things once existed, it shows when those things existed, and when we can compare their structures and genetic profile to related species or individual specimens, we can see how they are related and how changes arose.

          • Demopublicrat

            …depends on what your definition of is is….

            “No, there is no “designer”.” Whether you wish to admit it or not, that’s religious belief.

            “No, the fossil record does not just show that things once existed, it shows when those things existed” My favorite part: “How do we know how old the fossil is? By looking at the layer it’s in. How do we know how old the layer is? By looking at which fossils are in it.” Circular reasoning, one of the staples of evolutionism.

            “and when we can compare their structures and genetic profile to related species or individual specimens, we can see how they are related and how changes arose.” More religious belief, you can’t prove any similarities aren’t as a result of a common designer.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            Wrong. We know how old the rock layers are by radiometric dating.

            Also, you apparently agree that religion is a bad thing, as you keep attempting to call my acceptance of empirical evidence “religion”.

            More lies from you.

  • Peter Leh

    “nothin’ from nothin’ leaves nothin’. you gotta have something…”

    • Glenn Boyce

      This is such an ironic charge coming from those who actually DO believe that a magical sky-daddy created the universe from NOTHING, by snapping his fingers. Science provides understanding of the mechanisms involved in the birth of the universe – creationists, on the other hand, say a god waved a magic wand, said “Abracadabra”, and POOF, universe! Now which one is the more ridiculous notion? Open your eyes.

      • Neiman

        Secular scientists are guessing, they produce theories, they cannot empirically reproduce the genesis of life to prove their assertions. But, they either force them into the evolutionary life model or die professionally, so they submit. Creation scientists use the exact same data, the difference, we have direct eyewitness testimony from God, secular scientists do not and the data best fits the creation model.

        • Jim Jones

          And their guesses and theories provide modern medicine, transportation, power to your home and even cellphones and much, much more.

          And the internet you posted on.

          Science flies you to the moon.

          Religion flies you into buildings.

          • Neiman

            Christianity is not a religion, it is an intimate relationship with Jesus Christ.

            Science made the planes that flew into those buildings, they make the guns, the atomic bombs and everything used to kill comes from science. The internet is a blessing, it is also used to cheat people, spread pornography and promote all sorts of evil. God created the moon or these astronauts would have no place to land.

            Your service, 15 love to me.

          • Jim Jones

            Gospel Jesus never existed. Never walked the earth, never spoke a word.

          • Neiman

            Then no great figure of human history ever existed, they never walked the earth. There are more ancient texts, fragments and archeological evidence of the existence of the historical Jesus extant than any other person of antiquity.

          • Mitch Craft

            Wrong, there is actually none. The very first writings of Jesus where are 60-80 years after he supposedly died, by people who would have never knew or saw him. Its like the Exodus, you would think with 2 million people wandering around someone would have noticed and wrote something down. But they didnt, no one did. Same as for Jesus.

          • Frank

            Eye witnesses that lived with Him for years.

          • Mitch Craft

            Which eyewitnesses were still around exactly? There were a ton of a hundred plus year old people wandering around back then? You have the entire breadth of human knowledge at your finger tips. Look up the info sometime.

          • Jim Jones

            Every piece of evidence confirms that gospel Jesus never existed.

            The following is a list of writers who lived and wrote during the time, or within a century after the time, that Christ is said to have lived and performed his wonderful works:

            Josephus, Philo-Judaeus, Seneca, Pliny the Elder, Suetonius, Juvenal, Martial, Persius, Plutarch, Justus of Tiberius, Apollonius, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Quintilian, Lucanus, Epictetus, Silius Italicus, Statius, Ptolemy, Hermogones, Valerius Maximus, Arrian, Petronius, Dion Pruseus, Paterculus, Appian, Theon of Smyrna, Phlegon, Pompon Mela, Quintius Curtius, Lucian, Pausanias, Valerius Flaccus, Florus Lucius, Favorinus, Phaedrus, Damis, Aulus Gellius, Columella, Dio Chrysostom, Lysias, Appion of Alexandria.

            Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ.

            Philo of Alexandria was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ’s miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem.

            He was there when the crucifixion with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness, and resurrection of the dead took place — when Christ himself rose from the dead, and in the presence of many witnesses ascended into heaven. These marvelous events which must have filled the world with amazement, had they really occurred, were unknown to him. It was Philo who developed the doctrine of the Logos, or Word, and although this Word incarnate dwelt in that very land and in the presence of multitudes revealed himself and demonstrated his divine powers, Philo saw it not.

            From The Christ — John E. Remsburg

            BTW, there’s also nothing about Jesus in the Dead Sea Scrolls — and there could have been.

          • Frank

            thousands and thousands of texts. The numbers are quite staggering.

          • pax2u

            Christianity is an Abrahamic religion that began as a Jewish sect in the mid-1st century

          • Mitch Craft

            HAHAHAHA! Jesus Christ!

          • OrCoastTheo

            Actually it’s a cult – same as all religions.

        • A. Neumann

          I hate to tell you, but God spoke to me last night and told me that you guys have got it all wrong and you had better get with the evolutionists or he’s gonna send you to a bad place. I am currently writing an epistle that is to be added to the bible. So there.

          • Neiman

            That was not God, it was Satan!

          • A. Neumann

            No, it was Dana Carvy! Church Lady.

        • Jim Jones

          > Creation scientists

          Aren’t scientists.

          > use the exact same data, the difference, we have direct eyewitness testimony from God

          Who still refuses to attend any international conferences or present any papers..

        • Glenn Boyce

          Eyewitness testimony from a being for which not a shred of evidence exists. Really? Why don’t you just say Santa did it? More proof for him than Jehovah.

      • Peter Leh

        So glenn, help me out. I have no problem with mechanisms of observation and replication.

        Zero X Zero is always ZERO. Where did the building blocks of life come from? I really don;t care either way. But something has to come from something.

        • Edward Seibert

          Does it? That sounds like human arrogance to me. We create things, therefore we think everything has to be created. We experience time linearlly, therefore we assume that “time” had to “begin”. We imagine “eternal” life, but the idea that the universe has simply always existed, in one form or another? We can’t wrap our heads around that.

          • Peter Leh

            “That sounds like human arrogance to me.”

            Probably. there is plenty of that to go around.

            “but the idea that the universe has simply always existed”

            Seems to fall equally under the category of “human arrogance” without replication and observation.

            so it sounds like all of us are in the same boat and god has not been proven or dis-proven.

            Again, i really don;t care enough to argue one way or another. If we are going to rule out god as the creator it seems there should be a better origin explaination than “it has simply always existed”

            That is what we say about the creator

        • Glenn Boyce

          I’m not a cosmologist or physicist, but I respect the work of the brightest minds in these fields. Lawrence Krauss does an excellent job explaining it (Google his name and “universe from nothing” for his lecture). Hope you find it educational. BTW – if there was a time with true nothingness, where exactly did God come from? Finally, when we do not yet fully understand something, the correct response is to say “I don’t know”, not to just assume “GodDidIt”.

          • Peter Leh

            i don;t know is a perfectly good explanation. We don;t get that enough from the pulpit or science class. 🙂 thanks for the link.

          • Glenn Boyce

            You’re welcome.

  • Reston72144

    It looks pretty accurate to me. It does use the term magic rather than divine creation so it fails the test of political correctness but it seems the PC is in poor repute these days.

    • M Green

      +1

  • http://billybobsbibleblog.blogspot.com/ billybobbibb

    Bang’s slide may have been in poor taste, but the message it relays is spot on, the main reason why it’s offensive. Evolution makes fewer assumptions than the literal account of Biblical creation of man in Genesis, and has quite a lot of supporting evidence. Where is the evidence that an invisible superhero blew air into sand (aluminosilicate) and created a carbon-based human, fully operational? You expect to learn actual science in a biology class, not ancient fables.

    • Bill

      Ok, where did the sand ( aluminosilicate) come from…..?

      • astrojr1

        From the cores of stars fusing lighter elements into heavier ones, including aluminum and silicon.
        Those elements ultimately came from hydrogen, the lightest element.
        The hydrogen formed from particles which condensed from a dense but cooling and expanding release of energy, widely but somewhat innaccurately known as the big bang. The laws of physics pretty much take it from there. There is a vast amount of widely accepted evidence to support these assertions. We’re not sure what happened right before then, but we are slowly and methodically figuring it out. We don’t know a lot of things yet but we are learning new things every day.

        • TheBBP

          Is this evidence observable?

          • William Magoffin

            Yes by studying similar stars at different stages of their life cycle we can use spectroscopy to examine how the lighter elements are fused in to heavier elements as the star ages. An older star of the same type as a younger star will have a greater amount of heavy elements in it and a lower level of lighter elements in it, until the star runs out of the lighter elements and “dies” from a lack of fusion.

        • Bill

          Where did the hydrogen come from? Naturally occurring? Nope, it came from some where.

    • sr bryan

      So teach evolution if that’s your agenda but belittling another’s belief which billions have not only claimed to believe, but been martyred for, seen miracles from and have experienced things that “science” cannot explain is not the answer. Form an opinion and if it has holes or assumptions then be clear about that. As you claim, both require a certain amount of faith in something that is not yet absolutely proven by today’s science; then why teach it as though it’s absolute when its not only not? Even now secular scientists are claiming that there are more problems with the THEORY of evolution than they once thought. I’m just saying, be fair in your class as both beliefs require a certain faith. This was uncalled for.

      • Jim Jones

        > another’s belief which billions have not only claimed to believe, but been martyred for,

        Between them, Lutherans and Catholics murdered 6 million Jews in the Shoah. Although they used many of the same books of magic belief, none of the three can agree on what the ‘truth’ is.

        The only conclusion is that such beliefs are excuses for the savagery of some humans towards others.

        There’s nothing worthwhile there.

        • sr bryan

          The character of men and God is undoubtedly different in every aspect so there is a choice. Regardless of the fact that God would exist outside of time and knows what you will ultimately choose the fact remains that each person in the here and now has the free will to do whatever they’d like with their lives and choose whatever they want. All those people who do ill in the name of religion clearly aren’t living out Christianity in the way Christ meant. Look at Darwinism though….the ideology in Descent of Man became the basis for the Holocaust, eugenics, and the extermination of the mentally ill. The point…the commonality in all those atrocities is human beings which shows they are the problem. If a child kills an animal against the will of his father why then is the father blamed for the choices of the child?

          • Jim Jones

            > Look at Darwinism though….the ideology in Descent of Man became the
            basis for the Holocaust, eugenics, and the extermination of the mentally
            ill.

            Utterly false. Hitler hated evolution. There’s no support for the savagery of humans in evolutionary theory.

            You have to stop lying for Jesus.

          • sr bryan

            lol. You’re obviously going to believe what you want to rather than listen to reason.

          • Jim Jones

            I don’t think you and reason have ever shared a continent.

          • MarcAlcan

            No Jim. You are the one who is devoid of reason. It doesn’t have to be that way but you chose to be that way.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            I can’t even

          • Demopublicrat

            Hitler hated evolution.Utterly false.

            There’s no discouragement for the savagery of humans in evolutionary theory. Survival of the fittest, just ask Ota Benga.

          • Darrah Densmore

            You don’t understand what “survival of the fittest” means.

          • Demopublicrat

            Nice non-answer.

          • Darrah Densmore

            It’s a perfectly true statement. You’ve demonstrated a wholesale ignorance of science and history in every posting you’ve made.

          • Demopublicrat

            Zzzzzzz….. You’ve demonstrated a wholesale ignorance of science and history in every posting you’ve made. Science is observable, testable, repeatable, not to be taken on faith, assumption, speculation – that’s religion.

          • Jim Jones

            Hitler and evolution

            “An imagined connection between evolutionary theory and the Holocaust relies on the fact that Hitler’s conception of national struggle and supremacy was rooted in a type of social Darwinism, an obsolete political theory that holds that the concept of “survival of the fittest” applies to nations, races, or ethnicities. Social Darwinism was derived from a misapplication of scientific thinking, has no real basis in the biological theory of evolution, and was not an idea advanced by Charles Darwin, whom Hitler never mentioned in any of his surviving speeches or writings. “

          • Demopublicrat

            Nice opinion piece, but social Darwinism is a result of the evolution religion.

          • Jim Jones

            So much stupid in so few words.

            > the evolution religion.

            Fine. Explain why there are two sexes.

          • Demopublicrat

            My belief is that they were created that way, your belief would be?

          • http://www.KingdomOfTheAntichrist.com/ Richard Neal
          • dem0n0cracy

            ROFL QUOTING ANSWERSINGENESIS.

          • http://www.KingdomOfTheAntichrist.com/ Richard Neal

            What – are the PhDs at Answers In Genesis any less of a PhD than someone at a secular institution? Or are you just biased and prejudiced?…

          • dem0n0cracy

            Uh yes, they are less.

            1. If the Bible were not true, logic would not be meaningful.
            2. Logic is meaningful.
            3. Therefore, the Bible is true.—Jason Lisle

            lol, wow.
            http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Institute_for_Creation_Research
            I’m sure I’m the biased one. You’re a crank.

          • http://www.KingdomOfTheAntichrist.com/ Richard Neal

            How is a PhD at Answers in Genesis any less of a PhD than a secular PhD?…Please explain that to me?…The only difference is the basic foundation or premise upon which each views the origin of the natural world. One believes in Special Creation where the other believes in Evolution…Neither can prove either foundational belief – thus both views must be accepted through faith…We do not know which foundational belief is true and which is false (both can not be true), but both are possible, howbeit one, Special Creation, has a greater probability and more evidence to support it. But, as I said – neither foundational belief has been observed so we don’t know which is true…But, once we get passed the foundational belief, each PhD follows the same rules in examining the same evidence, experimentation, etc as the other. So again, I will ask you ‘Why are the PhDs at Answers in Genesis any less of a PhD than someone at a secular institution?…I’m sure you do not have an intelligent answer to that question because one does not exist. You simply like, or agree with, the premise the secular scientist begins with. So you prefer the secular scientist over the creationist scientist because it makes you feel good…What a joke…

          • Darrah Densmore

            “Creationist scientist” is a contradiction in terms.

          • Demopublicrat

            That link states that Hitler not only believed in evolution, but tried to “help” it along.

          • http://www.KingdomOfTheAntichrist.com/ Richard Neal

            Hitler’s main thesis was that the Aryan race was the superior race – and that belief came straight out of Darwinism – What are you talking about? Or is it you who are lying?…

          • Jim Jones

            > Hitler’s main thesis was that the Aryan race was the superior race – and that belief came straight out of Darwinism.

            Unless you are referring to social Darwinism, which has nothing to do with actual Darwinism, you are talking tripe.

          • http://www.KingdomOfTheAntichrist.com/ Richard Neal

            Hitler spent a great deal of time and money on his beliefs – based on Darwinian evolution, proving that the Aryan race was GENETICALLY superior to all other races. He openly wrote about his beliefs in Mein Kampf and his subordinates, like Dr. Mengele did human experiments based on evolutionary theory…To argue otherwise is mere “tripe” on your part…

          • http://www.KingdomOfTheAntichrist.com/ Richard Neal
          • Jim Jones

            You’re simply an ignoramus who has no idea what he’s talking about. If Hitler wasn’t a Catholic, neither is the pope and for the same reasons.

          • http://www.KingdomOfTheAntichrist.com/ Richard Neal

            Evidently you are the “ignoramus” my friend. Even though Hitler was raised by a mother who was a devout Catholic, that doesn’t make Hitler a Catholic – dude you are laughable…Many historians such as Ian Kershaw, Joachim Fest and Alan Bullock agree that Hitler was anti-Christian – a view evidenced by sources such as the Goebbels Diaries, the memoirs of Albert Speer, and the transcripts edited by Martin Bormann contained within Hitler’s Table Talk. Goebbels wrote in 1941 that Hitler “hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity. Many historians have come to the conclusion that Hitler’s long term aim was the eradication of Christianity in Germany…So, are you really an “ignoramus” or just, as Professor Gruber claims all liberals are, “stupid?”…

          • Jim Jones

            Why is it you Christians always have to resort to lying? You can never admit the truth – that religion doesn’t make anyone moral and that the worst of the worst will resort to religion to cover up their crimes.

            It doesn’t matter what you say because you clearly just make up whatever you want without shame. Hitler was a fully communicating Catholic up until his death.

            o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

            No more than a famous master can be replaced and another take over the completion of the half-finished painting he has left behind can the great poet and thinker, the great statesman and the great soldier, be replaced. For their activity lies always in the province of art. It is not mechanically trained but inborn by God’s grace.
            -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
            All in all, this whole period of winter 1919-20 was a single struggle to strengthen confidence in the victorious might of the young movement and raise it to that fanaticism of faith which can move mountains.
            -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
            (Faith can remove mountains appears in 1 Corinth. 13:2)
            The characteristic thing about these people is that they rave about old Germanic heroism, about dim prehistory, stone axes, spear and shield, but in reality are the greatest cowards that can be imagined. For the same people who brandish scholarly imitations of old German tin swords, and wear a dressed bearskin with bull’s horns over their heads, preach for the present nothing but struggle with spiritual weapons, and run away as fast as they can from every Communist blackjack.
            -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
            (The above statement refutes the common impression that Hitler admired ancient Nordic customs.)
            A man who knows a thing, who is aware of a given danger, and sees the possibility of a remedy with his own eyes, has the duty and obligation, by God, not to work ‘silently,’ but to stand up before the whole public against the evil and for its cure.
            -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

          • http://www.KingdomOfTheAntichrist.com/ Richard Neal

            “Religion” is simply an individual’s or a collective’s preferred way to worship God. Consequently, no one that I know of would ever claim that “religion makes one moral”…Maybe you would do well if you did a word study on “religion” so you’ll have a better idea of what you are trying to say?

            “It doesn’t matter what you say because you clearly just make up whatever you want without shame. Hitler was a fully communicating Catholic up until his death”…I guess you know better than Hitler’s best friend and second in command – Goebbels, or Albert Speer – Hitler’s Minister of Armaments and War Production for the Third Reich as well as Adolf Hitler’s chief architect?…Or the many gifted historians who have studied Hitler over the decades?…Or is it that “you clearly just make up whatever you want without shame?”

          • MarcAlcan

            That is the dumbest thing you have said yet.
            One can be baptized a Catholic and then abandon your faith.
            There are many Catholics who have since become atheists!!
            Are you insisting that they are still Catholics?

          • Jim Jones

            And they all go to church/mass/confession regularly? As atheists? Do you idiots ever stop with the crap you invent?

            Hitler was a fully communicating Catholic up until his death. Do you not know what that means?

          • MarcAlcan

            And they all go to church/mass/confession regularly? As atheists?

            Not all. Only the hypocrites and those who want to make a show of being Christian so they could better manipulate people.

            Do you idiots ever stop with the crap you invent?

            It’s not crap. Only idiots think they are crap.

            Hitler was a fully communicating Catholic up until his death. Do you not know what that means?

            So is Nancy Pelosi and a whole host of pro-abortion pro-gay marriage catholics.
            They are Catholic in name only because it suits them.
            Going to communion does not make one a Catholic.
            In fact, by doing so they bring condemnation unto themselves.

            Do get yourself better educated before you spout some more of these non-sequiturs.

          • DesertSun59

            Very amusing. A ten second Google search will prove that you made each and every word up.

            http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hitler_and_evolution

          • MarcAlcan

            Where do you think social Darwinism came from?

          • Jim Jones

            From the same place as the term “compassionate conservatives”. Another excuse for the vicious and the greedy to reject empathy.

          • MarcAlcan

            From the same place as the term “compassionate conservatives”. Another excuse for the vicious and the greedy to reject empathy.

            Okay, I had sort of hoped that you might try to make sense. But perhaps that is impossible for you. You seem to be mired in anger so instead of giving a proper response only steam emanates from your head.

          • Jim Jones

            I liv in the real world, not your “Jesus bubble” where everything good somehow is due to your religion and everything bad is done by the “Not True Christians”™ – like Ted Haggard.

          • MarcAlcan

            I liv in the real world, not your “Jesus bubble” where everything good somehow is due to your religion and everything bad is done by the “Not True Christians” “™ – like Ted Haggard

            You mean you live in an atheist bubble where you somehow think that it is possible to be good in your world view?
            In your world view there is no such thing as good or bad. Only things that’s the flavour of the moment.
            But you are too rationally challenged you can’t see that.

          • Jim Jones

            > In your world view there is no such thing as good or bad. Only things that’s the flavour of the moment.

            Setting up strawmen merely shames you.

            Let’s talk good and bad.

            Yahweh could have banned slavery or he could have banned bacon. He went with bacon.

            If he couldn’t even get that right then he’s no source of morality.

            That’s because he doesn’t exist.

          • MarcAlcan

            Setting up strawmen merely shames you.

            Is isn’t strawmen. It’s true. In your world view, there really is no good or bad – only the flavour of the moment.

            But you are too logically challenged you can’t even work that one out. Think harder and you will get what I mean.

            Yahweh could have banned slavery or he could have banned bacon. He went with bacon.

            If he couldn’t even get that right then he’s no source of morality.

            That’s because he doesn’t exist.

            Typical dumb atheistic argument.
            If you are going to refute a claim, at least take the trouble to learn what you are refuting. Take the trouble to learn what we mean by God.
            And you were talking of strawmen?

          • Guest

            You still can’t explain it.

            This is a strawman. You want it to be true so you claim it is even though it is, of course, a lie.

            > But you are too logically challenged you can’t even work that one out. Think harder and you will get what I mean.

            Just insults. And “you will get what I mean” . . . You can’t even explain it!

            > Typical dumb atheistic argument.

            Back to insults. You couldn’t even contradict this!

            > If you are going to refute a claim, at least take the trouble to learn what you are refuting.

            I’m doing very well. I’ve destroyed you with every post.

            > Take the trouble to learn what we mean by God.

            You still can’t explain it.

          • Jim Jones

            > In your world view, there really is no good or bad – only the flavour of the moment.

            This is a strawman. You want it to be true so you claim it is even though it is, of course, a lie.

            > But you are too logically challenged you can’t even work that one out. Think harder and you will get what I mean.

            Just insults. And “you will get what I mean” . . . You can’t even explain it!

            > Typical dumb atheistic argument.

            Back to insults. You couldn’t even contradict this!

            > If you are going to refute a claim, at least take the trouble to learn what you are refuting.

            I’m doing very well. I’ve destroyed you with every post.

            > Take the trouble to learn what we mean by God.

            You still can’t explain it.

          • DesertSun59

            He’s talking tripe. It’s quite clear that he is totally unaware of what social Darwinism is and how it has nothing to do with the The Neo-Darwinian Synthesis. This is what happens when Christians do nothing but listen to Right Wing talk radio. They believe they’re being educated but have no idea they’re just being lied to.

          • Candace

            Hitler hated Jews. JESUS WAS A JEW. Hitler was after power and he was on drugs and into occult practices … Not really Christian.

          • Jim Jones

            > Hitler hated Jews. JESUS WAS A JEW.

            That’s never stopped any Christians from attacking them. Look at the pogroms in Russia.

          • MarcAlcan

            Utterly false. Hitler hated evolution

            You are more ignorant that I thought. Wow! That bad?
            Simply google Hitler and Darwin and scholarly works will pop out.
            Man, get yourself educated.
            Hitler was a staunch Darwinist. He was in fact putting helping along “natural selection” by weeding out what he thought were misfits.

          • MarcAlcan
          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            Utter nonsense. Accepting evolution does not mean embracing social Darwinism. In fact, in my experience, it is fundamental Christians in the US who most frequently espouse such ideas, telling people that if they don’t work, they shouldn’t eat and similar things.

            Eugenics is junk science and has no relation to evolution. Believing that you can remove specific genetic traits from a population by killing people with those traits belies a misunderstanding of genetics.

            As long as you’re invoking Godwin’s Law here, let’s understand what you actually believe: that the 6 million Jews murdered by Nazis are now burning in hell because they didn’t believe in Jesus, but Hitler may very well be in heaven since he was a Christian. Seems legit.

        • http://www.KingdomOfTheAntichrist.com/ Richard Neal

          What about the annihilation of all the Christians in the kingdom of Hymar by its Jewish king?…What about the slaughter of Christians in the Persian Empire under the Jewish leaders…One could go on and on about slaughters of Christians when Jews were in position of leadership, but I’m sure you could care less about facts…

          • Jim Jones

            I know the facts. You are regurgitating lies you have been told.

            And all I see is vile antisemitism from you.

        • Candace

          Catholics did not kill 6 million Jews. The Vatican opposed Hitler and priests smuggled Jews to freedom. Hitler was into the occult. In history some leaders havtried to use religion to spread their kingdoms but thats not unique to catholics -other religions have been used to commit human atrocities larely it has been muslim regimes in africa and the middle east. But includes asians and pagans of europe. People claiming that man’s sinful and wrong actions are attributable to God’s devine will. Blaming God for human acts is a real stretch.

          • Jim Jones

            > Catholics did not kill 6 million Jews.

            The extermination camp guards were Lutherans and Catholics. They were not Jews or Muslims. They did their ‘work’ with savagery, sometimes ingenious savagery.

            > The Vatican opposed Hitler and priests smuggled Jews to freedom.

            The Vatican totally supported Hitler and after the war helped Nazis to escape justice via ‘ratlines’. Catholic help to the Jews was rare and down to single individuals.

            Here are pictures of bishops, priests and others with Hitler.

            The Swiss Red Cross sent their people into the camps to hand out food etc. to children. They restricted their help to Catholics only, and only the leftovers were tossed to the Jewish kids.

          • MarcAlcan

            The extermination camp guards were Lutherans and Catholics.

            Dumb comment again. The whole Holocaust was orchestrated by Hitler and it is his atheism that brought this about.

            The Muslims were in league with Hitler.

            The Vatican totally supported Hitler and after the war helped Nazis to escape justice via ‘ratlines’. Catholic help to the Jews was rare and down to single individuals.

            Ignorant statement again. The Catholic Church helped save jews by hiding them in convents and churches. The Chief Rabbi of Rome during this time converted to Catholicism and took the name Eugenio in honor of the Pope because the Pope helped saved thousands of jews. You are a painfully ignorant man. Very sad.

          • bobbyb

            christian europe has been anti semitic for centuries- it was fertile ground for hitler

          • Vanessa In.The.Flesh

            Catholics did persecute and kill Christians and John Paul II admits that. This was also prophesied in the bible to happen before it came to pass. Daniel 7:21 “I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;” Check out http://www.remnantofgod.org/666-CHAR.htm
            and http://www.remnantofgod.org/mark.htm

          • DesertSun59

            The ‘Vatican opposed Hitler’ is false. The Vatican did NOT oppose Hitler. Your re-write of history will not work on us.

          • MarcAlcan

            The ‘Vatican opposed Hitler’ is false. The Vatican did NOT oppose Hitler. Your re-write of history will not work on us.

            Wrong again. It Is not a re-write. The Pope at that time saved many Jews by hiding them in convents and Church properties.
            This is why the chief Rabbi of Rome, when he converted to Catholicism took the Pope’s name at his baptism.

        • MarcAlcan

          Between them, Lutherans and Catholics murdered 6 million Jews in the Shoah.

          What a profoundly ignorant comment.
          Hitler was an atheist. He was a die hard follower of Darwin. In fact His final solution is an aid to natural selection.
          All the great massacres in the world were perpetuated by atheists.

          • Jim Jones

            Have you ever not told a lie? You should try it some time.

            Still Think Hitler Was an Atheist?

            Like all Catholics will, given the chance, Hitler attacked atheists ruthlessly.

          • DesertSun59

            Bravo. What a profoundly ignorant person you are. It’s quite clear that you have no idea who Hitler was. Your utterly contemptible assertion that Hitler was an atheist is historically FALSE. You have no idea he wrote a book called Mein Kampf. You have no idea what that title translates into English and you are utterly and completely unaware of the book’s contents. All of those facts tell us that you are totally unqualified to invoke that man’s name or describe him in any way. I will quote him from HIS OWN WORDS.

            “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance
            with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself
            against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”

            “I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the
            solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only
            natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once
            seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal.”

            In addition, his speeches were all recorded. Nearly all of them. They were preserved, something people like yourself are unaware of. Since German is an extant language, they’re all totally translated into English. Here’s one translated into English for you:

            “My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.”

            –12 April 1922

            I dare you to provide ANY historically evidence that he wasn’t a
            Christian. But you can’t because it is well documented who he was and what his religious affiliation was for his entire life.

          • MarcAlcan

            What a profoundly ignorant person you are. It’s quite clear that you have no idea who Hitler was. Your utterly contemptible assertion that Hitler was an atheist is historically FALSE. … “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance
            with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself
            ….. And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.”
            –12 April 1922

            I truncated your comment purposely leaving the date.

            Actually it seems it is you who do not know who Hitler was.
            And you could have removed that ignorance with a quick google.

            While Hitler was baptized Catholic, by the time he was in power, he was anything but

            Here are some excerpts from Wikipedia.

            In fact in 1941, Goebbels said that Hitler “hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity.”

            According to Max Domarus, Hitler had fully discarded belief in the Judeo-Christian conception of God by 1937, but continued to use the word “God” in speeches.

            Hitler’s Table Talk has Hitler often voicing stridently negative views of Christianity. Bullock wrote that Hitler was a rationalist and materialist, who saw Christianity as a religion “fit for slaves”, and against the natural law of selection and survival of the fittest

            I dare you to provide ANY historically evidence that he wasn’t a Christian.

            Goodness, you are truly laughable. How about this: gassing 3 million Jews? Now, he may like to call himself Christian but that shows you that he ain’t. Such evil can only proceed from someone who one who has lost his belief in God. But of course it suited him to call himself Christian. All the better to dupe them.

          • kso721

            sorry, no. never has massacre been committed in the name of non-belief. what an ignorant comment. Also, you should read up on hitler quotes regarding god. You’ll find you’re highly incorrect in your assertions. and beliefs.

          • MarcAlcan

            sorry, no. never has massacre been committed in the name of non-belief. what an ignorant comment

            Yours is the supremely ignorant one.
            Try telling that to victims of Mao and Stalin. Several tens of millions of them.

          • kso721

            your counterarguments have sh!t-all to do with the reasons you assert these atrocities were commited. please drive through.

          • MarcAlcan

            your counterarguments have sh!t-all to do with the reasons you assert these atrocities were commited. please drive through. >

            One more logically challenged atheist resorting to expletive because he has run out of reason. Typical.
            No, I won’t drive through. I enjoy surveying the mess that is the by product of your supposed intellectual process.

          • kso721

            Logically challenged? Please do elaborate. Bible thumpers want to tell us about how over 90% of all scientists, 98% of Biological scientists, The American Academy of Science, and all other science based organizations are all wrong about the age of the Universe, the processes of life and that “Evolution is just a theory” and that one small group of Bronze Age sheepherders who did not even know where the Sun went at the end of the day (and were afraid it would not return) got it all right and knew the innermost workings of all life on Earth and the origins of the Universe. Yeah.

            And btw, i don’t even identify as an atheist, so let’s jump to the meat and potatoes:

            Atheism meme regularly touted by theists:
            Atheism: the belief that was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason creating everything, and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self-replicating bits which then turned to dinosaurs. Makes perfect sense.

            My response:
            Theism: the belief that a singular, complex, conscious, ever-present, all powerful, invisible, purported male deity wished itself into complexity, consciousness and sentience out of nothing, ie., from nothing, without any prior evolution or family ancestry coming into its own existence—And then made the universe because ancient desert dwellers said so. Yeah, Makes muuuuuuuuuuch more sense.

            Especially since the bible isn’t a science book. So lets hear your take please.

          • MarcAlcan

            The bible isn’t a science book.

            And did we ever say it is?
            Like I said, you really out to study what you are trying to debunk.
            And if you don’t identify as an atheist and you are not a theist, then what are you ? Agnostic? Deist?

          • kso721

            The Bible isn’t a science book. Well do you believe that Jesus is god, or the son of god, in light of the fact that no other geographically separate non-christian, theistic and/or non-theistic culture doesn’t believe or adhere to such assertions regarding the nature of humanity in totality? If you ask me, any claim made by the bible regarding the efficacy of prayer to affect the course of natural events, and/or a specific prophet’s relationship to the rest of humanity is trying to make a claim that is testable against geographically separate cultural beliefs.

            Coming from a Baptist and Catholic upbringing, I identify as agnostic.

      • Rights UnderFire

        You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

      • SashaC

        Please educate yourself concerning the difference between a scientific theory, and the meaning of the word in layman’s terms. Evolution is not “just a theory,” and implying so proves that you don’t understand it.

        • Frank

          A theory is a theory is a theory. No matter how much you stomp your feet, cry, add silly words, a theory is a theory is a theory. Extremely unproven one at that.

          • SashaC

            Lol! You’re describing yourself having a hissy fit, sticking your fingers in your ears and saying, “lalala, I’m not listening!”

            What I state is a fact, your denial doesn’t change that. I don’t get upset or worked up about it, because I don’t need to defend the truth. I was simply trying to educate you, because you make an utter fool of yourself by using that argument. Do some research on scientific theory, rather than doubling down on your embarrassing ignorance.

            Evolution is just a theory, the same way that gravity is just a theory.

          • Frank

            A theory is unproven. A theory is a theory is a theory. I’ve studied and educated myself. I don’t need someone who clings to an unprovable idea, falsely claiming it as true to educate me. That’s just foolish.

          • SashaC

            Wow, lol. Again, you describe yourself. An unprovable idea, like god? Clearly, there’s no point in discussing this further. You are willfully ignorant. Carry on…

          • Frank

            I did not try to engage you in proving the existence of God. Thanks for playing.

          • SashaC

            Well of course you didn’t, because you can’t.

          • G Chris Larson

            NO but you can SashaC. If there is a loving God that cares about you and loves you, then all you have to do is seriously ask him to prove that he exists, to you. If He loves you he will. If he doesn’t then no worries about eternity. This is what I did and over the course of two years He proved that He is real and that He loves me (and you). So in two seconds I switched from being a materialist/evolutionist to being a christian/ creationist. Stay true to the truth.

          • SashaC

            I appreciate your sincerity, but I respectfully disagree. I definitely plan to stay true to the truth. I hope you are able to find your way back to it someday, as well.

          • John Smith

            Sarah, God’s response to you especially the last clause…..Way to quote the Bible: For this they willingly are
            ignorant of,
            that by
            the word
            of God
            the heavens were
            of old,
            and the
            earth standing out
            of the
            water and
            in the
            water:

            Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed
            with water,
            perished:

            But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved
            unto fire
            against the day of judgment
            and perdition of
            ungodly men.

          • SashaC

            Who is Sarah and why are you responding to a two week old comment?

            I don’t care what your bible or god says. Your comment is meaningless nonsense to me. I don’t base my life on fiction. You may as well be quoting Harry Potter.

          • John Smith

            It’s God’s Bible and He’s your God too whether you like it or not. Too bad you hate him.

          • SashaC

            I can’t hate something that doesn’t exist. If you or he would care to prove me wrong on that, we can talk seriously about him then.

          • John Smith

            Certainly he’ll prove you wrong ever here of death. You have an appointment and only he knows the date but guaranteed you’ll b there.

            If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he
            cannot deny himself
            Since you are biblically illiterate let me translate.
            If we deny God he’s still there. Imagine thinking someone doesn’t exist just because you think so. He lives and there is nothing you can do about it. He just laughs at you. If he loves you he will bring you low that you can be saved. If not you will die in your sin and go to hell………..obviously.

          • SashaC

            You threatening me with god or hell is like a child threatening an adult that Santa won’t bring him any presents if he’s naughty.

          • A. Neumann

            An unprovable idea such as a magic being who said “poof” and everything was here. Your statement about educating yourself certainly speaks volumes. Keep clinging to mythology and fables.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

          • Demopublicrat

            Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. – Michael Ruse

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            No, that’s simply inaccurate. Just because the evidence demonstrating that evolution occurred leads one to reject Abrahamic theology, this doesn’t make evolution an atheistic ideology. But thanks for admitting that religion is a bad thing.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eN17gXJlKWA

          • Demopublicrat

            More mythological evidence and attacks on the beliefs of others from the religion desperate to prove itself.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            No, empirical evidence which any objective person can consider and accept as true, and criticism of unsubstantiated nonsense.

            Beliefs do not deserve respect unless they have earned it.

          • Demopublicrat

            “empirical evidence” Which, much like bigfoot, we hear a lot about yet never see having to take it on faith.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            Who the hell is claiming that Bigfoot exists? Certainly not any credible scientists. Must be the same ones who claim that the god of the Bible created the universe.

          • Demopublicrat

            No it’s the same ones who claim that exploding dot thing.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            I don’t think that Stephen Hawking believes that Bigfoot exists. Or any other respected cosmologist or physicist or really any scientist in general.

            And FYI, the Big Bang is not an explosion, it’s an expansion.

          • Demopublicrat

            What Stephen Hawking thinks (or believes) is irrelevant.

            And FYI, It’s BS religious belief being passed around as science.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            You’re the one who brought him up, erroneously claiming he believes in Bigfoot.

            And no, evolution is not a religion. Try again.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eN17gXJlKWA

          • Demopublicrat

            Zzzzzz…..
            Evolution is a religion, trying to build a skyscraper of speciation on top of brick of bacteria adapting takes a whole lot of faith.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist
          • Demopublicrat

            More yammering stupidity, one side says they have faith in their religious beliefs, the other side whines and claims their religious beliefs are science – with no science to back it up. Keep building that skyscraper.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            No, one side has empirical evidence to back their claims and require no appeal to disembodied minds as the cause for natural phenomena, and the other pretends that gods cause things.

          • Demopublicrat

            One side CLAIMS to have empirical evidence to back their claims, feeling that if they make that claim repeatedly it will somehow be true. The other side is irrelevant in regard to these claims, it is merely brought up as some kind of feeble attempt to make theirs look more “scientific”.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            The evidence can be seen. You choose to ignore it.

          • Demopublicrat

            *yawn* whatever, faith boy.

          • MarcAlcan

            No, one side has empirical evidence to back their claims and require no appeal to disembodied minds as the cause for natural phenomena, and the other pretends that gods cause things.

            1) What is your claim?
            2) What is the empirical evidence that backs those claims?
            3) Where did natural phenomena come from and why is it there?

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            1) Evolution via natural selection is the process by which living organisms adapt to their niche and pass on favorable traits
            2) The empirical evidence is everywhere, from the fossil record, to DNA and molecular evidence, to comparative anatomy, phylogeny, etc.
            3) I’m not sure what you mean by this. Natural phenomena, by definition, come from nature itself, and they exist because that’s the way that our universe has unfolded. Not sure if you were meaning to take this all the way back to the beginning of our universe or not.

          • MarcAlcan

            1) Evolution via natural selection is the process by which living organisms adapt to their niche and pass on favorable traits

            As a definition, that is workable. But I doubt very much that that is all the theory claims. You see, evolution rests fully on chance – on random mutations. And that my friend is highly unlikely to produce the level of sophistication that we are in now in the time from the Big Bang to now.

            2) The empirical evidence is everywhere, from the fossil record, to DNA and molecular evidence, to comparative anatomy, phylogeny, etc.

            You mean the assumption that the evidence points to it. The fossil record is not even conclusive for we have no fossil record for all the stages of this so called evolution.

            Natural phenomena, by definition, come from nature itself,

            But where did nature come from. You say that is the way our universe has unfolded, but where did the universe come from? So yes, I am taking it to the beginning of the universe.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            1) I didn’t say that’s the only facet to the theory of evolution, I simply gave you the overarching description. There are many different ways that organisms evolve, and many factors involved, and different traits can be tied together such that a seemingly less favorable trait can be passed on, etc. Evolution PARTIALLY relies upon chance, because you can’t get a new trait unless something changes first. However, the resulting propagation or elimination of that trait is not chance at all, it is guided by environmental attrition. A trait in one niche may be advantageous, while neutral or deleterious in another. You clearly neither understand the magnitude of billions of years or the process of evolution if you’re blindly asserting that evolution could not have produced the biodiversity we see today.

            2) No, it is not an assumption, it is objective and demonstrable evidence and methodology. We don’t need a complete fossil record in order to demonstrate the increasing complexity and diversity of life on Earth over time. We have thousands of examples of intermediate traits and forms. Fossilization requires very rare and specific conditions. To expect that we’d have record of every species to ever exist is ridiculous and demonstrates your lack of understanding. What IS impossible, though, is for humans to have arisen from just 2 original people.

            Where did nature come from? We don’t know right now. And that’s OK. That doesn’t mean we insert a god as the cause. Haven’t you learned from history that this has never proven to be the case? People always appealed to gods to explain things they didn’t yet understand. What you’re doing is no different.

          • Demopublicrat

            “Must be the same ones who claim that the god of the Bible created the universe.” Yet more attacks on the beliefs of others not proving your point, exploding dot boy.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            Well, considering that your god and Bigfoot have the same amount of empirical evidence, by your logic, both are equally likely.

          • Demopublicrat

            Whatever religious boy.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            Do you enjoy being willfully ignorant and smug?

          • Demopublicrat

            You?

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            No, I don’t really enjoy your ignorance and smugness. Hence why I’m attempting to inform you.

          • Demopublicrat

            Attempting and failing miserably, to inform one must first have information – facts, you have neither.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            It’s only failing due to your willful ignorance

          • Demopublicrat

            That’s right, pass the buck.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            You just told me “there was nothing to learn” in a video you didn’t watch

          • Demopublicrat

            Nothing to learn doesn’t prove I didn’t watch it, more “belief” on your part.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            It’s obvious you didn’t watch it. If you did, I don’t see you addressing any of my points.

          • Demopublicrat

            Zzzzzz…..

          • MarcAlcan

            No, empirical evidence which any objective person can consider and accept as true, and criticism of unsubstantiated nonsense.

            And who says that the only reality is reduceable to what can be empirically measured?

            Beliefs do not deserve respect unless they have earned it.

            Huh?? That is the strangest (dumbest?) thing I have heard.
            How does belief earn respect?

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            By having logic and/or evidence to substantiate them. Ideas which can be demonstrated logically or empirically are not equally deserving of respect as unsubstantiated claims. Not ever.

            Who says that reality is only reduceable to what can be empirically measured? Naturalists. If you claim that things which cannot be demonstrated to exist actually exist, then anything is possible. Literally any claim has merit. The Flying Spahetti Monster is no less absurd than the existence of Jesus Christ by that measure.

          • MarcAlcan

            By having logic and/or evidence to substantiate them. Ideas which can be demonstrated logically or empirically are not equally deserving of respect as unsubstantiated claims. Not ever.

            It is great that you are laying claim to logic.

            Then perhaps you can tell me how you know that only what is verifiable is what is real.

            If you claim that things which cannot be demonstrated to exist actually exist, then anything is possible. Literally any claim has merit. The Flying Spahetti Monster is no less absurd than the existence of Jesus Christ by that measure.

            Sorry but that is just plain dumb. There is a historical record of Jesus Christ. There is none for the flying spaghetti monster unless of course you are saying that the flying spaghetti monster is a spirit.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            Laying claim to logic? Considering that the very premise of an uncaused god creating the universe is illogical, your claims fail before you even get started with any other arguments. How do I know what is real? Because empirical observation is the best method of discerning reality. Just having “faith” that things are real means that ANYTHING can be true if you just believe it. The simple fact is that if the god of the Bible existed, it would have gone out of its way to hide itself and provide a plethora of evidence to deceive us into believing it didn’t exist. Such a god would reduce people with critical thinking to his own personal shadenfreude as he would allow them to suffer forever after death.

            No, it is not dumb to state that with faith, you can make any claim. What you’re doing is appealing to special pleading to claim that your faith in Jesus Christ is somehow different from other unsubstantiated claims. There is NO historical record of Jesus Christ. None. Zero evidence that such a person was divine if he existed. Now, did a man named Jesus (Yeshua) live around that time and make some claims about being the son of god? Perhaps, but the existence of a historical Jesus isn’t unanimous.

            The gospels aren’t eyewitness accounts, and were all written decades after the alleged events. There are no extra-Biblical accounts of Jesus in the first Century, and even the first mentions by the likes of Josephus are known to be embellished and forged.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUh_0E3qi6w

          • MarcAlcan

            Laying claim to logic? Considering that the very premise of an uncaused god creating the universe is illogical,

            Finally you got around to it.
            I suppose you would care to share with us why it is illogical?

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            Because even most theists will argue that there must be a “first cause”, but then they use special pleading to claim that a creator is exempt from this. If we accept the premise “nothing can exist without a cause”, then a god existing without a cause is illogical.

          • MarcAlcan

            Not at all.
            There are many people who believe in evolution but remain fully Christian.
            Science and faith are not incompatible.
            The first one to propose the Big Bang was a Catholic priest.
            Scientism on the other is abandonment of reason.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            They are irreconcilable. Yes, I understand that people both accept evolution and remain Christian, but that’s because they haven’t bothered to reconcile the two. I used to be one of them.

            Your argument about the priest who proposed the Big Bang theory is an appeal to authority, and simply again demonstrates that people can hold conflicting thoughts without attempting to reconcile them.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcAriSxVhpY

          • MarcAlcan

            They are irreconcilable. Yes, I understand that people both accept evolution and remain Christian, but that’s because they haven’t bothered to reconcile the two. I used to be one of them.

            Wow, finally a post from you that actually makes sense.
            Yes, indeed you are right – they are irreconcileable.
            But that of course depends on how you define evolution.
            If you mean strict Darwininian evolution then yes it is irreconcileable and it should be because Darwinian evolution is hogwash.

            However if you mean by evolution that there is a gradual increase from less complex to more complex organisms, then that is not totally at odds with Christianity. This could just as easily be the way God chose to create – by building into matter this capacity for change and development.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            All of my posts makes sense, you just don’t like them because they conflict with your beliefs.

            Evolution is defined as the change in allele frequencies over time in a population. Given enough time, populations will diverge further as the changes compound due to different environmental pressures. “Macroevolution” is nothing more than evolution over a longer time period. Darwinian evolution is far from “hogwash”, it is one of the most heavily-supported theories in all of science. Again, you just refuse to accept it because it means your beliefs cannot be true, as you readily admit.

            When you amalgamate our knowledge – that the universe is billions of years old; that the Earth is billions of years old; that life has been evolving from simply to complex for a few billion years on Earth, that the smallest possible human population was a few thousand individuals (not 2 like the Bible claims, let alone the additional genetic bottleneck after the flood) – and then put it together with the fact that we know the Bible was written 2,000-3,500 years ago, it simply makes no sense. Humans have been around for 200,000 years and had already spread to every habitable continent by the time that the creator of the universe decided to reveal himself to a small tribal society in the Middle East? Really? Ridiculous.

          • MarcAlcan

            All of my posts makes sense, you just don’t like them because they conflict with your beliefs.

            Not quite. Some of them are not sound logically. But that last one was indeed sound.

            When you amalgamate our knowledge – that the universe is billions of years old; that the Earth is billions of years old; that life has been evolving from simply to complex for a few billion years on Earth, that the smallest possible human population was a few thousand individuals (not 2 like the Bible claims, let alone the additional genetic bottleneck after the flood) – and then put it together with the fact that we know the Bible was written 2,000-3,500 years ago, it simply makes no sense

            And there is exhibit one of the post that I call “dumb”. Or rather just a total ignorance of how we actually view the Bible and what we mean by God.
            This is the common stupid strawman that atheists resurrect over and over again. I suppose because a great majority of them are logically challenged.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            Uh, what? How is this a strawman? We know when the Bible was written and we know how long humans have been around and where they were living at the time the Bible was written. We know how old the Earth and universe are. The Bible is completely irrational.

          • MarcAlcan

            We know when the Bible was written and we know how long humans have been around and where they were living at the time the Bible was written. We know how old the Earth and universe are.

            And like I said, you are too vehemently stupid and ignorant of the Bible and what it is about that you keep going on and on in this strawman argument.
            Newsflash! The Bible is not a science book and was never written as such. Only the dumb believe it is a science book and only the dumb will refute it as a science book.

            The Bible is completely irrational.

            No you are – for thinking that the Bible is a science book.
            Like I said – ignorant.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            Of course the Bible isn’t a science book, because Bronze Age Middle Eastern agrarians didn’t know much about cosmology or biological evolution or even basic physiology. The reason they didn’t is because their god doesn’t exist, otherwise it would have provided them this knowledge to improve their lives and/or demonstrate its existence to future generations.

            I’m hardly ignorant of the Bible. I was a Christian for 30 years. I read the Bible cover-to-cover, and continue to reference it and study it in order to bolster my arguments against it.

            Do not project your ignorance onto me. What you mean is that I don’t accept your apologetics.

          • GalapagosPete

            Which of its practitioners do that? Because the only people I ever hear doing that with evolution are…Creationists.

          • Demopublicrat

            They all do it, they are just in denial.

          • GalapagosPete

            “They all do it” is not an answer, it’s avoiding an answer. Not surprising, as you don’t have one.

            But you think you do, so let’s have some specific examples of the ways in which evolution is considered an ideology, and by whom. Who has written books or papers in which they say that evolution has moral lessons for us?

            Tell us what is the dogma of evolution, what is the Holy Book (don’t bother with anything Darwin wrote, his work, although seminal, has been surpassed long ago.) what are the tenets of evolution, who are the priests – AND WHO MAKES THESE CLAIMS?

            Because literally the only people who assign morality to evolution are Creationists like yourself. Any atheist or scientist who attempted to do so would be laughed at – and not in a good way.

            So let’s hear it.

          • Demopublicrat

            One doesn’t need a “holy book” to be a religion, one just needs to have a belief that requires faith as evolution does. The “moral lessons” resulting from said religious faith are that there are no moral absolutes – survival of the fittest.
            Attacking the beliefs of others still do not prove yours, sorry.

          • GalapagosPete

            “One doesn’t need a “holy book” to be a religion…”

            I never said one did; I was listing the attributes common to most
            religions, and pointing out that evolution has none of them.

            “…one just needs to have a belief that requires faith…”

            So you’re saying that religion is trivial. Okay, if you say so.

            “The “moral lessons” resulting from said religious faith are that there are no moral absolutes – survival of the fittest.”

            Evolutionary theory is descriptive, not prescriptive. You demonstrate a common misconception of the meaning of “survival of the fittest,” which means only that in a given niche, some individuals will be better-suited than others to survive there, and so will be more successful, and as a result will be the most likely to breed and pass those traits to their descendants.

            For example, the lizard with the best camouflage will not be eaten by predators, so they will survive to propagate their genes, while other lizards will be dinner, often before they can breed.

            There are no “moral lessons” here, only descriptions of nature.

          • Demopublicrat

            “You demonstrate a common misconception of the meaning of “survival of the fittest,” which means only that in a given niche, some individuals will be better-suited than others to survive there, and so will be more successful, and as a result will be the most likely to breed and pass those traits to their descendants.”
            Most of those attributes are genetic and already exist in the makeup of their DNA. Some genes are recessive and some dominant – short people can have tall children, while tall people can still have short children. this doesn’t prove your religion, sorry.

          • GalapagosPete

            “Most of those attributes are genetic and already exist in the makeup of their DNA.”

            Yes, they would have had to exist in the individual’s DNA, or they wouldn’t have it, nor could they pass it along. Absolutely correct.

            “Some genes are recessive and some dominant…”

            Also correct.

            “this doesn’t prove your religion…”

            I have no religion, nor was I talking about religion, your last statement is what is called a non sequitur. I was explaining how you misunderstood the concept of “survival of the fittest.” Don’t feel badly, many people don’t understand it until it’s explained to them.

            Now, did you want to actually respond to may last post, or are you done?

          • Demopublicrat

            You are just trying to shove a known fact into your little evolution box.
            Here’s a reply: No matter what type of word play song and dance you attempt, the fact remains – evolution is a religion, not science. You have failed to prove otherwise.

          • GalapagosPete

            I don’t need to “prove” anything: *you* are claiming that evolution is a religion – which is exactly like saying that radiation is a religion, by the way, as both are natural phenomena – so it is up to you to explain why that is the case. You have failed to do so, only made assertions with no evidence to back them up.

          • Demopublicrat

            “which is exactly like saying that radiation is a religion, by the way, as both are natural phenomena” – so it is up to you to explain why that is the case. You have failed to do so, only made assertions with no evidence to back them up. Radiation is observable and testable, evolutionism has to be taken on faith.

          • GalapagosPete

            Evolution has been observed and is testable, since we can sequence genomes.

            But if you disagree with that, rather than merely asserting on an internet comment section that evolution isn’t testable, or real, or whatever, you should present your objections to a few biologists and see what they say.

            Of course, be prepared to defend your claims with good evidence.

          • Demopublicrat

            “Evolution has been observed and is testable, since we can sequence genomes.” LOL, that doesn’t indicate evolution in any stretch of the imagination.

            “Of course, be prepared to defend your claims with good evidence.” They don’t, that’s evidence enough.

          • GalapagosPete

            “They don’t, that’s evidence enough.”

            LOL, that probably sounded like it made sense when it was still inside your head, but when you let it out it was merely incoherent, LOL.

            LOL, obviously you don’t have the balls to actually talk to someone who would shred your false claims in front of your eyes, but that’s hardly surprising, evolution-deniers are notorious cowards. All you can do is make false claims and then run away when someone tell you to actually find out for yourself, LOL.

          • John_33

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

            Theories can become obsolete or superseded. Case in point, look at the first theory in the list: spontaneous generation. Evolutionists still teach that spontaneous generation occurred once really long ago, yet there is absolutely no evidence to support their conclusion. That doesn’t stop evolutionists from pretending that it once happened. Sadly, the world will continue to live in ignorance until it finally realizes that life is not a magic act – non-living chemicals cannot create life.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            You are correct, theories can be tweaked or even supplanted when new evidence is discovered. What you fail to understand first of all is that evolution is an observed process. So, even if the theory of natural selection were to somehow be disproved, evolution still occurs. In addition, you cannot compare scientific ideas from before the advent of the modern scientific method to today’s theories. We have a method and standard now; back then, they were just going on popular consensus.

            There’s no such thing as an “evolutionist”. Are there “germists” who accept that microorganisms cause infectious diseases? Are there “heliocentrists” who accept that the Earth orbits the sun? No, there’s not. You’re simply attempting to discredit people who accept and understand the theory of evolution.

            Evolution is not a theory of origins, so neither evolution nor those who accept it necessarily make any claims as to the origins of life. The theory of abiogenesis certainly isn’t as highly supported as the theory of evolution, but it certainly does have evidence supporting it. You are falsely equating abiogenesis with spontaneous generation, which belies either your ignorance regarding these concepts, or your willful misrepresentation of them. Your smug assertion that “non-living chemicals cannot create life” is unfounded. A cell is nothing more than an envelope of interacting molecules. We’ve even created viruses from scratch. Cells are obviously more complex than viruses, but you get the point.

          • MarcAlcan

            You are correct, theories can be tweaked or even supplanted when new evidence is discovered.

            Precisely! And yet here you are claiming that evolution is true in the atheistic sense of the world.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            Atheistic sense? No, I’m a molecular biologist, and I know that evolution is true per the scientific definition of the term. Evolution has nothing to do with atheism. Just because understanding that evolution and Abrahamic theology are irreconcilable lends itself to atheism, that doesn’t mean that evolution is atheistic.

          • MarcAlcan

            No, I’m a molecular biologist, and I know that evolution is true per the scientific definition of the term.

            Precisely. Per the scientific definition. But is the definition correct? Or is this one more case of we define things to make them true?

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            What do you mean “correct”? If scientists define a theory in a specific way, then anything called a theory must meet the criteria. That’s how it works.

          • MarcAlcan

            What do you mean “correct”? If scientists define a theory in a specific way, then anything called a theory must meet the criteria. That’s how it works.

            Until they tweak the definition because new evidence suddenly does not support said theory. This is why theories fade in and out of fashion.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            No, the definition of theory has remained static in modern science, since the widespread use of the scientific method. Individual theories can certainly be modified or supplanted, as is required per new evidence.

            Again, when scientists define biological evolution as the change in allele frequencies over time in a population, this means that evolution, as defined in biology, is true. When you have to resort to word games to argue the nomenclature, you are no longer debating the actual subject.

          • MarcAlcan

            No, the definition of theory has remained static in modern science,

            My apologies. I was not referring to the definition of “theory” as such, but rather to the definition of a particular theory – say evolution. That changes in light of new discoveries and new evidence.

            All that we can safely say at the moment is in light of these observations, we can sort of conclude that this may be how it happened.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            But what you’re doing is making the assumption that this will be the case, and that we don’t truly know anything.

          • MarcAlcan

            commonly regarded as correct

            Precisely. Commonly regarded as correct. Not as fact. But commonly regarded as correct.
            Thank you.

          • GalapagosPete

            “Commonly regarded as correct [by the men and women who spend their lives working, studying and doing research in the field and who know what they’re talking about].”

            Fixed that for you; you’re welcome.

            “Not as fact.”

            Evolution is regarded as a fact in science. Try asking some biologists – again, the people who actually know what they’re talking about because that’s what they do for a living.

          • MarcAlcan

            “Commonly regarded as correct [by the men and women who spend their lives working, studying and doing research in the field and who know what they’re talking about].”

            Who can still and have got it wrong.

            Evolution is regarded as a fact in science.

            Wishful thinking. It is called a theory because it is a theory. When it becomes fact then it becomes law.

          • GalapagosPete

            “Who can still and have got it wrong.”
            Again, you are not in a position to judge what science has or hasn’t gotten wrong because you don’t know what you are talking about, as you immediately demonstrate:

            “It is called a theory because it is a theory. When it becomes fact then it becomes law.”

            A fact is one single observation of a phenomenon, for example, a falling apple: “When I hold an apple and then let go, it falls to the ground.”

            Laws are a description based on repeated facts/observations: “Whenever I let go of an apple, it falls to the ground.”

            Theories explain the reason(s) that an apple falls to the ground when I let go of it.

            A fact cannot “become” a law. A law cannot “become” a theory. They are connected, but they do not graduate from one to the other. Facts generate laws, and laws generate theories, but there’s no becoming of one to the next happening. They are different steps in the process, and *theory* is the ultimate step.

          • MarcAlcan

            Again, you are not in a position to judge what science has or hasn’t gotten wrong because you don’t know what you are talking about, as you immediately demonstrate:

            “It is called a theory because it is a theory. When it becomes fact then it becomes law.”

            Who said I am judging? It is the scientists themselves who have judged by the simple fact that previous theories have been superseded.

            fact cannot “become” a law. A law cannot “become” a theory.

            Okay, I may use terminologies not quite the way science would but it still stands that theories are precisely that – theories. Or else they would never get debunked.
            Can you come up with a theory that goes against laws?

          • GalapagosPete

            I’m sorry, I misunderstood your comment.

            Scientists discover new facts that current theories are unable to account for, so the theory is modified, replaced or abandoned. So far, the theory of evolution has been modified from Darwin’s time but not shown to be wrong. There is considerable debate about the specifics, however.

            Yes, theories are provisional, subject to modification or replacement. But as they are usually the result of years of work by many people, this is not lightly done. And all theories are incomplete, this is the nature of knowledge.

          • MarcAlcan

            There is considerable debate about the specifics, however.

            And the devil is in the detail.

            Yes, theories are provisional, subject to modification or replacement. But as they are usually the result of years of work by many people, this is not lightly done.

            Who cares if they are the result of years of work if in the end they turn out to be false?

            And all theories are incomplete, this is the nature of knowledge.

            Precisely my point.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            Thanks, Mr. Solipsism.

            Science, unlike religion, always leaves room for correction if evidence dictates it. The reason there is no such thing as a scientific “fact” is because we understand that new evidence could always be discovered.

          • MarcAlcan

            Science, unlike religion, always leaves room for correction if evidence dictates it. The reason there is no such thing as a scientific “fact” is because we understand that new evidence could always be discovered.

            Except when it is law. And that my friend is a fact.

            The history of science is replete with debunked theories and like you said always open to revision. Ergo, what is “commonly regarded as correct” now can be ” how stupid we were to ever believe that” later.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            Law? A theory is the highest status a scientific idea can attain. Laws are embedded within theories; theories do not progress into laws.

            Yes, we do have a history of theories being corrected and supplanted. What is important to note is that just because a theory was wrong, that changes nothing about the observed phenomena we were attempting to explain. So, even if the theory of evolution via natural selection were determined to be incorrect, evolution is still an observed fact. Nothing changes about that, just the mechanism would be different.

            In addition, the modern scientific method has only been around for a few hundred years. Before that, it was haphazard and theories were basically the result of popular consensus; there wasn’t any empirical data to back it up, just observations and guesses, like people thinking that flies spontaneously generated from rotting meat or that mice arose naturally from haystacks. Today, our methods are far more robust and reliable. You’re attempting to cast doubt on scientific methods because of how science operated prior to having a uniform standard.

          • MarcAlcan

            Law? A theory is the highest status a scientific idea can attain. Laws are embedded within theories; theories do not progress into laws.

            A law is fact. A theory… well you’ve already said that it is a movable feast.

          • GalapagosPete

            “A law is fact.”

            No, Marc, I explain the difference a couple of posts above this one.

          • MarcAlcan

            No, Marc, I explain the difference a couple of posts above this one.No, Marc,

            Let’s take the law gravity. Is that not fact?
            Or how about the laws of thermodynamics?
            Can you propose theories that go against these laws?

          • GalapagosPete

            The laws of gravity and thermodynamics are factual statements, but they are not scientific facts, which are observations. Scientific laws are factual descriptions of scientific facts (observations). It could be said, however, that scientific laws are facts in the colloquial meaning of the word fact.

            No. A scientific theory cannot go against established scientific laws because the theories are based on the laws.

          • MarcAlcan

            Scientific laws are factual descriptions of scientific facts (observations). It could be said, however, that scientific laws are facts in the colloquial meaning of the word fact.

            Precisely. And you can apply that to theories can you?

            No. A scientific theory cannot go against established scientific laws because the theories are based on the laws.

            If they are, then how come they can change and have been debunked before?
            What law governs the theory of evolution?
            Are there laws that go against the theory of evolution?

          • GalapagosPete

            Scientific theories are factual. They are based on scientific facts.

            Theories have been modified or abandoned or replaced entirely when we acquire new facts that the earlier theory was unable to explain. This is how science advances, by acquiring new knowledge.

            As for what laws apply specifically to evolution, that is above my pay grade, you should ask a biologist. But no far no one has come up with a law that evolution violates.

          • MarcAlcan

            As for what laws apply specifically to evolution, that is above my pay grade, you should ask a biologist. But no far no one has come up with a law that evolution violates.

            Well you are the one who go on and on as if neo-Darwinian theory is true and you are the one who said that theories are based on laws.

            As for not violating laws – what about the second law of thermodynamics?

            Someone argued that it does not violate 2LT because the earth is not a closed system. But realistically, evolution starts with the Big Bang and the cosmos is a closed system.

          • GalapagosPete

            That’s like saying that I am the one who keeps insisting that Lincoln was the 16th president of the United States. I’m not, I’m merely reporting what the evidence indicates according to historians.

            As for evolution, it is based on physical evidence and our observations of breeding, DNA replication, replication errors and whatnot although I am given to understand that biology does not have formal laws, per se, although in our experience, for example, dogs do not give birth to cats, and the biological child of two individuals shares DNA with both parents. These are not apparently considered formal laws, although I don’t know why that is the case; it certainly seems that they fit the definition. Go ask a biologist.

            As for the second law of thermodynamics, it has long been known that order can increase locally as long as there is an outside source of energy; in a closed system such as our solar system, there will eventually – in a few billion years – be a balance of energy, but until then energy is being transferred from the Sun to the planets. Ask anyone who ever got a sunburn, or started a fire with a magnifying glass.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            A law is something that is a constant in our observations of the universe, and is embedded within a theory. Theories do not become laws. Not ever. Theories are the strongest measure that any scientific concept can attain.

          • MarcAlcan

            Theories are the strongest measure that any scientific concept can attain.

            Until surpassed by another.
            So really it does not mean much. All it is is a kind of working hypothesis. You can never say of a theory that this is how it actually happened. It is a proposal only of how it may have happened.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            No, it’s not a “working hypothesis”. A “working hypothesis” would be a prediction which is still being initially tested, but may only have a small amount of evidence or has not been thoroughly scrutinized by experts in the field as of yet.

            Again, a theory is modeled using the available evidence. What you are doing is making the assumption that any and all theories are subject to change, we just haven’t found the contradicting evidence yet. You pretend like we haven’t figured anything out yet…or at least you do this when theories are inconvenient to your personal beliefs.

          • MarcAlcan

            You pretend like we haven’t figured anything out yet…or at least you do this when theories are inconvenient to your personal beliefs.

            Quite the contrary.
            I do know that we have certain facts. And from these facts we have made some conclusions.
            What I do not fully believe are the conclusions that you derived from these facts for the simple reason that it is not 100% certain. That is why I keep saying it is a theory. If some evidence should come to light 50 years later contradicting it, then that theory will be refined or altogether abandoned.
            That is all I am saying.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            It IS a theory. Theories are subject to change…but that doesn’t mean we make the assumption that no theories are correct and that all will eventually change. You selectively choose evolution to question because it conflicts with what you WANT to be true. You have no problem accepting germ theory or heliocentric theory.

          • G Chris Larson

            Bummer Dude, that means evolutionists can’t even call it a theory anymore, now that leading scientists .like Richard Dawkins and Shapiro and many others are calling for a replacement to neo Darwinism since it has no explanatory power when it comes to explaining mutations at the molecular DNA level.

          • GalapagosPete

            Except Dawkins isn’t doing anything of the kind, Shapiro has made no progress in getting others to accept his ideas, and just because there are certainly some scientists who don’t accept Darwinian evolution, the vast majority of them do, because they find it sound, and they find the arguments put forward by the Shapiros unconvincing.

            “Darwinism since it has no explanatory power when it comes to explaining mutations at the molecular DNA level.”

            Evolutionary theory explains how mutations drive evolution, it is not intended to explain how mutation occurs.

            And even if evolution was falsified tomorrow – and “It doesn’t explain everything!” is not falsification – it would not in any way mean that magical creation was a viable explanation.

          • G Chris Larson

            Interesting Galapagos, because some people think that he and others are making progress in finding a new model. thank you for Dawkins exact words , but his implication was that they had given up on it and in my discussions with other materialists they only want to talk about evolution not origins,. My major point here is that no one seems to understand how mutations take place at the DNA molecular at the DNA/molecular level. this is key to understanding why neo Darwinism doesn’t work.

          • GalapagosPete

            I can actually see how you night draw that inference, since he did not go on to say “But we’re working on it,” but in fact work is being done on it every day.

            But even if we had absolutely no idea how life originated on Earth, it would be irrelevant to evolution, which merely has to have life, not life generated in a particular way.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            Who told you that? Ken Ham?

            Goddamn this willful ignorance is annoying.

          • G Chris Larson

            Nope sorry that came from Richard Dawkins himself on the movie “Expelled” . cracked me up that this “great” atheist scientist has to concede to the design hypothesis. who’s ken ham?

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            No, Dawkins did not “concede the design hypothesis”. He was asked if “intelligent design” (which some people take to mean the idea invented by Behe and Dembski and the Discovery Institute, while others simply use to refer to the idea of a “creator” in general) was a possibility. He said that it was conceivable that some other advanced beings created LIFE ON EARTH, but that these beings themselves would have arisen from natural processes. Basically, sure, life on Earth could have been designed, but whatever created it would have had to have evolved itself. He was basically just pushing evolution back a step.

            Ken Ham is an incorrigible Creationist from Australia who operates the website “Answers in Genesis” and who has build a Creation Museum in Kentucky and is currently trying to build a replica of Noah’s Ark (with hundreds of pages of blueprints and scores of engineers and construction equipment; how’d Noah do it himself? LOL).

            Anyways, Dawkins was misled about the nature of the interview. They were not forthcoming with their intentions about the movie, and Stein asked leading questions. All you’re doing is trying to cherry-pick out-of-context quotes from one scientist to pretend that evolution isn’t real.

            http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/background/interview-tactics

          • G Chris Larson

            Sorry for the delay Proto, I take Sabbaths off from the internet. You should try it sometime, helps to refocus. Anyway i suppose leading questions are somewhat unfair , but there is something to be said for unscripted interviews. (would like to see more of that with politicians.. That being said, It is interesting, that with all that we know about molecular science and developmental biology, that materialists are getting further from being able to explain the origin of life. (Saying that aliens “seeded” the planet is a tacit concession to ID) Yes that’s my camp – ID – Can’t go with Ham/guys, because the evidence is there in the DNA programming that intelligence had a hand in it. Also interesting that none of the materialists in this discussion have tried to answer my question about how they think mutations happen at the molecular/DNA level, because for them that ‘s where the poo gets into the wind machine.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            Have I linked you to my video on ID yet? You should watch it.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7oCLx7E74M

          • GalapagosPete

            A theory is unproved because in science nothing is ever “proved.” Everything is tentative, subject to change based on the finding of new evidence.

            it is only some religions that claim to have perfect truth. Science knows it doesn’t, because if it did, it would stop.

          • Candace

            Educate yourself … Darwin disproved his own teory of evolution. Look into the actual evidence.

          • SashaC

            You are absolutely incorrect. Care to back up your claim?

          • MarcAlcan

            You can define theory as much as you like but it still remains a theory.
            Gravity is not a theory. Gravity is a law.
            If evolution is true, it would also be law.

          • SashaC

            *sigh*

            I’m going to oversimplify for you as much as I can, in the hopes that you understand it.

            AGAIN, the word theory has a different meaning in science than in layman’s terms. Gravity is both a law and a theory. Theories do not graduate into laws. In fact, in the scientific hierarchy, theories would be above laws. There is nothing higher than a theory. Laws describe things. Theories explain how they happen. Theories never become laws.

            Here read this, it explains things… http://www.notjustatheory.com/

          • DrychronRed

            Um, no. That’s a hypothesis you’re thinking of, that layman use the word “theory” for. The scientific term for “theory” means proven as fact, like gravity.

          • Frank

            Theories are unproven. No matter how many silly words you attach to them, or say you believe them to be true. I dare say most of us have read dictionaries and taken science classes and studied the differences. And evolution has so many holes in it you could drive all existence through it.

          • DemocracyDog

            Good to see you finally get it: All of existence WAS driven through evolution!

          • http://www.KingdomOfTheAntichrist.com/ Richard Neal

            There is not a single empirical scientific fact or observation that supports the Theory of Evolution – Not one!…To accept evolutionary theory is to do so through faith only…

          • GalapagosPete

            Well, thousand of scientists who actually work in the field disagree with you and your priest, so I’m going to go with the people who know what they’re talking about on this – which isn’t you.

          • http://www.KingdomOfTheAntichrist.com/ Richard Neal

            No, actually any honest scientist who studies – or even believes in evolutionary theory – will tell you there does not exist a single piece of empirical scientific data to support evolution…You may not like that little fact, but not liking it doesn’t make it any less true…Nor will holding your breath until it goes away really make it go away…

          • GalapagosPete

            Why don’t you tell us what you think constitutes “empirical” evidence.

          • GalapagosPete

            Right, if they disagree with you then they must be dishonest, because all the honest one agree with you. Because you’re smarter and know more than they do.

            Because you’re a troll.

          • Glenn Boyce

            Damn – read a book, son! Preferable one not from “Answers in Genesis”.

          • Candace

            Frank don’t argue with children. Your superior knowledge makes it unfair

          • Darrah Densmore
          • Jim Jones

            > And evolution has so many holes in it

            The current number of ‘holes’ is zero, despite hundreds of thousands of potential cases.

          • Candace

            OMG ….READ your dictionary before you make a boob of yourself. A theory is a SUPPOSITION orcset of ideas (conjecture … which by the way is inadmissible in a court of law). Synonyms: hypothesis thesis conjecture speculation opinion assumption. notice the word hypothesis is a synonym of the word theory. GO BACK TO MIDDLE SCHOOL science classes and don’t pass GO until you’ve completed an actual education.

          • james

            I think the problem is you are still using your middle school dictionary. When you become a big girl you’ll learn words can have many definitions and the simplest one isn’t always the correct one.

          • Darrah Densmore

            How about reading a general science text. Yet another Dunning-Kruger case.

            http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

          • SashaC

            Congratulations, you win the award for the most embarrassing comment I’ve read all day, and that’s saying a lot.

            If you were paying any attention in middle school science, you’d understand that the common, everyday meaning of the word “theory” IS NOT the same as the scientific definition. You have made a complete fool of yourself, repeatedly making these ignorant comments all over a thread where multiple people have explained that.

            I want to believe that no be could be this dense and that you’re just a troll. Please be a troll.

            If you aren’t a troll…well, I don’t want to live on this planet anymore…but besides that, take a look at this link. It explains things slowly, using small words, and even highlights the main points for you. Idiot-proof, though I have a feeling you may prove me wrong.

            http://www.notjustatheory.com/

          • james

            So, close and yet, so far.

          • Jim Jones

            > The scientific term for “theory” means proven as fact, like gravity.

            Nope. A theory is an explanation that fits all the facts and is the best one so far. When it isn’t the best, we change it.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            Then I suppose you don’t trust Germ Theory, the idea that microorganisms cause infectious diseases? How about Heliocentric Theory, the claim that the Earth orbits the sun? Surely the Theory of Gravity is just a guess as well?

          • http://www.KingdomOfTheAntichrist.com/ Richard Neal

            You are referring to “theories” which have been proven through observation – the Theory of Evolution has never been observed nor duplicated. As a consequence, one who accepts the Theory of Evolution as fact can only do so through faith as there exists no single empirical fact to support the Theory of Evolution…

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            You are either ignorant or lying. Evolution is observed all over the place. We don’t have to “duplicate” something to accept it, that’s not what “repeatable” means. Repeatable means performing the same tests or observations and getting results that agree.

            But thanks for admitting that faith is a bad thing.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIEoO5KdPvg

          • Glenn Boyce

            The Theory of Evolution is on the same level as the Theory of Gravity and the Germ Theory of Disease. Do you deny the existance of gravity, or that germs cause disease?

            Evolution is established, verified scientific fact. Period.

          • cap10rob

            wrong

          • Darrah Densmore

            Way to double down on someone else’s idiocy.

        • Candace

          In fact it is a theory. That drawing omits the fact that the missing link has NEVER been found

          • SashaC

            Your comment displays how little you know and understand of evolution. Educate yourself. This article explains things in a simple way. And yes, it is a theory, in the scientific sense. Read my previous comment again…slowly.

            http://www.science20.com/between_death_and_data/missing_link_fallacy-75791

          • Darrah Densmore

            “Missing link” is not relevant. You know nothing about evolution.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Not to mention that Darwin himself wondered why there were not millions of transitionary fossils in the record by the time he came along. He thought that the next decades would fill that gap. If anything, it has gotten much worse – the huge gaps are even more evident as we have discovered the nature of nature. Were Darwin alive today, he would reject his own failed, and largely superstitious, theory.

      • DrychronRed

        Theory: You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means. Scientists only disagree on minor points of evolution. I know you don’t “want” that to be the case, but it is. Saving that billions believe it in is irrelevant, as billions of Muslims and HIndus believe their god or gods answers their prayers every day too.

        • G Chris Larson

          Unfortunately for “the professor” He has no way of proving the left side of the slide because molecular and developmental biologists have shown that it is statistically impossible for genetics to have provided the information to make even two let alone three viable mutations in the history of the earth. The “magic” is in his twisting of the facts to meet his faith. Even Dawkins has given up on proving a chemical origin to life. and if that is impossible so is the chance of three viable mutations. (hardly enough to create the animal kingdom.) yup its a theory and I know what a theory is.

          • cap10rob

            HAHAHHAHAHAAHHAHAHAH…FUNNY

          • james

            Any chance you can site a source regarding you claim on viable mutations.

          • http://aebrain.blogspot.com Zoe_Brain

            He has no way of proving the left side of the slide because molecular
            and developmental biologists have shown that it is statistically
            impossible for genetics to have provided the information to make even
            two let alone three viable mutations in the history of the earth.

            Nope.

            Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on the Synthesis and Simulation of Living Systems

            In particular:
            Using Meta-Genetic Algorithms to tune parameters of Genetic Algorithms to find lowest energy Molecular Conformers

            Part of my PhD thesis on this subject. You say it’s “statistically impossible”. I’ve demonstrated it experimentally – anyone can.

            Text at http://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/alife/0262290758chap70.pdf

          • GalapagosPete

            Which molecular and developmental biologists have shown this? How have they done so? Where was their work published? When did Dawkins declare that the chemical origin of life was impossible? What is your explanation for the fact that thousands of scientists don’t seem to be aware of your claims having been demonstrated?

            Just wondering.

          • G Chris Larson

            Dawkins made that statement on the movie “Expelled”. these scientists have not heard of Behe?Meyers? Dembski? Checkout the reviewers for Meyers book “Darwin’s Doubt” Many secular scientists give it high reviews. Check out the biologist Shapiro (not the lawyer) He is not Christian and is calling for a new mechanism. (pretty famous biologist). i would assume that scientists read in their field. if they or you are unaware of the evidence that is being published – just need to keep up with the literature.

          • GalapagosPete

            “Dawkins made that statement on the movie “Expelled.”

            No, Dawkins said we don’t know. Nowhere did he say that he’s given up on the chemical origin of life, much less that it isn’t possible. Unless you’ve seen a different version of “Expelled” than I have. If so, please provide the exact quote.

            “…Behe?Meyers? Dembski?”

            What peer-reviewed, published research have these men done supporting their assertions?

            “Many secular scientists give it high reviews.”

            “Many”? How many? In what fields do they work? What was the basis for their “high reviews”?

            “Check out the biologist [James A.] Shapiro…”

            Yes, he does not agree with Neo-Darwinian theory, but neither does he support Intelligent Design Creationism, much less outright Creationism. His views are hardly mainstream; that you can find some scientists who disagree with Darwinian evolution is hardly shocking, but neither is it significant.

            “i would assume that scientists read in their field. if they or you are unaware of the evidence that is being published…”

            So far there have been no peer-reviewed, published accounts of any good evidence refuting Darwinian evolution, much less any that supports Creationism – which, I’m sure you’ll agree, are two separate issues. Even if evolutionary theory was falsified tomorrow that would in no way whatsoever mean that magical creation was a viable alternative.

      • Scott Plumer

        How is it belittling your beliefs? Magic? How is creation not magic?

        “Even now secular scientists are claiming that there are more problems with the THEORY of evolution than they once thought.”

        Could you provide evidence of that?

      • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

        Sorry, but a theory is the highest status that a concept can achieve in science. Something that is just a hunch or unproven guess is called a hypothesis. Evolution is not a hypothesis, it is a highly supported model to explain how and why the observed process of evolution occurs.

        Here’s the reason why some Christians refuse to accept evolution:

        • Demopublicrat

          Posting little pictures and attacking the beliefs of others doesn’t prove your religion.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            I don’t have a religion, and criticizing bad ideas is always warranted. I agree, pictures don’t necessarily disprove anything, but they do make a point, a point which you’re choosing to ignore in favor of criticizing my approach.

          • Demopublicrat

            Call it what you like, it is a religion based on faith.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            It demonstrably is the exact opposite of that, but thanks for playing.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyP1B-8rVxk

          • Demopublicrat

            Again I have to take your word on faith, but thanks for using many words and saying nothing, – and still no proof shown.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            And again, no, you don’t have to take my word. The evidence is readily available. Feel free to look into it, although it usually helps to have a subject matter expert to explain it to you.

          • Demopublicrat

            Sure, and there is a leprechaun at the end of the rainbow.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            Just as plausible as your god existing.

          • Demopublicrat

            Which is more plausible than your exploding dot and accidental chance religion.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            Again, the Big Bang is not an explosion, evolution is not “accidental chance”, it is a guided process, and atheism isn’t a religion.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIww9-gVxUg

          • Demopublicrat

            Whatever you wish to call your “big bang” – it’s your religious belief. “it is a guided process,” It’s a religion.
            Atheism is a religion, it is a belief system just like any other, even you hero Dawkins knows you can’t prove there isn’t a God but chooses to have faith there isn’t.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist
          • Demopublicrat

            Zzzzzz…..

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            That’s right, wouldn’t want to actually learn anything now

          • Demopublicrat

            There was nothing to learn sorry.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            That’s because you choose not to. You think you’ve already seen it all. Your mind is closed.

          • James Grimes

            Don’t waste your time with Prototype Atheist. He trolls CN.net every six weeks or so, makes a big stink, and then we don’t hear of him again for another six weeks.

        • Kyle Cardinal

          A group of random uneducated guess”s isnt a hypothesis its a religion.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            LOL, I suppose that can sometimes be the case

        • david ramseur

          More like:
          1. God exists – there is no other logical reason for there being existence at all. If the eternal creator did not exist, nothing would exist.
          2. God is personal – He doesn’t need any of the creation because He exists in fellowship/community (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) God creates the universe in order to show His power, might, glory, justice, and mercy.
          3. God created the universe in 6 literal days, man being created on day six as His crowning achievement who is made in His image. Science tends to confirm and lend credence to this narrative of origins.
          4. Mankind rebels against their Creator and brings forth the consequences of death (2nd law of Thermodynamics aka Entropy)
          5. God reveals Himself to man in personal ways, draws a people unto Himself, and ultimately becomes a man in order to fully reveal His character and to atone for sin, a problem that all men face yet do not have a solution.
          6. God continues to reveal Himself to this day. He reveals Himself to the humble but opposes the proud. He draws near to those who draw near to Him. He moves certain people to repentance and saving faith by His grace and indwelling Holy Spirit.
          7. It is appointed for man once to die and then to face the judgment. Nothing in all of creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of Him to whom we must give account. Heb 4:1-3 For we did not make ourselves and are stewards of what has been given us of God whether we like it or not.
          8. Eternity is reserved in two destinations, Heaven and Hell. The place you choose depends on what you do with Jesus Christ.
          The Bible provides a consistent worldview (origins, purpose, destiny, basis for ethics/objective morality, basis for genuine altruism, the problem of sin that we witness in our lives (nobody is perfect), etc… All other ideologies prove to be inconsistent with reality and unable to live by when critically examined, when the underlying assumptions are laid out far enough. All atheistic ideologies inevitably descend into post-modern skepticism and relativism. Objective truth cannot even be countenanced devoid the existence of God.

          • http://aebrain.blogspot.com Zoe_Brain

            So – what created God?

          • david ramseur

            In order for existence itself to exist something would have to be eternal, the uncaused cause. That something is God. Out of God all things were made. Without God nothing lives, moves, or has its being.

          • david ramseur

            It makes rational sense to believe that the uncaused cause is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, eternal, immutable, sovereign, holy, and fully transcendent of the creation.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            No, it’s not “more like” that. Your presuppositional apologetics are an abject failure. You have no substantiation for your claims. You’re done nothing to address my actual argument.

            Heaven is supposed to exist just beyond Earth’s stratosphere. We’ve put men on the moon, robots on Mars, and sent a probe into interstallar space. We can also see stars billions of lightyears away.

            Hell is also supposed to exist beneath the Earth, and is clearly just a lame explanation for volcanic activity.

            It’s 2014, stop living in Bronze Age Canaan.

          • david ramseur

            The Bible says that God stretched out the heavens, that he placed innumerable stars in the sky. So the heavens = space, the place that Jesus has gone to prepare a place for us: heaven is transcendent of the created universe. Semantics man. Hell may be down in the Earth somewhere, we have not explored the inner Earth. We think we know the composition of the inner Earth, (mantle, outer core, inner core which I indeed believe exist), but we do not KNOW if Hell is down there or not (how could we know).
            You believe that nothing exploded into everything, which has purposelessly and unguided, morphed into ever higher levels of complexity and all of the thousands of species in the animal kingdom! You believe that nothing burst into matter, which then brought forth consciousness, intelligence, purpose, ethics, morality, law and justice, etc…These beliefs you hold, which are desperate attempts to shield yourself from your Creator who wants nothing but the best for you, are pure lunacy.
            Submit to the Truth that you already know deep down. Examine the evidence with an open mind. Welcome the rationality of your special creation instead of fearing it. You can either continue to flee God or become reconciled to God thru Jesus Christ.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            No, I don’t believe that “nothing” was ever a state of existence. That’s a strawman argument.

            Here’s what your Bible says:

          • david ramseur

            The sun moving is referencing the suns apparent motion across the sky. Waters above mean H20 particles in the sky that before the flood helped shield the Earth from the suns radiation. During the flood, the waters above rained down as well as the great fountains of the deep bursting forth. Everything else seems legit to me. For Heaven is not of this Earth or universe. Heaven is outside of the heavens aka sky plus space.
            If you don’t believe that nothing was ever a state of existence you must believe that something was eternal. You just cannot believe that that something is sovereign, all powerful, all knowing, all present, never changing, holy (set apart), and eternal. You must just believe that a sub atomic particle of matter is eternal, that for no reason changed into what we see today.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            Nice apologetics, but you fail. The Bible’s description of the Earth is exactly what we’d expect from people living during that time taking a guess at how the universe works.

            Stories like the Tower of Babel and Jacob’s latter clearly indicate that heaven is reachable just beyond the clouds. Seriously, why do you insist on making excuses for Bronze Age mythology instead of just accepting that the Bible is full of it?

          • david ramseur

            Being that the spiritual realm is transcendent to the material realm. God, angelic beings, and the kingdom of heaven is able to manifest in any location, whether it be the sky, the Earth, or in the office. God, being all powerful, can reveal these things to human beings. But we cannot see them, no matter how hard we try, unless permitted to do so by God.
            Do you think that modern man is any wiser than those who were living 2,000 to 3,000 years ago? That is an arrogant error that progressives make. They discount history just because it is old. Yet the Bible has withstood criticism throughout the ages. Some of the greatest minds in human history have believed in its authenticity. No other book compares to it. Archeological discoveries have ALWAYS verified scripture. Every single prophecy that is made in its pages actually comes to pass. In fact, Biblical revelation about the nature of the universe / physical absolutes tend to anticipate scientific discovery. It is a book that reads the reader and convicts the heart of sin. It is a book that has power and authority enough to transform the lives of its readers from the inside out.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            Uh, what? You literally just presupposed the existence of the following:
            – A “spiritual realm”
            – God
            – Angelic beings
            – Heaven

            You have no evidence of any of this.

            Of course we’re wiser than Bronze Age agrarians. Are you even serious? We now understand most natural phenomena, we don’t simply say “god did it” and pretend like that’s reality.

            And you want to talk about arrogance? It isn’t arrogance to state the simple fact that humanity is far more advance and knowledgeable than 2,000 years ago. What is arrogant is to smugly proclaim that your god exists and that you have a personal relationship with the creator of the universe. Because you’re so special, you advanced primate, you.

            The Bible has not withstood criticism. Yes, until the 20th Century when modern science gave us all the evidence we needed to debunk it, philosophical and apologetics argument were enough to sustain a defense of the Bible. But not any more, sorry. I don’t discount the Bible because it is old, I discount it because it is demonstrably false.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEKPivquaOc

          • david ramseur

            You and I are not advanced primates, we are humans. I discount Darwinian evolution because it is demonstrably false. It doesn’t make any logical sense when you understand entropy, biogenesis, limits to genetic variation, irreducible complexity, the medium is not the message, the fine-tuning of the universe, DNA linguistic conventions, etc… You need to examine the evidence at a much deeper level to see that it just doesn’t add up in regards to Darwinian evolution.
            Now, more than a negative critique of Darwinian evolution, the intelligent design movement provides positive arguments for creation. The overarching premise is that design is empirical, it can be detected. You can intuitively classify products of nature apart from products of design (sand castles, mount Rushmore, the cell). The explanatory filter is commissioned to distinguish between products of chance, law, and design. Products of chance are not complex, products of law are regularly repeating, products of design are both complex and specified teleologically, to achieve a specific purpose. Therefore, wherever you find specified complexity you have found design. This should not be a surprise though, many fields exist today where the worker is tasked with distinguishing between accidents and design (crime scene investigators, insurance investigators, fraud squads – academic integrity watchdogs, etc…)
            Instead of sitting in the naturalists chair, where my view is much more limited in scope, I sit in the supernaturalists chair where I can stay consistent in all areas of inquiry.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            Yes, we are humans. And humans are advanced primates. We’re great apes. We’re mammals. Do you deny this? If so, you deny reality. Do you really think that an all-powerful creator of the universe could have created ANYTHING it wanted to be it’s “special” creation, and he decided to make humans appear to be advanced primates? Really?

            Evolution is not “demonstrably false”. You are unbelievably wrong and smug regarding this. You refuse to understand why it is true, and instead just regurgitate psuedoscience fed to you by creationist propaganda.

            Evolution does not violate the law of entropy. The Earth is not a closed system, it gets energy input from the sun. This allows a temporary decrease in entropy while living systems form and reproduce, while the overall entropy in the universe continues to increase.

            With respect to abiogenesis (which is NOT analogous to spontaneous generation), that is a completely different theory and premise from evolution. There is evidence for it, but even IF you demanded a “creator” for life, that still has no impact on the fact that evolution occurs.

            You want limits on genetics? Do you understand genetic bottlenecks and inbreeding depression? Do you actually believe that all of humanity came from one man and one woman, and than another bottleneck when only Noah’s family survived the flood? And that every living animal species also was reduced to a single mating pair during the flood, yet led to the variation we see today? It’s impossible.

            I don’t recall if I posted this for you yet, but you need to watch it. This is my own video.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7oCLx7E74M

          • david ramseur

            The universe is indeed a closed system, so therefore entropy occurs everywhere in the universe. Energy from the sun does not cause living things to grow, reproduce, and then evolve into more complex organisms. Energy apart from being directed has no affect. The reason we grow and reproduce is because God has directed our energy thru biological information in the DNA code to do this. We actually are still winding down while we accomplish these tasks (maturity and reproduction). We are getting closer to death and decay every day of our lives.
            Where is the evidence for spontaneous generation? that life came from non-life? If it is true, how come it is not occurring all around us today? I mean we have time, energy, and matter. Why don’t we see new life arising out of non living molecules?
            The human genome project has traced our origins to two common ancestors. This fits with Adam and Eve with the Bible but does not fit with Darwinian orthodoxy (different sets of primate pairs evolved into human beings over time). The truth remains that new genetic information cannot be added to pre-existing hereditary genetic code. That adaptation occurs in response to natural selection is not in debate. But the genetic code has this variable flexibility built into it in order to countenance adaptation. This only goes so far though as once those limits are reached the organism becomes sterile, ceases to reproduce, and becomes more and more unhealthy, until eventually it dies.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            What the hell are you talking about? We don’t get energy from our DNA. The energy cycle for all living things on Earth starts with the energy input from the sun. Did you even pass Biology 101? And I agree the universe is a closed system, what I stated was that the EARTH is not a closed system. Next time read for comprehension.

            Again, I CLEARLY stated that abiogenesis is NOT spontaneous generation. Some of the evidence for it are: the natural formation of micelles (primitive cell membranes), the ability of the component parts of RNA to self-assemble, the observation of some metabolic pathways outside of living cells…and that’s just a few points. There is much more evidence in support of this theory. Why isn’t it happening again today? Because the conditions are not right to recreate it! Just like modern monkeys aren’t turning into humans because they don’t face the same exact selection pressures (and the fact that modern monkeys and humans share a common ancestor, we didn’t evolve from modern monkeys, but I’m making a point), the conditions on Earth are very different from billions of years ago.

            The human genome project has NOT traced our origin back to two individuals. You’re falsely believing that mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam were the first 2 humans to exist. Again, you need to educate yourself by watching one of my videos.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BV3VhWKVBbQ

      • james

        Just because “science” doesn’t know everything doesn’t mean you can fill in the holes with whatever fairytale most appeals to you. But i suppose that’s to be expected from anyone that doesn’t understand what a scientific theory is.

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          Well-done, James! The formal name for that is “science of the gaps.”

      • Darrah Densmore

        So, science requires “faith” (equivocation) and evolution is “only” a “theory” (intentional misrepresentation), and beliefs are respectable because lots of people believe them (argumentum ad populum). Were you deliberately trying to see how many many idiotic, discredited tropes and textbook logical fallacies you could cram into one post?

      • DesertSun59

        Logic FAIL. A very large logic fail. The issue isn’t your entire belief system. It’s evolution. No one’s martyrdom will change the fact that evolution is true and ‘creation’ is nothing other than an invented myth from the Bronze Age. And the very fact that you are utterly and totally unaware of the scientific definition of the word theory tells us everything we need to know about your post: YOU are unqualified to discuss this issue at all. Period.

      • Jacob Brown

        the butthurt is strong with this one

    • G Chris Larson

      So Billy Bob tell us how a viable mutation takes place at the molecular level? Even secular molecular biologist are giving up on that. They are desperately looking for an alternative to Neo-darwinism, because it has no explanatory power.

      • james

        LOL, what is a “viable mutation?” I’ll just assume it takes place the same way as any other mutation does.

        • G Chris Larson

          Let me help you out James. A viable protein has to be able to fold into a micro-machine that can perform a beneficial task for the cell. A change of one amino acid almost always produces a change that will not fold. So the smallest proteins of 150 amino acids (vs a 3000 amino acid protein) has 450 letters that are read in triplets. a change in one letter can produce a new amino acid. there are 4 possibilities for the letters. Just the math proves that a viable (beneficial, foldable) change would only happen at the most 3 times in the history of the universe. Not propaganda – math. This is why so many secular biologist are looking for a new mechanism outside of neo darwinism.

          • james

            At least now i see where you are coming from. I completely disagree but now i know.

          • G Chris Larson

            disagree all you want. but thats where mutations would take place. where do you think they take place?

          • james

            It’s mostly your belief that evolution is driven via “viable mutations,” like there is some kind of plan and that these mutations could only occur 3 times in “the history of the universe.”

          • G Chris Larson

            Viable just means that they will work and are beneficial to the organism. that is just the Neo-darwinist paradigm – “mutations happen and the good ones are saved”. My point is that it is statistically impossible for it to correctly happen enough to produce even an amoeba let alone a human. thanks for being reasonable and not calling us Christians a bunch of names.

          • http://aebrain.blogspot.com Zoe_Brain

            Except that things aren’t random.

            Try this experiment.
            Take a rectangular container.
            Fill it with sugar cubes – just pour them in randomly.

            Observe that they’re in no discernible pattern.

            Now gently shake the container for a while, randomly

            You’ll find most of them in a 3-D rectangular lattice with imperfections.

            No “invisible angel” placed them in this regular order, and the odds that it could have happened “by random chance” are astronomical, as you point out. Once or twice in the history of the universe.

            It’s called self-organisation – the kind of thing that happens in proteins and molecular conformers.

            See for yourself.

            See also

            Using a Meta-GA for parametric optimization of simple GAs in the computational chemistry domain
            Proceedings of the 12th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation

            Optimization of a genetic algorithm for searching molecular conformer space

            The Journal of chemical physics 135 (17), 174106-174106-10

            Using Meta-Genetic Algorithms to tune parameters of Genetic Algorithms to fi nd lowest energy Molecular Conformers

            Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on the Synthesis and Simulation of Living Systems

            Optimization of a Genetic Algorithm for the Functionalization of Fullerenes
            Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 8 (5), 1841-1851

          • G Chris Larson

            Good point Zoe. This would be great if viable proteins were made from any random assembly of aminos. Now to make it simulate a mutation or the creation of a viable protein from an ocean full of amino acids: Color all the cubes with one of 4 different colors to represent the 4 bases in DNA then determine a pattern for a 150 amino protein (that;s a small protein) and ten throw in the 450 random cubes (3 to code for an amino) and shake until you get the exact pattern. Simple? unfortunately there are not enough probabilistic resources available in the universe to get even three small proteins in 15 billion years. Richard Dawkins has conceded this (The leading evolutionary atheist) and by conceding that there is no chemical explanation for the origin of life on earth, he gives the concession to Intelligent design.

          • G Chris Larson

            Good point Zoe. This would be great if viable proteins were made from any random assembly of aminos. Now to make it simulate a mutation or the creation of a viable protein from an ocean full of amino acids: Color all the cubes with one of 4 different colors to represent the 4 bases in DNA then determine a pattern for a 150 amino protein (that;s a small protein) and ten throw in the 450 random cubes (3 to code for an amino) and shake until you get the exact pattern. Simple? unfortunately there are not enough probabilistic resources available in the universe to get even three small proteins in 15 billion years. Richard Dawkins has conceded this (The leading evolutionary atheist) and by conceding that there is no chemical explanation for the origin of life on earth, he gives the concession to Intelligent design.

      • Darrah Densmore

        Great job parroting creationist propaganda without a scrap of scientific understanding.

        • G Chris Larson

          So Darrah I teach Biology, Can YOU explain how mutations happen at the DNA Molecular level.? 5 sentences ought to do it to prove you know what you are talking about. Don’t forget to tell us how the genetic code is changed randomly in mutation and how a small protein of only 150 amino acids each being coded for with 3 bases will change into a new protein producing a viable, foldable protein that is beneficial to the organism???

          • Darrah Densmore

            Sorry, chief. Not going to bite. Your inarticulate and rather unlettered question is not a genuine inquiry — you are JAQing off.

            http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions

            Any scientific explanation I provide will be followed by a litany of “ok, what about this?” red herrings and long discredited tropes drawn straight from the creationist’s apologetic playbook.

            For people like you, “goddidit by magic” is the only acceptable answer, and that’s a non-starter as a matter of science.

          • G Chris Larson

            I suspect you won’t bite, because you are not sure how mutations take place and don’t want to be embarrassed. NOt Magic – design. Design Information like DNA only comes from intelligent sources.

          • Darrah Densmore

            Whether or not I can explain anything isn’t germane. Give a coherent explanation for what you mean by “information.” Show your work.

            You represent yourself as a science educator while openly advocating ideas that have been decisively refuted. You are a highly incompetent fraud and a charlatan. The only person to whom you ought to be teaching biology is yourself.

          • G Chris Larson

            Got it. i will defend myself with explanations using the vocabulary of science and you will call me names. A major sign of someone who is in an indefensible position in a philosophical argument is that they start calling names and go for personal attacks.

          • Darrah Densmore

            That wasn’t name-calling — it was a precise description.

    • Demopublicrat

      “Evolution makes fewer assumptions” Assumptions – religious belief.

      “You expect to learn actual science in a biology class” Key words: “actual science”, not assumptions or religious belief.

    • railhead

      Actually, evolution does not have any more or less supporting evidence than creation. It is just more believed by the “scientific community” because it is viewed as “not reiligious.” The reality is that evolution is just as much a religion as creation, because it is a belief system held to with ardor and faith, which is the definition of religion.
      Exhibit ‘A’ would be the resort to mockery to prove his point by this professor. If it was really supported by overwhelming evidence, you wouldn’t have “professors” trying to prove their point by such infantile means. I mean, really, is this guy in Kindergarten? This is more like “my theory is better than your theory, nee nee ne nee nee” than any meaningful argument.

      • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

        First, “religion” is defined as a belief in a god or gods. Evolution doesn’t make any claims regarding gods.

        Second, evolution is not “believed” using “faith”. It is accepted, as the evidence supports the model which explains how and why the observed process of evolution occurs.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyP1B-8rVxk

        • railhead

          Religion is defined as “a belief system held to with ardor or faith”.
          Evolution is in fact a religion. You can try to disguise it as science all you want, but it has not been and can not be tested and proven by the scientific method. What you have is a bunch of speculation and theorizing by the scientific community that uses a great deal of circular reasoning. I have read and watched these things sent to me by Atheists in the past, until I realized it is impossible to debate something in a context that already assumes it is true. In reading many of the “scientific” papers addressing the topic of evolution and attempting to prove it, the one thing I always run across is that their whole paradigm already assumes the truth of the point they are trying to prove. Thus, it is a pointless debate and the objectivity is totally non-existent.
          They look at the “evidence” with extreme prejudice, because they believe any type of belief of in God is un-scientific, thus they believe in the only alternative as the only “scientific” explanation. The thing they overlook is that they are still making assumptions that are not proven to explain what they are looking at. Thay have a paradigm, a religion which they believe to explain their own existence. In most cases, the religion is evolution/ big bang. To say evolution is science is very misleading. However, a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            No, the primary definition of religion is “belief in a god or gods, especially a personal god”. What you’re doing is attempting to falsely equivocate a secondary definition of religion with the primary definition. In addition, atheism isn’t a belief system; there are no tenets, no dogma, no creeds. It is simply a lack of belief in gods. There are no other requirements to be an atheist.

            Scientists, unlike creationists, do not have confirmation bias. They are not trying to reach a pre-drawn conclusion. If the theory of evolution via natural selection isn’t true, then it isn’t true and we want to find a new theory. Even if the theory weren’t true, the observed process of evolution still occurs, we’d just need to adjust our model for it.

            Yes, by definition, a god is unscientific if there can be no empirical evidence to demonstrate it. However, Christians claim that a god created everything that exists, and also that a god came to Earth in human form. Yet we have no empirical evidence of this. Your arguments are fallacious and tired.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyP1B-8rVxk

          • railhead

            There is not a “primary” and “secondary” definition of religion. Religion is basically defined as a belief system. Just because a dictionary lists four possible definitions with numbers next to them does not make one definition any more or less valid than any other definiton.
            Evolutionists have never observed the type of evolution take place in which one kind of animal begets anything other than the same kind. You can’t equivocate adaptations within kind with a dinosaur turning into a bird. It’s not anywhere close to the same thing, it’s just making a giant assumptive jump, which is not even supported by the fossil record.
            If you think scientists don’t have personal and professional biasses and agendas, you are probably still young and naive, but if not, you are deceiving yourself. Everyone has personal biasses. Many people have built entire careers on their beliefs in evolution, do you think they would abandon an entire career because of conscience if there were compelling evidence to the contrary?

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            Of course there can be multiple definitions for the same word. What theists attempt to do is falsely equivocate two different meanings in order to pretend like empirically-based worldviews are the same as just believing in things without any justification.

            If you’re waiting for an animal to morph into a completely different form in the 150 years since Darwin proposed the theory, you’re out of luck. That’s like asking me to hard boil an egg in water in a nanosecond. It’s simply impossible because the process requires time, time that you’re not allowing for. There have been thousands of documented speciation events, but you just want to claim that those are the same “kind”, whatever the hell that means.

    • david ramseur

      Macro-evolution is much more of a fable. Why would you believe that Darwin’s Theory is sound science? It is impossible in regards to the observations of universal laws around us!

      • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

        No, the fossil evidence as well as genetics demonstrate that all life is related and that more complex life evolved from simpler forms over billions of years.

        • Demopublicrat

          There is no fossil evidence, nobody can prove that any of the fossilized creatures are anything more than just an extinct species, the rest is just religious belief.

          “genetics demonstrate that all life is related” That could point to a common designer.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            There is no fossil evidence? Now you’ve just reached the point of absurdity. It doesn’t matter if fossils are of extinct or extant species, they still are proof of once-living organisms and demonstrate the gradual transition to more complex forms.

            Genetics could point to a designer? Sure, but then you’d have to admit that this designer created a very flawed design, including cancer that occurs when certain genes malfunction, and including all of the viruses and pathogenic bacteria and parasites that would have been designed to so efficiently attack human bodies. Seriously, out of the endless possibilities for a creator to create a “special” form of life that is set apart from all other living things, it chose to make us intelligent primates? Really?

          • Demopublicrat

            “:…they still are proof of once-living organisms and demonstrate the gradual transition to more complex forms.” demonstrate religious belief in the gradual transition to more complex forms, which cannot be proven.

            “…cancer that occurs when certain genes malfunction…” was that a result of creation or what we have done? GMOs, injecting infants with mercury, etc.? Seriously, all of our complexities arriving through random mutations? Really? Again, attacking another belief doesn’t prove yours.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            No, the evidence demonstrates the transition to more complex forms. There’s no belief required. That’s the great thing about reality, it still exists even if you stop believing in it.

            Oh, I see you’re also a conspiracy theorist as well. Cancer has existed for thousands of years, and it is simply the result of having the wrong gene or environmental factors affecting genes to cause unregulated cell proliferation. Natural things in the environment can cause cancer. Too much UV exposure from the sun can cause cancer.

            You are demonstrating perfectly the harm that religion causes. You’ve been conditioned to believe the first thing you hear and not question it, while also being skeptical of anyone who would try to convince you otherwise. You’ve taken this mindset into other areas, including your apparent anti-vaccination position. But surely you know better than the experts who have the evidence and data to support their claims.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ff-8QYsSCNg

          • Demopublicrat

            “No, the evidence demonstrates the transition to more complex forms. There’s no belief required.” It demonstrated because you said so? I’m I supposed to just have faith and take your word for it?

            “conspiracy theorist” Nice, remember what you said about “theories”.
            “Cancer has existed for thousands of years,” I’ll have to take your word – again. “…environmental factors affecting genes…” There you go.

            You are demonstrating perfectly the harm that the evolution religion causes. You’ve been conditioned to believe the first thing you hear and not question it (from the experts who claim to have the evidence and data to support their claims) , while also being skeptical of anyone who would try to convince you otherwise.
            “your apparent anti-vaccination position” Do tell how injecting mercury into infants whose brains are still developing is beneficial?
            Typical evolutionist, attack others and claim you’re right because “the experts” said so.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            No, that’s the best part, you don’t have to take my word for it. The evidence is there to see for yourself.

            Here’s proof that cancer existed in humans 3,000 years ago:
            http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140318112207.htm

            Regarding mercury-based compounds in vaccines, there is no evidence to link it to any ill effects. The study which attempted to link vaccines to autism was debunked and retracted and its author was barred from practicing medicine in the UK. What decades of vaccinations has proved is that they are effective in preventing dangerous diseases and have led to the global eradication of some diseases.

            Again, you’re delving into topics on which you are ignorant, and are buying into the propaganda instead of understanding the actual science and opinions of experts. You fully accept unsubstantiated claims while remaining skeptical of evidence-based conclusions. Same as you do with religion.

          • Demopublicrat

            “Even though cancer is one of the world’s leading causes of death today, it remains almost absent from the archaeological record” We must be de-evolving.

            Toxicological Profile : Mercury
            Succinctly characterizes the toxicologic and adverse health
            effects information for a hazardous substance.
            Affected Organ Systems: Developmental (effects during periods
            when organs are developing) , Gastrointestinal (Digestive), Neurological
            (Nervous System), Ocular (Eyes), Renal (Urinary System or Kidneys) – CDC
            But injecting infants still in the developmental stage is perfectly safe.
            No major study has compared vaccinated and non-vaccinated children to see which is healthier.
            The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons calls for an end to mandatory
            childhood vaccines. “Our children face the possibility of death or serious long-term adverse effects from mandated vaccines that aren’t necessary or that have very limited benefits.”
            Jane M. Orient, MD, AAPS Executive Director.
            Nov. 2, 2000. http://www.aapsonline.org

            “Children vaccinated with DPPT (or MMR) had 14 times more asthma and 9.4 times more eczema than non-vaccinated children. McKeever TM, Lewis SA, Smith C. Does vaccination increase the risk of developing allergic disease?: A birth cohort study. Winter Abstract supplement to Thorax, 2002; 57: Supplement III

            “Immunization against relatively harmless childhood diseases may be responsible for the dramatic increase in autoimmune diseases…such as cancer, leukemia, rheumatoid
            arthritis, multiple sclerosis, Lou Gehrig’s disease, lupus and Guillain-Barre syndrome.” – Dr. Robert Medelsohn

            Ananalysis of the CDC’s own data demonstrates that the number of actual injuries
            from the rotavirus vaccine is 500 times the injuries reported to VAERS.

            Again, you’re delving into topics on which you are ignorant, and are buying into the propaganda instead of understanding the actual science and opinions of experts. You fully accept unsubstantiated claims while remaining skeptical of evidence-based conclusions. Same as you do with religion.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            No, dumbass, you’re cherry-picking science, just like you do with the Bible, in order to prop up your conspiracy theories.

            Here’s a good resource for you:

            http://www.howdovaccinescauseautism.com

          • Demopublicrat

            No, dumbass, you’re cherry-picking stupidity in order to prop up your religious beliefs.
            Remember:

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            Hmm…corporations paying scientists to deny information that would be harmful to their profits? Where have I seen this before?

            Oh, right…oil companies claiming climate change isn’t human-related.

            Again, you demonstrate your misplaced skepticism and ignorance of science.

          • Demopublicrat

            Hmm…corporations paying scientists to deny information that would be harmful to their profits? Where have I seen this before? Right Pharma and their boy Dr Paul “for profit” Offit.

            “Climate change” another load of crap with twisted numbers derived from “Global warming” because that was looking mighty asinine.

            “Again, you demonstrate your misplaced skepticism and ignorance of science.” Back atcha, I have no problem with science, but don’t ask me to follow your religion.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            No, it was changed to “climate change” because “global warming” isn’t accurate. While the Earth’s overall climate is warming, there will be pockets which are static or giving cooler temperatures than average. That’s because the climate is shifting. Also, ignorant fools like yourself like to pretend that cold temperatures in summer or massive snowstorms in winter mean that “global warming” isn’t occurring, because you don’t understand the difference between climate and weather.

            Please remind me of your credentials to be denying either evolution or climate change, or to conclude that vaccines cause autism?

        • david ramseur

          Well you are certainly going with the prototype atheist answer. However, a critical examination of the evidence reveals that no intermediary forms exist in the fossil record. In the 150 years that paleontologists have been looking, zero intermediary links have been found. What have been found are thousands of fully formed, distinct fossilized specimens. An intermediary form would have parts under construction such as half legs, fins, wings, lungs, etc… as the organism was transitioning from one species to another. We are told that we do not see evolution occurring because it is too slow to witness. So naturally, you would expect to see transitional forms appearing in the fossil record as those individuals in the generations making the change. But we don’t see this. This is the trade secret of Paleontology.
          Genetics does indeed point to common ancestors in the human species. However, genes are hereditary, passed down from parents, who only reproduce after their own kind. Where would the genetic information needed to be included in the DNA code to get characteristics of another species come from? It would have to be added to the pre-existing genetic code that is passed down from parents. You see, gene mutations may occur, but they are almost always deleterious (producing birth defects or other symptoms that harm the survivability of the organism). They definitely do not produce large scale changes to the genetic code nor do they add new genetic information needed to transition from one species to another. In fact, the genetic code has natural limits to the scope in which it can vary (variation for purposes of adaptation). Breeders know this all too well. Once those limits are crossed the animal becomes sterile and ceases to reproduce. Also the life of the animal itself is threatened.
          I ask, if you are indeed able to, to give me JUST ONE piece of observable scientific evidence for Darwinian macro-evolution. Something that I don’t have to believe on faith. Please note, adaptation, aka variation/microevolution, is not an example of Darwinian evolution. Providing me an example of adaptation would be a category error on your part.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            Will you stop parroting back creationist claptrap and educate yourself?

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIEoO5KdPvg

          • david ramseur

            The Youtube video you posted is pure propaganda. Fact is: We do not see evolution happening, it is not observable. The fossils that we have found are distinct species, some of which have gone extinct. Evolutionists SPECULATE that one species evolved into a later species, but there really is no hard evidence for that, it is wishful thinking. In the video, Darwin’s book title was not fully shown. The title is, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Why was the full title not acknowledged? Because Darwinism is essentially a racist ideology. So, what we see is people being indoctrinated against actual science into believing Philosophical naturalism fairy tales devoid of hard evidence that espouse racist ideas. Evolution is the main motivator behind the eugenics movement. Also in the video, the tree of life is skewed to show that all living things are related. But the evidence does not bear this out. Determining age of fossils by layer of strata is not reliable. For fossils do not stay consistent in the layers they should be in, according to Evolutionists, around the world. Many fossils are in the same strata which should be millions of years apart. Some fossils are found vertical in several different layers of strata! And again, no transitional forms have been discovered in more than 150 years of looking. You can post youtube videos all you like. Funny thing is, I have found hundreds of youtube videos disproving evolution. If you don’t believe me, look them up on youtube.

          • david ramseur

            I ask, if you are indeed able to, to give me JUST ONE piece of observable scientific evidence for Darwinian macro-evolution. Something that I don’t have to believe on faith. Please note, adaptation, aka variation/microevolution, is not an example of Darwinian evolution. Providing me an example of adaptation would be a category error on your part. Youtube animations of the speculations of Evolutionists is not objective, observable evidence. That is the same as people claiming that man-made global warming exists because they have produced computer models that show what they want to believe!

    • Candace

      Actually the Scripture NEVER states that Jesus used majic. It states that Elohim (which if you know Hebrew, is plural) so in English translates as “Let us go down and make man” Later verses revealthat Jesus was present. Genesis says God formed Adam from the dust of the ground (and Biology confirms that humans are made of the same elemental minerals that are found in the earth). Further the Scripture states that God spoke and breathed spirit & life into man to make him a living being. And that Eve was not formed from dust , but made out of Adam’s rib. the Bible never never says God used magic magic isn’t imitation of the design but it is bound by human limitations another words it cannot equal God’s divine power through tricks and deception. So I ag

  • bowie1

    If you want magic then believe in evolution where an ancient primate gradually transforms into a modern human being…magic in slow motion.

    • DrychronRed

      Except for it’s not magic, and there’s overwhelming evidence for it. Unlike creationism, which there’s only a book that says it’s true and no evidence at all. Oh and let’s not forget about the talking snake.

      • G Chris Larson

        sorry there is not overwhelming evidence for it. Even Leaky has agreed that there is not enough time between Lucy and modern man for there to have been enough viable mutations.

        • cap10rob

          WRONG

    • A. Neumann

      If you want to see evolution in fast motion, study immunology and germs. The reason there are no vaccines yet for many diseases is because the wee little beasties keep EVOLVING into different versions. I know, you’ll say it’s because Satan is doing it. More magic answers for observable phenomena.

      • G Chris Larson

        And after millions of mutations they are still hte same species. Sorry that doesn’t prove evolution.

        • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

          Define “species”.

          Once you understand that all life is related, you can understand that “species” is just a false category used by scientists to better categorize and study biodiversity. It is much better to view life as an ever-branching tree rather than punctuated, distinct species.

          • Nathan Roll

            so you admit scientists create false categorization because it makes things easier to study? If scientists are willingly false about this what is to prevent them from being willingly false about any other aspects of the theory of evolution in order to make it more easy to study or believable? Also you ask to define species the largest group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. I believe the bible refers to this in the English translations as “kind” dogs give birth to more dogs cats to more cats people to people etc. For macroevolution to be factual we would have to see species giving birth to other species ie a catlike creature giving birth to another creature with which it could not viably breed but which could breed with others of its new species. Show us examples of this.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            No, that’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that things aren’t black and white. We can generalize to categorize things, but there are almost always exceptions. For example, we can fit most individuals ito the categories of “male” and “female”, but there are instances where an individual doesn’t fit neatly into one category or the other. Some are born with both ovaries and testes. Some are born with XXY genotype. We put things into categories to better understand and study them. It’s the same with “species”, there’s no universal definition of what a species is, it just applies in most cases. Reproductive isolation doesn’t fit in all cases. There are ring species, as one example. Also, when you leave the animal kingdom, things get even messier. I’m not saying that scientists falsified data, not anything of the sort. Understand what I’m saying.

            Yeah, of course we “dumb down” topics when teaching them to laypeople, because not everyone is going to be an expert and fully understand things. However, all you need is a basic understanding of the core concepts in order to accept the theory. If you happen to go into a particular field of study, then you can delve into the nuance and details.

            The Bible also says that bats are birds, that you can breed striped goats by mating them in front of striped sticks, that the mustard seed is the smallest on Earth, that the Earth is flat and has a firmament, etc. It doesn’t matter what the Bible says, the Bible is Bronze Age Middle Eastern mythology that doesn’t align with the observed evidence. Macroevolution is simply the result of “microevolution” over large time periods. That’s it. There’s no magic to it. It is NOT one species giving birth to a new species.

          • james

            I honestly don’t know how your head hasn’t exploded. Just reading some of these comments and i already feel like i have a hangover.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            LOL, it’s just what I do.

      • Spicy Ray Swinehart-Patrick

        I am far from an expert, but wouldn’t that be more like adaptation?

      • david ramseur

        Category error, this is adaptation not Macro-evolution. The germs stay germs. Can you name only 1 piece of scientific evidence for Darwinian macro-evolution? Something that can be observed that doesn’t have to be taken on faith.

    • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

      Magic? Try looking at the evidence. You know, the thing that religion completely lacks, and which actually refutes the idea of Biblical creationism?

      http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

    • Mike Wallace

      Cognitive dissonance is not a valid substitute for reality.

  • James Grimes

    Romans 3:12 describe “The Useless.” We seem to have too many of them posting in this forum. Anyhow, they are insignificant.

    • Jim Jones

      Too true. Religion is cover for the stupid.

      • snowyriver

        Jim:
        religion is a crutch. some need it some don’t

  • Gene

    Hmm. Apparently it must be ok to mention Jesus Christ in a public school only as long as you’re mocking him. SMH

    • James Grimes

      The Useless have nothing better to do. Someday decent people will have no tolerance for their antics.

      • dem0n0cracy

        Your avatar has a typo. It should be Holy Bile.

        • pax2u

          I notice this implied threat from James

          “Someday decent people will have no tolerance for their antics.”

          what will the “decent” people do someday?

          • Liam

            Dump religion in favor of science and fact.

      • Neiman

        You were right, the atheist trolls are here big time to day spreading their lies and filth and playing games. I stopped replying.

        • James Grimes

          Great decision. Why would any of us want to be part of their filth and deception? It certainly will not please the Lord. Hang in there, though. Believers can feed off each other and remain strong and stay determined.

          • Neiman

            God bless you greatly, spirit, emotions, body and materially. May he pour out of His storehouse in Heaven great blessings on you and your family’

            I have had to back away from the ardent Catholics as well, trying to bring them the Truth only offends them, creates anger and hate and for me it troubles my soul to deal with them, they are in great bondage to spirits that only hinder their relationship with Christ.. If only I can focus all my discussions on Christ, it will all be much better.

            Bless you my brother in Christ!

        • Edward Seibert

          Except, you know, for this reply.

      • Edward Seibert

        Aaaand there it is. Violence and the threat of violence seem to be the last resort of the “decent” faithful. Shame on you.

      • James Grimes

        More enlightenment from the Not-so-great one, Pax2u:

        pax2u • 17 hours ago

        I notice this implied threat from James
        “Someday decent people will have no tolerance for their antics.”
        what will the “decent” people do someday?

    • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

      This is a university, not a grade school or high school. College is a choice, not a mandate. If you are taking a college level biology class, you’d better understand that evolution is true or you’re going to have a bad time.

  • http://andrewbacon.info/ Andrew Bacon

    That slide completely and accurately summed up the debate.

  • M Green

    Haha this teacher is awesome!

  • Patrick Boyns

    It seems that the slide demonstrates Evolution to be just as much a faith position as that of Creation. Both rely upon exactly the same evidence – evidence which exists only in the present and which is left to be interpreted according to one’s worldview. Rejection of an all-powerful creator does not negate the need for faith.

  • Rob Jones

    Has anyone provided proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close. Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. Have our sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close. Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good? Not even close, to being close. Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy in the sciences? Close enough. Does anything in the sciences or their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ball park. Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.

    David Berlinski

  • The Last Trump

    Order out of chaos. Reproduction of all things. Male and female. All completely by accident and without purpose. Riiiiiiiight. “Science”. The evolution argument has turned out to be just another veiled attempt to cast off God. I get a kick out of these guys!

    Nobody needs to “prove” God exists. God has taken care of that for us. Sure doesn’t need our help! Creation itself testifies of our Creator. Just the discoveries in a strand of DNA should have ended all debate a long time ago: “DNA is an information code. The overwhelming conclusion is that information does not and cannot arise spontaneously by mechanistic processes. Intelligence is a necessity in the origin of any informational code, including the genetic code, no matter how much time is given.” (Lane Lester, Ph.D. Genetics, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, 1989.)

    Scientists across the globe are confirming that the data they are finding indicates that there is nothing random or “evolved” about the universe. It’s actually shaken some of
    them up to discover just how “fine-tuned” our universe is. But it should come to no surprise that a hedonistic and self-indulgent society would want to believe that in the beginning there was nothing. But, then IT exploded!? And from NOTHING came EVERYTHING! And somehow, via mysterious and scientifically unduplicated processes with fanciful names like “natural selection” (a.k.a. “magic”) both males and females were formed. And, wouldn’t you know, there just happened to be a rich variety of food sources to go around to sustain everything. And all of this happened completely by accident. Yikes! This is what is passing as science today?

    All of the previous generations of mankind knew better than that. This is the only generation so consumed by pride and arrogance as to dare to declare that there is NO God whatsoever, willfully denying the overwhelming scientific evidence of deliberate and intricate design we discover everywhere we look. Any rational human being just has to stop for a second and really take an honest look around. Flip open a medical book or go online and see the absolute marvel that is the human body. Flip through the different systems of our bodies. And then try to “fit” evolution into what you are actually seeing. Little harder to buy that crap when you are face to face with the evidence. Circulatory system, nervous system, skeletal system, muscular system, digestive system, endocrine system, immune system, urinary system, reproductive system, respiratory system. Ridiculous integration and complexity in design! But hey, if you’re not one for evidence and prefer faith, by all means stick with evolution. Myself, I don’t have enough faith to believe in such ridiculous nonsense that flies in the face of overwhelming evidence and reason. “Science!” That’s too funny!

    Don’t like the idea of God? Guess you’re stuck with aliens then. Cause there’s no getting around the fact that we have been “designed”. Don’t let these evolutionists intimidate you. Shame on them for being on the wrong side of the evidence. We are supposed to form theories based on evidence, remember? Not try to “fit” the evidence into our pre-existing theory and discard what doesn’t fit because we don’t like where the evidence is leading.

    http://www.harvard-wm.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Eleven-Systems-Run-Your-Body.jpg

    • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

      Yes, there is getting around the CLAIM that we have been “Designed”
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7oCLx7E74M

      • The Last Trump

        No, there really isn’t. It’s like claiming something as intricate and complex as a space shuttle created itself, with all of its systems and components DESIGNED to work together for a purpose. But hey, you stick with MAGIC if you like. I’ll stick with the science and follow the evidence wherever it happens to lead.

        • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

          No, that’s Hoyle’s fallacy, which I addressed in my video. But you didn’t watch it, did you?

          Unless, of course, you’d rather trust a Bronze Age Middle Eastern myth instead of a molecular biologist explaining evolution to you.

          • The Last Trump

            Yeah, it doesn’t really matter so much who explains that NOTHING CREATED EVERYTHING by accident and without purpose. I’m just not dumb enough to believe in magic. But hey, have at it there fella. Good luck with that.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            In other words, you didn’t bother educating yourself. You are choosing to remain willfully ignorant.

            I never claimed that “nothing” ever existed, but you apparently think it’s OK for a god to exist out of nothing or to have always existed, which essentially constitutes “magic”.

          • The Last Trump

            I’ve educated myself plenty, thanks. Not that it takes much of an education not to believe in magic. Or that nothing created everything by accident and without purpose. Talk about foolishness and sheer stupidity! Obviously, something had to exist first to “create” all the rest. That would be God. Hence the intricate and highly complex design with purpose and meaning we see everywhere we look. No magic required.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            See, you’re belying your ignorance here. Evolution isn’t “magic”, nor is is an “accident”. You’re also presupposing that since things exist, they must have an ultimate purpose. Why do you find the prospect of a lack of ultimate purpose unfathomable? I mean, really, if you believe in eternal life after death, what’s the purpose in that? Eternity never ends. Eventually you’d accomplish every possible task and have nothing left to do. Talk about a lack of purpose!

            Sorry, but your ignorance isn’t an argument. The only people who reject evolution are those who don’t understand it. It is not foolish or stupid to understand why the theory holds up to scrutiny.

            All you’re doing is presupposing a god (the one from the Bible, of course), and asserting that it must be true without justification. You then proceed to project your illogical belief in an uncaused causer and magic onto emprically-based scientific theories.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7oCLx7E74M

          • david ramseur

            You are shooting yourself in the foot! You claim that you are not arguing that nothing was ever a state of existence. Then the next minute you turn around and say that an uncaused causer is illogical.
            Would you really be willing to live out the deepest implications of Darwinian evolution? If your behavior is determined by your genes in regards to what is most beneficial to the replication of your DNA, you have no free will. When you object to eugenics, murder, rape, infanticide, genocide, etc… you would be disproving your theory by your actions. Evolution provides no standard for judging behavior as every behavior that exists today has survived the ages and is thus beneficial to our genes. Therefore, everything is permissible. Many evolutionary psychologists are quick to point out that it is a dark doctrine, but when the implications get too heavy for them to live by they just magically declare rebellion against their selfish genes. Some have declared that evolution has evolved “reason” by which we can choose to make undarwinian decisions. What they are actually saying is that the mechanistic processes of evolution has created a magical force, called reason, by which people can rebel against evolution. Essentially, evolution has made it possible to not evolve?
            Both sides of this debate appeal to scientific data, both cannot be correct. Science is not opposed to creationism. We do not have to accept the fact/value dichotomy of truth in regards to Darwinian evolution being scientific while creationism is not. It is really a war between two world-views, that of Philosophical Naturalism and Intelligent Design.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            I’m not shooting myself in the foot. You’re correct, I do not claim that nothing ever existed, but you claim that a god either 1) came from nothing or 2) always existed.

            There are no “implications” of Darwinian evolution, other than to explain how life on Earth adapts and changes and diversifies. Accepting evolution does not imply accepting social Darwinism. You are advancing tired tropes without any basis in reality.

            Science IS opposed to Biblical creationism. It is demonstrably false. I told you, Adam and Eve are impossible to have existed. The smallest possible human population was a few thousand individuals. Evolution explains this, the Bible fails at this.

            Did you watch my video?

  • http://www.remnantofgod.org/ John1429dotorg

    Curious…

    If man evolved from apes…then why are there no men marrying apes?

  • WorldGoneCrazy

    The word “Magic” is clearly on the wrong side of the ledger. Let us briefly consider the blind faith of the naturalistic a-theist, whose unholy creed may be expressed as the “rabid fundamentalist” belief:

    1. That the universe miraculously popped into existence out of nothing, uncaused by anything.
    2. That life magically sprang forth from non-life when lightning hit some mud.
    3. That minds and morals evolved from molecules through monkeys, via magic.

    How utterly ironic that this professor’s name, Bang, gives him all the secular evidence he needs to establish the 2nd premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God! He has all he needs right there to become a theist, yet he so desperately clings to his a-theism! Why he probably also believes in “punctuated equilibrium” (laughingly referred to as “then a miracle occurred” by even the most ardent practicing Darwinists) to explain the pre-Cambrian explosion of life that has relegated Darwinism to a religious cult with paganistic leanings.

    Well, we can excuse him – he is only a high school teacher. What’s that? He is teaching at a university?!? Oh yes, a lecturer in BIO 100. Hmm.

    • Gary

      The evolutionists need to stop calling their beliefs “science”. Plants and animals have no ability to change their own DNA. So if their DNA has changed, who, or what changed it? Chance? “Chance” is nothing. Nothing has no ability to change anything. It’s all a big scam that has been foisted on the world by people who refuse to acknowledge God as the Creator.

      • Mike Wallace

        Your father and uncle are the same man, aren’t they?

        • Gary

          No.

          • Mike Wallace

            Are you sure? Because that would explain an awful lot.

          • Gary

            Well, at least none of my relatives ever walked on their hands, as you believe yours did.

          • Mike Wallace

            The wonderful thing about science: you do not have to believe in it for it to be true, princess.

          • Gary

            And just because you believe it does not make it true.

          • Mike Wallace

            No. Evidence does that. Your invalid logical fallacies just further prove my point about your cognitive dissonance. Re: the equivocation fallacy about chance = nothing. The straw man of assigning “nothing” to your opponents and your latest red herring here, now. Bless your heart. I would be shocked to learn that you could dress yourself in the morning.

          • Gary

            Yes, evidence is required. And evidence is what I am asking for. But you have none. All you have is assumptions and speculations which you pretend are scientific, when they are not. And then you get offended when people notice that your emperor has no clothing.

          • Mike Wallace

            There is actually a litany of evidence available. That you fundamentally misunderstand the scientific definitions of evidence, theories and the scientific method is not actually an argument otherwise.

          • Gary

            You have proven yourself to be full of hot air, but nothing else. You won’t even attempt to answer questions, and that is because any answer you could give would be absurd, and you know it.

          • Mike Wallace

            I actually have answered them. You just can’t accept the answers. Saying “nuh uh” over and over again is the mark of a very confused individual.

          • Gary

            Your “answers” are illogical and impossible.

          • Mike Wallace

            See, had my answers actually been illogical, you would have been able to name the fallacy and explain why it is irrational. The empirical evidence disproves the “impossible” part. You are clearly suffering from cognitive bias.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Classic reply, Gary – well-done! Mikey is making a monkey of himself. 🙂

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        Amen, Gary! Darwinism, and a-theism by extension, are blind faith religions for the most gullible. Theism, in general, and Christianity, in particular, are evidence-based. Once I figured that out, I no longer had enough faith to be an a-theist. (With apologies to Geisler and Turek.) Keep up the great work, Gary, and God bless!

  • James Grimes

    For my fellow believers here, and only for them, David Barton is involved in Wall Builders, a daily radio program that looks at relevant issues that are of interest to Christians, mainly from a historical perspective. It is definitely worth listening to. Here is the web address for radio stations and times: http://www.wallbuilders.com
    Now, the Atheist insults may begin…

  • Storymark

    Science teacher teaches science. The slide may have been impolite, but otherwise, pretty accurate.

    • Gary

      You have to be able to explain not only how life began, which evolutionists have not done, you also have to be able to explain what causes things to change, and evolutionists can’t do that either. “Natural selection” is usually what evolutionists put forth as the mechanism that causes evolution, but what is that? What is natural selection, and why does it, whatever it is, have the ability to change the DNA of living things?

      • Storymark

        Yes, it does cover those things. Look up “mutation.” No, they don’t have every single detail worked out, but a whole lot more than you seem to think, and infinitely more verifiable data than pointing to a book and going “cuz it says so.”

        • Gary

          What causes mutations?

          • Storymark

            A variety of things. But I know you’re playing pedantic games. Try reading a science book – one with actual facts in it, not just storybooks and mythology.

          • Kenneth

            Try googling “what causes mutations in dna”. Google itself returns an answer, I don’t know how the answer to your question could be easier to find. The fact that you use this as an argument just shows your unwillingness to remotely consider anything other than what you currently believe.

            What’s next, “prove that ultraviolet radiation exists”?

      • Mike Wallace

        “You have to be able to explain not only how life began, which evolutionists have not done, you also have to be able to explain what causes things to change, and evolutionists can’t do that either. ”

        They have done that. What you mean to say is that they have not provided you with the specific answer that you want. Furthermore, they you demonstrate a staggering level of arrogance in demanding what science has to do. What you mean is that what you “want” it to do. Science, and by extensions, scientists, are not overly concerned with what an anonymous coward on the internet wants them to do.

  • ma

    Why is he able to even mention Creationism in a government school? If someone of faith mentions it as a possibility of origins, they get slammed. So why is he allowed to even mention it, he’s acknowledging another view of origins, even if it’s in ridicule? Both views should be able to speak on what they believe.

  • John Smith

    here is how the slide should look

    • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

      I didn’t come from no monkey! I came from dust man and rib woman!

  • Demopublicrat

    Evolutionism: Assumption, speculation, made up crap.

  • John Smith

    Only a monkey would believe in evolution. Everything is tending toward disorder including mans morals. Taken to its logical end evilution has to conclude that compassion and caring are bad mutations since it doesn’t further survival of the fittest in other words we feel bad for the weak and sick who according to evolution should just die already. Nice people these eugenics scum are they are the mutations lacking a conscience or denying it like base animals reveling in their fallen condition like filthy dogs. Christians are about to enter(through death) into the real evolution the evolution of those who are Christ’s into glorified beings with glorified bodies. The evolutionist will sink into the abyss with all those who deny God. And so what will they do about this? Attack us because they cannot reach God in heaven. But they cannot escape this life, God has made the heaven above brass and the ground of iron so that they are trapped like a rat . They are like a prisoner who sure as shootin are on death row and deny it. They are already guilty and they know it. We will all die because of sin.

  • John Smith

    Here’s a better slide with Darwin in the proper place in the evolutionary model. Somewhere between a man and an animal like the esteemed teacher in this story.

  • Scott Plumer

    I don’t see how it’s mocking. Is it because the dude with the beard is white?

  • railhead

    If evolution was really so scientific and so supported by evidence, you wouldn’t have these kinds of juvenile tactics employed by it’s primary supporters. This smacks more of propaganda than education, and should demonstrate the fact that evolution is really not any more scientific than creation. Both are belief systems based on faith. Evolution, is in fact, a religion, and has no place in science classrooms.
    Yet, you have buffoons like this guy claiming to be scientific and academic making elementary school style jokes to prove his point. Very scientifc Mr. Bang, you’re obviously an academic genius. I remember an Uncle who was on par with your academic excellence who used to say “pull my finger”.

    • Mike Wallace

      “you wouldn’t have these kinds of juvenile tactics employed by it’s primary supporters.”
      Nice non-sequitur. The best part? I am guessing that your hypocrisy is lost on you.

      • railhead

        No, actually I realize it’s a bit hypocritical, but I’m not a college professor or scientist who is claiming to be objective and academic, either.

    • Kenneth

      This whole “science is just a religion” thing absolutely boggles my mind. It’s amazing that people are unwilling and flatly opposed to objective reasoning. I just don’t get it.

      • railhead

        PHYSICS is SCIENCE. EVOLUTION is NOT SCIENCE. Now do you get it????
        Physics has measurable laws, testable theories, and is useful in predicting outcomes, and designing thing that are useful.
        Evolution is speculation based on theoretical thought, a belief system of where we came from; and is no more or less useful for predicting outcomes and designing useful things than believing in God or believing anything else.

  • david ramseur

    Since genetics disproves macro-evolution that word should be on the creation side. Both evolutionists and creationists agree that adaptation and natural selection exists. What they disagree on is Darwinian macro evolution. There is no supporting evidence to back up Darwinian macro-evolution. Not in the fossil record and macro-evolution has never been observed. Evolutionists make category errors when presenting examples of adaptation as proof of Darwinian macro evolution. Genetics supports creationism though, as does entropy, biogenesis, natural limits to variation (sterility), species reproducing after their own kind, etc… It takes much more faith to believe in molecules to man Darwinian macro evolution than it does to believe the Genesis account. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is utterly unscientific. The experts know this. They try to keep the cat in the bag though, for research grants, reputation, and to assuage their desire to not be accountable to any God. They can’t let a divine foot in the door.

  • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

    Creationism, Fox News, the “pro-life” position, and fundamentalist conservatives all deserve to be mocked. They are all propagating demonstrably irrational and/or false ideas. This is a university, not a high school. A lecturer beginning a presentation on evolution by taking a lighthearted jab at creationism isn’t the end of the world. In fact, if you’re going to be taking a college-level biology course, you had better understand that evolution is an observed process and that the theory of evolution is supported by mountains of evidence.

    People need to get this idea out of their heads that beliefs are on equal footing with empirically observed facts. Creationism is not compatible with the evidence or with reality.

    • Gary

      Evolution from one kind of biological entity to another has never been observed. You assume that it is true, but neither you, nor anyone else has ever seen it happen.

      • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

        Of course it has been observed. We have the fossil record which demonstrates the advancement of life from single cells which then increased in complexity over billions of years and generated the biodiversity we can see through history and today.

        No, we haven’t observed an organism “morph” into a new form, because time is essential to evolution. The process simply doesn’t happen fast enough for us to readily observe it on a large scale. Yes, we can absolutely see allele frequencies changing over time, but not the “macroevolution” you’re talking about.

        • Gary

          What causes organisms to change?

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            Individual organisms don’t evolve, but over time, their lineage does. This is typically caused by environmental pressures. If organisms don’t adapt to a changing niche, then they will be outcompeted by other organisms and either fail to be as successful at propagating, or fail to reproduce at all.

          • Gary

            It still remains that something, or someone causes the adaptation? What is it? Do the organisms change their own DNA? Or does something else do it? And what is that something else?

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            I already told you, environmental pressures. Alleles change naturally by many different mechanisms, and the prevalence of specific alleles is driven by how that confers and advantage or disadvantage to survival and future reproduction. Any alleles which give an advantage will become more frequent within a population, and any which are detrimental will become less frequent.

            Here’s an example of evolution in action. There is a species of skink that has populations which occupy two distinct niches. One population continues to reproduce via egg laying, while another has developed the ability to give live birth.

            http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/09/100901-science-animals-evolution-australia-lizard-skink-live-birth-eggs/

          • Gary

            Nonsense. Environmental pressures CANNOT cause changes in DNA. Environmental pressures can only influence an organism to change its own DNA, but organisms do not have the ability to change their own DNA. You could not change your DNA, no matter how much you wanted to. The only way DNA can be changed is through reproduction. But you cannot reproduce with anything but another human, which would always result in more humans. Never anything else.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            Are you kidding? Do you know what cancer is? Do you understand that environmental conditions can cause cancer? The environment absolutely can cause changes in DNA. Are you even serious?

            Of course organisms don’t have the ability to change their DNA (well, technically humans do, but that’s because of technology). What you’re talking about is essentially Lamarckian evolution.

            You clearly are demonstrating that you do not understand how genetics works. And for the record, I’m a molecular biologist.

          • Gary

            At the heart of evolution is the claim that one kind of creature did indeed change into another kind of creature. The problem you have is proving that is true. And you have yet to overcome that problem.

          • Mike Wallace

            Again, your child-like simple-mindedness keeps you from actually understanding the topic. species change and differentiate from one another frequently- to the point that they become distinct species. You are simply utilizing childish logical fallacies to misrepresent evolution as a linear, upward sloping line.

          • Gary

            I understand the topic well enough to know you are a liar. I have taken several biology courses, and none of them were able to convince me that evolutionary theory has any validity. I’m an unbeliever.

          • Mike Wallace

            Nothing in my comments were lies. That you are suffering from the belief-disconfirmation paradigm. That is not evidence that biology sciences are “wrong,” just that you are too cognitively challenged to realize it. Instead, you throw out weak ad hominems, like calling me a liar, without actually addressing anything I wrote or proving that anything I wrote is a lie. It is really no wonder the you cower on the internet.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            No, at the heart of evolution is the concept that allele frequencies change over time in a population. This, over time, leads to certain traits becoming more common depending on the pressures driving increased ability to adapt and survive to reproduce. One “kind” of creature doesn’t just suddenly turn into another “kind”, but rather, changes in (typically) separate populations cause the “kind” of organism in each population to diverge further from their original “kind”.

            We have no problem proving evolution true. There are mountains of evidence demonstrating this over and over again across thousands of different lineages.

            What you’ve yet to overcome is your indoctrination with Bronze Age creation myths.

          • Gary

            The God you so hate, the One who created everything, is the very same God who is going to destroy you. And there is nothing you can do to change that.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            I don’t hate any gods. I can’t hate what doesn’t exist. Besides, I generally don’t go about hating anything, there’s no point in hate. I hate your god as much as I hate Darth Vader or Sauron.

            But thanks for the “Christian love” as you smugly assert that I’ll get mine one day while you are whisked off to eternal bliss.

          • Gary

            Then the God you don’t believe exists is going to destroy you.

          • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

            Right, and Bigfoot is going to throttle you in your sleep.

          • SashaC

            Changing the subject back to magic, because you were thoroughly trounced by science…typical. Lol! You’re not fooling anyone though. 😉

      • Mike Wallace

        If you say it over and over, maybe it will come true! Keep trying!

        • Gary

          What causes changes in the DNA of plants and animals?

          • Mike Wallace

            Could you ask any more vague a question? Seriously, I am curious if it is even possible. Do you want to know more about speciation? Adaptation? Engineering? Hybrid-sterility? It would help if you possessed even an inkling of experience or understanding of this field.

          • Gary

            Just pick one. Any change in an organism must be caused. So what is the cause?

          • Mike Wallace

            So you have no idea what you are actually looking for, you just throw out vague questions, hoping for a “gotcha” moment?

            “Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” – Isaac Asimov. Thanks to people like you, we are well on our way to idiocracy. You dislike the notion of science or, at the very least, seem terrified by concepts which you can’t grasp. As evidenced by you being here now, though, you do not seem to have any trouble utilizing scientific advancements like the internet.

            We could talk about speciation, or the manner through which new, distinct species arise, but then we should focus on cladogenesis, anagenesis, for the sake of brevity. It is unlikely that any discussion on the topic will allow you to overcome your cognitive dissonance, so why waste too much time, eh?

          • Gary

            If a change in the DNA of an organism occurs, who or what is responsible? Did the organism change its own DNA? Did some outside force change it? And if so, who, or what, is the outside force?

          • Mike Wallace

            Again, it entirely depends on the situation and what species you are talking about. For speciation, there are several options. You have to know what it is you are looking for, before you seek an answer. You are simply not asking the right questions, because a. you do not understand the topic and b. are committing a logical fallacy as “begging the question.”

            Genetic changes in species can be perpetrated by several disfferent scenarios. Geographically: allopatric, peripatirc, parapatric or sympatric. It can also be induced artificially in laboratory settings, through selection and hubandry or agriculturally.

            You, however, are searching for a specific answer of a divine creator and it has lead you to use invalid reasoning.

          • Gary

            Exclude the laboratory. Stick to “natural” causes. Blueberry bushes were producing blueberries without any human influence, right? What caused the DNA in blueberry bushes that makes them produce blueberries?

          • Mike Wallace

            I listed four separate “natural” options. Are you illiterate or has your cognitive dissonance driven you to the point of being intentionally obtuse?

          • Gary

            Geography is a cause of changes in DNA of the kind that can result in birds evolving from dinosaurs? I don’t think so. For instance owls that are geographically isolated from other owls always reproduce owls. Never anything but owls. For your claim to have any credibility, the owls would have to evolve into something other than owls. And they never do.

          • Mike Wallace

            Remember how I said that you had no idea what you were trying to ask because you did not understand the underlying topic? This post just proved that emphatically.

            You are now confusing cladogenesis and anagenesis. Furthermore, you are perpetrating the common misconception that all evolution is a step-ladder in one particular direction. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the actual topic. Instead, you are trying to advance a bastardized version of biology. It is the psychological essential-ism of ‘folk biology.’ It is similar to the irrational question “why are there still monkeys?” You are not actually thinking in terms of population separation, but have lumped animals in to “like kinds.” It is essentially colloquial biology and demonstrates a child-like simplicity.

          • Gary

            Maybe it is simple. But the fact remains that you claim that men evolved from molecules, and I know that is impossible.

          • Mike Wallace

            No. You believe it is impossible, but simple organic chemistry proves that it isn’t. We create things from basic elements on a daily basis. Your child like simplicity notwithstanding.

          • Gary

            Organic chemistry cannot prove that anything can evolve from molecules but other molecules. What you do in a laboratory is not what happens in nature.

          • Mike Wallace

            You should stick to doing what you do best – collect food stamps. The more you type, the less convinced I am that you dress yourself in the morning. Molecular changes in nature occur frequently as well. Your insistence on arbitrarily dismissing science just proves that you are also a bigot.

          • Gary

            I don’t dismiss science. I differ with you on what science is.

          • Mike Wallace

            No. You pretty much dismiss it, but that is not entirely your fault; you have demonstrated, quite emphatically, that you do not understand it.

      • http://www.facebook.com/prototypeatheist Prototype Atheist

        No, I don’t “assume” anything. The evidence is there for anyone to see. The fossil record and genetic evidence demonstrate common ancestry and relatedness. Yes, we can absolutely see the evidence of the process of evolution over time. The theory’s predictions have only been confirmed time and time again across many different fields of science.

        Can we observe the formation of a galaxy? No, because the process takes far longer than a couple human lifetimes. That doesn’t mean we can’t figure out how it happens. Same with evolution. The process takes far more time than the 150 years since Darwin proposed the theory. You’re being dishonest.

        Here, educate yourself:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIEoO5KdPvg

  • Gavin Brock

    The fact that we have to shove nutrition down the same tube we use for air is enough evidence against intelligent design to me.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/EyrtheFyre Regina Forbes

    They should re-title this article “hey everyone who’s NOT a Christian, come to this Christian news site and make antagonistic posts- because reasons”

    And remember, Raptor Jesus loves you…as a snack!

    • James Grimes

      Regina, The Useless are here in droves. I generally ignore them, hoping they will go away.

      • James Grimes

        Another thing too, decent people are unlikely to tolerate their Atheist crap.

  • Yvonne Khalili-Borna

    Bang’s Big Theory is closed-minded and hateful.

  • http://wildlink.com/ Stephen Roberts

    He is a biology professor. Of course he is going to laugh at creationism.

  • climate3

    But if he had made fun of evolution, this site and several comments here would be talking about his right to free speech.

  • railhead

    As long as you have people being brainwashed in public schools to believe that evolution is science (when it really is a religion) and that “education” is buying whatever nonsense that schools and universities spoon feed you, this is really an impossible debate.
    You have people who only trust scientists “of reputation”. In order to have a reputation, you must play ball with and adhere to what the majority believes, or else your reputation will be shot, thus making the reputability of dissenting critical thought impossible. You have people who think that becoming a scientist transforms a mere human into a god, who is totally objective as has no personal agenda, thus making it impossible to dispute anything that they say. And of course, the folly of believeing that evolution is science when it has not been scietifically proven.

    1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

    Amazingly, the Bible knew about “science FALSELY SO CALLED” thousands of years ago.

    • Gary

      Evolution is a major belief of people who think that nature is all there is. They control most universities.

    • Mike Wallace

      Work with your medicine. That you do not understand the science is not evidence that it is false.

  • Jeeler

    Oh man, the thin-skinned (“ooh, we’re under attack!”), woefully ignorant creationists once again show their utter lack of context and comprehension.
    Why the superstitious nonsense of White Muricun Jesus somehow must be taken at face value and escape all criticism and scrutiny is palpable nonsense. Creationists are in no way fit to assume any important role in any future society.

  • Alex

    I feel sorry for this biology teacher for him the truth does not matter.

  • bobbyb

    some Christians(fundamentalists) have quite a bit in common with muslim beliefs,which they don’t seem to realize – both are anti evolution,and anti separation of church and state ,among other things

  • http://aebrain.blogspot.com Zoe_Brain

    Well, I think “miracle” rather than “magic” would have been more diplomatic. I can see why some would take offense.

    Same thing though.

  • B1jetmech

    Evolution: From Goo to you by way of the zoo…

  • DesertSun59

    Biblical creation IS magic using the definition of that word. In fact, there is ZERO evidence of ‘creation’ as described in that Bronze and Iron Age book. We have over one hundred and fifty years of evidence of evolution though, along with genetic confirmation of that evidence.

    If you continue to insist that evidence is irrelevant but a tribal Jewish Bronze Age story is true then you are advocating ignorance.

  • Gary

    I believe what the Bible says about creation. The universe and nature are creations of God. The universe did not create itself. Life on earth did not create itself. Since physical things do not come to exist by chance, and since they don’t create themselves out of nothing, then the only possibility that remains is that they were created by someone who had the ability to create them.

    • BarkingDawg

      I believe what the Bible says about creation.

      Which version?

      There are literally thousands of different versions of the bible.

      • Billy Christian

        KJV 1611 is the only true Bible.

  • winfield100

    Fairy tales could come true

  • http://www.rawstory.com Pat Nixon

    It’s not ‘Magic’. It’s the ‘Son of Magic’.

  • Mike435

    Maybe this would have been a more tasteful image for the creation side:

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Hands_of_God_and_Adam.jpg

  • Hardworker50

    Reading the comments:
    Religionists feel that they are ‘mocked’, and unfairly???
    These people are attending a university to become educated, especially away from the fables and fantasies and fables of childhood.
    You deserve to be mocked and ridiculed if you cannot read about science and history from an objective point of view.
    Evolution and history are backed up by verifiable evidence, irrefutable proof, undeniable evidence, all of which is peer reviewed with references.
    The above ‘Commenting Guidelines’ states No blasphemy; but it is considered blasphemy to erroneously claim that Hitler was an atheist when he was a raised a Christian and used Christianity in his ideology.

  • http://www.ruthlessreviews.com/ Ruthless Goat

    Superstition and lies should be mocked. People have the right to believe in whatever they choose, but I am under no obligation to respect the objects of this belief and worship. Gods, holy ghosts, risen saviors, virgin marys and other religious hallucinations are fair game to scrutiny, skepticism and yes, derision.

  • Brien

    “but we will not tolerate remarks containing …….blasphemy,…”
    Then I can expected to be discriminated for bringing up proven scientific evidence as it goes against whatever rubbish you believe in that cannot be proven.
    The point is : if you cannot provide verifiable evidence in this modern day and age, then you should expect to be mocked, ridiculed and, yes, insulted!