Evolutionary Embarrassment: Part of Famous ‘Ape-Man’ Skeleton Actually Came from Baboon

Lucy SkeletonSAN FRANCISCO – A team of scientists has announced that the famous “Lucy” skeleton, a specimen long heralded as proof of man’s evolutionary descent, likely includes at least one bone from a baboon.

Ever since its discovery in Ethiopia in 1974, the partial skeleton nicknamed “Lucy” has been touted by evolutionists as proof that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors. Eager to show evidence for Darwin’s theory, evolutionists claim that Lucy was a Hominid—an ape-like primate that possessed the ability to walk upright, like modern humans.

Today, natural history museums frequently depict Lucy as a part ape, part human creature, with long arms, an erect posture, and a small brain. Evolutionists maintain that the skeleton, which is claimed to be 3.2 million years old, fills in crucial gaps in the human family tree.

However, many scientists, including those who believe in biblical creation, have long expressed skepticism toward the Lucy fossil. Sculptor and exhibit designer Doug Henderson wrote in a 2013 article for Answers in Genesis that depictions of Lucy are significantly influenced by biases and unfounded assumptions.

“Even though Lucy is fairly complete for a mammal fossil (47 of 207 bones found), the bones are mostly small fragments with many pieces missing,” Henderson wrote. “Other specimens have been found, but they are far more fragmentary. No matter how complete, all fossils must be interpreted. Some interpretation is always left to the imagination of the person doing the reconstruction.”

Last week, scientists announced that the famous skeleton includes at least one bone that likely came from a baboon. According to New Scientist, Gary Sawyer and Mike Smith at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, along with New York University’s Scott Williams, came to this conclusion after they analyzed the Lucy specimen and “noticed something odd.”

“Mike pointed out that one of the [vertebra] fragments, which no one, including me, had really paid close attention to, looked fairly small to fit with the rest of Lucy’s vertebral column,” Williams said.

  • Connect with Christian News

The bone fragment’s size did not match up with the other pieces of the skeleton, the scientists concluded.

“It was just too small,” Williams said.

Williams then compared the bone fragment to the anatomies of other animals, noticing that it closely resembled baboon vertebrae.

“Baboons were a close match, both in shape and size,” Williams explained. “So we think we’ve solved this mystery. It seems that a fossil gelada baboon thoracic vertebra washed or was otherwise transported in the mix of Lucy’s remains.”

The researchers shared their findings at a meeting of the Paleoanthropology Society in San Francisco last week. Though evolutionists are downplaying the discovery as a minor mistake, others say these recent findings undermine the evolutionary dogma.

If the Lucy fragment is indeed from a baboon, the incident would not be the first time evolutionists have misidentified fossils that allegedly prove the existence of ape-men. In the 1920s, a single fossil purportedly originating from a primate nicknamed “Nebraska Man” was described by Science Magazine as “convincing evidence” of human evolution. However, the specimen was later shown to be nothing more than a wild pig tooth.

Dr. David Menton, a former professor emeritus of anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine, believes that evolutionists’ attempts to fill “the unbridgeable gap” between apes and men are futile.

“While Bible-believing Christians begin with the assumption that God’s word is true and that man’s ancestry goes back only to a fully human Adam and Eve, evolutionists begin with the assumption that man has, in fact, evolved from apes,” Menton wrote in an article for Answers in Genesis. “No paleoanthropologists (those who study the fossil evidence for man’s origin) would dare to seriously raise the question, ‘Did man evolve from apes?’ The only permissible question is, ‘From which apes did man evolve?’”

“No, we are not descended from apes,” Menton concluded. “Rather, God created man as the crown of His creation on Day 6. We are a special creation of God, made in His image, to bring Him glory. What a revolution this truth would make if our evolutionized culture truly understood it!”


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
  • Paul Hiett

    So one bone means the entire specimen is somehow invalid? That’s funny.

    “Look everyone, one of these bones isn’t from this skeleton!”

    “What about the other bones?”

    “Oh, those are fine, those are the original ones…but look, look at this one bone!”

    “So it really doesn’t invalidate the actual specimen?”

    “Well no, but look! Look at this one bone!”

    • uzza

      The float in my truck’s gas tank came out of a moped–so it’s really not a truck.

      • B.A. Norman

        Uzza, the other bones in Lucy are chimpanzee bones – so no, she was not a baboon, but rather a chimp.

        • uzza

          That’s just ridiculous. Everyone knows those are Orc bones.

      • happylada

        NO, that means its NOT completely a FORD.

        There is a LOT of difference between your Ford (assuming it is) and a primate. YOU would never claim your Ford was just an accident – that it designed and fabricated not only its materials but its parts all by accident.

        Parts that don’t fit also show intelligence – you could NOT use a spoon as a fuel guage. ONLY intelligence could make you fit a moped guage to a truck

        LUCY was supposedly far more complex, but an “industrial accident” so to speak. Hilarious.

        IF you see intelligence and design in your truck, you REALLY think Lucy came about by accident? (actually I don;t see that much intelligence in a Ford – BUT that’s another subject)

        • uzza

          LOL. Actually it is a Ford (you heathen Chevy-lover, you). Also, I question the intelligence of its makers about every time I work on it.

          This argument however is ridiculous. Why? Because no one has ever claimed that things came about by accident, that’s simply a straw man that creationists like when they can’t understand what evolution is.
          Things that came about as a result of the process of evolution, by definition did not come about by accident, they came about by evolution.

          • Ed

            No, if atheistic evolution is true, then we are an accident. Because at its foundation the process is random. Natural selection responds to changes in the environment which are random.

          • uzza

            You think that because the input is random, the output has to be random as well? No processes exist that impose order on things? You’ve never heard of a funnel?

          • Ed

            No, I am just saying that ultimately it IS random. I am referring to its foundation. So in an ultimate sense we ARE an accident, if atheistic evolution is true.

          • happylada

            Get a life – I’m a Cummins man 😉 Fords go where they are towed 😉

            YOU ,must NOT know anything about evolution. Evolution is mis- and un- directed events that occasionally combine to make a change in something significant. If you don’t believe me read Dawkins.

            Of course its totally random – by accident.

            Evolution is at best, by its experts, an accident. You are simply NOT up to speed. Anything else would require direction; intelligence, and that is the ONE thing evolutionists won’t allow.

            An intersting quote:
            “Jones has often delighted in attacks on creationists, with sarcasm and ridicule. But he has also done us a favour. He was the one who provided a delightfully simple one-liner very useful for creationists to quote when responding to the standard chimp-human evolutionary claims. It concerns the common belief that chimps must be almost human, since they share 90-something percent (the exact figure varies) of their genes with humans. It was Jones who correctly pointed out that ‘bananas share 50% of our genes, but that doesn’t make them half-human’.”

            In fact NOW the similarity has been downgraded almost weekly it seems – and now stands at about 78% and falling

            BUT to suggest that evolutionists do NOT consider any change in life forms NOT to be an accident is just false.

          • uzza

            “natural selection is sometimes interpreted as a random process. This is also a misconception. The genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is random — but selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way: genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don’t. Natural selection is NOT random!—–Evolution 101, “Understanding Evolution”, USC

            It only takes a few seconds with Google to dispel your misconception, but of course you will continue to misunderstand because it also requires the courage to face reality and give up your childhood stories that told you you’re better than everyone else. It’s sad.

          • Craig Ewoldt

            It only takes a few seconds with Google to encourage your misconception. Darwinian evolution is natural selection working on random mutations. But does that process have the necessary power to create new species? Almost certainly not. It is at best a mechanism to slow genetic decline. Evolution is so immensely improbable, and seems plausible only because of the many “just so” stories that are woven.

            Worse, evolution needs information to even start. And where does that information come from. We know that the complex specified information in each living cell is the same kind of information–not analogous to but the same kind–as in books and computer programs. And every bit of that kind of information can be traced to intelligent input. No exceptions. Yet the evolutionist attributes the incredible information in the cell to purely natural processes–matter in motion. There is no evidence for this, just unfounded speculation.

            So if someone tells you they have invented a perpetual motion machine, will you believe them? Same thing. You don’t get something for nothing, except in make believe.

    • Oboehner

      Isn’t one bone like 40% of the total pathetic crumb collection that is speculated to be a hominid? “likely includes AT LEAST one bone from a baboon” – Nebraska Man revisited.

      • Tangent001

        ‘At least’ is a concoction of the author, not an assessment by Smith and Sawyer.

      • Tangent001

        “Isn’t one bone like 40% of the total pathetic crumb collection that is speculated to be a hominid?”

        One bone out of 47 is 2%.

        • Oboehner

          At least one bone.

          • Tangent001

            The ‘at least’ claim is made by the author, not Smith and Sawyer.

          • Oboehner

            We wouldn’t want to admit more than we have to, now would we.

    • Allan Trenholme

      Ah… where are all the other skeleton fossils showing proof? LOL, so one PARTIAL skeleton fossil proves evolution valid?

      • Edsword

        Along with the artist renditions, it can be quite convincing to elementary kids.

      • happylada

        And fake, distant and manipulated parts at that. ONLY evidence to those desperate for it. Its amazing how folk can “discover” things like this to keep their funding coming in, only THREE weeks before the grants were to end. Science? or employment . . .?

      • oregon_man

        They are in museums all over the planet. LOL yourself.

        • happylada

          Rubbish. name ONE. There are simply casts of the few skeletons that have been created. While there are LOTS of bones, there are NO skeletons. Just a hodgepodge of mix and match chimps etc. Like a Lego box – make what you want from the bits.

          Gould stated that the total bones of missing links would fit on a pool table or some such HONEST expression of the quantity.

          There ARE Neanderthals, but they are fully human. Its ironic that the “brow ridge” evolutionists claim differentiates modern man from Neanderthals was also proudly displayed on Darwin.

          Hilarious . . .

    • Edsword

      Yes, it means none of the are assuredly Lucy. Which means another fail.

      • happylada

        Evolutionists be like – who cares about the evidence. My MIND is made up, don’t confuse me with facts:

        “However, the amazing thing is that the careful work of trained anatomists
        (themselves evolutionists) such as the late Lord Solly Zuckerman of Birmingham,
        and Professor Charles Oxnard of the University of Western Australia, on the australopithecines
        is being totally overlooked.

        “Using objective computerized multivariate analysis of many measurements on
        the bones, they (and an increasing number of other researchers who are not associated
        with the discovery of any of these creatures) invariably find that all of the australopithecines,
        grouped together anatomically, are further away from both apes and humans than these
        two groups are from each other.

        “They thus conclude that the australopithecines were a unique group of extinct
        creatures, not anatomically intermediate between apes and humans, so were not evolutionary
        ‘links’ at all.

        “Did australopithecines walk upright in the human manner, as evolutionists
        commonly claim? (The reports speculate that A. ramidus might have—if
        only they could find the leg bones.) No, say these anatomists, and recent discoveries
        of other Australopithecus bones have highlighted this further. These creatures
        had long, powerful arms and curved fingers suited to tree-dwelling.

        “Some interesting new work has also helped to demolish the idea that the australopithecines
        habitually walked upright. Computerized X-ray scans are able to reveal the bony
        structure of the inner ear. The shape of this has been shown to directly reflect
        patterns of movement. Understandably, humans (the only creatures alive that walk
        habitually upright) have an inner ear structure which stands out from the rest.
        When this analysis is carried out on fossil skulls, the results are completely in
        line with modern creationist expectations. So-called Homo erectus (which
        even some evolutionists are saying should be reclassified as Homo sapiens)
        has an inner ear structure just like ours; whereas that of all australopithecines
        (and habilines) studied are ‘decidedly ape-like’.””

    • happylada

      Excuse me – your sarcasm is irrational. This is su[pposed to be a skeleton of an intermediate – not a collection of unidentifiable bits from wherever and whatever.

      The baboon bone that was IDENTIFIED means this is NOT a complete skeleton. Since it is ALREADY incomplete, this is serious. Apart from that some parts are reported to have been found a LONG ways away, HOW do we know THEY aren’t also mixed primate parts of uncertain origins?

      ONLY IF you are steeped in evolutionary dogma and unwilling to question it at all – would such a significant mistake NOT be important – in other words you believe the myth regardless of any actual evidence.

      SO you are prepared to overlook the saw and dremmel work done on the pelvis in an attempt to fake its ability to walk upright, the composite bones and the 3/4 missing skeleton and SATIULL claim it is proof for evolution?

      BOY are you brainwashed.

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        Your argument makes far too much sense for those who are worshippers of Darwin. The Piltdown Man was in the (text)books for 4 decades before it was established to be a fraud – long enough to brainwash a number of generations. Excellent work, HappyLada!

        • oregon_man

          Yes, Piltdown Man was the only fraud that ever made peer review. There was no “saw and dremel” work on Lucy. You are the brainwashed fool @happylada:disqus You are the one believing in myth. I would never say a word and let you be happy in your make-believe world, but you so-called Christians begin a campaign of lies, false witness and deceit when you think your shaky groundless myth is about to tumble. This comment section is full of those who feel it is so important lying is OK.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Hi, your comments appear to be directed toward another person, but I would just like to address a couple of issues here.

            As for me, I am a former a-theist and Darwinist, and I don’t wish to go into a lot of detail on the many and large holes in macro-evolution. A good scholarly secular journal will suffice for those. But, I do wish to address some other comments you made:

            “but you so-called Christians begin a campaign of lies, false witness and deceit”

            Now, this is where your a-theism runs into serious trouble. Because if we are indeed nothing more than molecules-to-men, then there are no grounds for asserting objective moral values and duties – including lying, false witness, and deception. So, in order for you to even make such claims under a-theism, you have to steal objective moral laws and duties from an Objective Moral Law Giver, or the One we call “God.” It is not just I who asserts this, it is your “pope” Dawkins:

            “In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, or any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference… DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.” (Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (1995))

            Notice that Dawkins says “no good or evil.” You can’t talk about “evil” Christians because there is no “evil” in a-theism! So, while we appreciate your acknowledgment of God by stealing objective morality from Him, please do feel free to thank Him for it. This remarkable understanding is one major reason that caused me to turn my life over to the God Who spoke 100 billion galaxies into existence. God bless!

          • oregon_man

            LOL, I am not an atheist. But I definitely do not believe in the God of Abraham. If there is a God, I am unaware of his/her existence.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Gotcha. You might be a deist then? God exists, but is not interested in human affairs? That is respectable. If true, then you might reasonably believe the Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of a First Uncaused Cause to be plausibly true, where this Cause is a Deity, but not necessarily the God of Abraham. If so, there are some interesting metaphysical implications for this Cause that you might be interested in.

          • oregon_man

            I would say agnostic. I have a hard time with “something from nothing” origin of the universe. If there is a god, it may not be what we would imagine. We may be part of it. I most definitely do not believe the bible. It is great fiction, the ‘greatest story ever told’, passed down orally until someone wrote it down. In those times of human evolution, that great story was worth all the gold and diamonds on the planet, and more. Most powerful story ever told, fiction based on real events. Humans have learned a lot in 2000 years.

          • MisterPine

            Excellent post. I wanted to applaud.

          • oregon_man

            “Dawkins says “no good or evil.” and you immediately take it out of its context and use it for your fallacy argument. Dawkins referred to the universe has no good or evil. He’s right. Good and evil is a construct of humans. I do believe there is good and evil in humans. It exists in most sentient beings and evolution explains it.

            I was a Christian for most of my life. Then I started reading lots of books by real scientists about human origins and evolution. It is a great story too, even better it has evidence, facts and based on real science. Arguments like those in here, the radicalization of Christianity in America is what made me realize what it really is, a farce. If there was a God he would not tolerate the nonsense we observe now.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Dawkins says “no good or evil.” and you immediately take it out of its context and use it for your fallacy argument. Dawkins referred to the universe has no good or evil. He’s right. Good and evil is a construct of humans. ”

            That is the point! There is no OBJECTIVE grounding for moral values and duties under a-theism – just as you admit! So, the quote most assuredly was in context. Here are two more:

            “Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear — and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either.” — atheist William Provine

            “The position of the modern evolutionist is that humans have an awareness of morality because such an awareness of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate when someone says, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory.” (Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 262-269).

            Since, good and evil, by your own admission, is a construct of humans, it is neither objective nor transcendental. That is why a-theists cannot condemn slavery or Jew gassing without stealing from the transcendent Moral Law Giver, God. (And 97% of a-theists are pro-aborts, one of the surest signs that their moral compass is severely broken AND they do not know basic human biology.) Face it: if there is no God, all things are permissible.

            “Then I started reading lots of books by real scientists about human origins and evolution.”

            You mean great scientists like Newton, Leibnitz, Kepler, Faraday, Maxwell, etc, all deists, theists, and/or Christians?!? You must have a lot of blind faith to believe in your a-theism. Just Big Bang cosmology, the CBR, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, positive expansion universe, and the BGV Theorem, combined with Kalam Cosmology point to a First Uncaused Cause that is spaceless, timeless, non-material, immensely powerful, has personal free will, and is self-existing and changeless. That sounds a LOT like the Biblical God.

          • Basset_Hound

            I cut and pasted these references for my resource list. Hope you don’t mind.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            No, use them, use them, use them! We have to hold a-theists to their worldview limitations: they cannot believe in blind chance and survival of the fittest on the one hand, and talk about how “evil’ Christians (and God) are on the other. That is totally self-refuting. Rape? Happens all the time in the animal kingdom. Murder? Ever see a lion take out a gazelle? Here are a few more that you might enjoy:

            “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” —
            Richard Dawkins

            “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” — Francis Crick

            “I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic
            authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time.” — Professor Thomas Nagel, NYU

            “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories because we have a prior commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world but, on the contrary, we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.” — Darwinist Richard Lewontin, Harvard University

            ”Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even
            wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can ever emulate? Evolution is the cause!” — Nobel laureate Robert Laughlin

          • Basset_Hound

            Wish I could send you a royalty check.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Haha, Basset_Hound – if I had your wisdom, I would sell mine! Besides, I am just letting the a-theists speak for themselves – they deserve all the honor, because they are the gift that keeps on giving! 🙂

          • happylada

            Interesting that a mere man with possibly .00001% of the worlds KNOWLEDGE assumes he can judge and speak for the creator of the universe with 100% knowledge. THAT is the arrogance that got mankind kicked out of the garden.

          • happylada

            “This comment section is full of those who feel it is so important lying is OK.”

            I’ve noticed – why can evolutionists NOT tell the truth?

          • happylada

            Your ignorance is astounding. You call me a liar, yet IGNORE the
            evidence. HOW rational is that? What lies? Did we draw walking whales
            on a napkin and have it published in textbooks? Did we modify skulls
            and add blowholes to “prove aquatic adaptation”? Did WE publish
            recapitulation in textbooks 120 years AFTER it was exposed in COURT as a
            deliberate fraud?

            NOW as to the modification of the pelvis to make it capable of walking upright – see the NOVA program

            youtube DOT com/watch?v=L_U9SCyWw4w

            Any
            lies you think you can expose – I say BRING it on. Evolution is so
            thoroughly discredited today, See the Altenburg 16 report by Mazur
            creation DOT com/review-altenberg-16 and the Biblical account so
            fortified by recent discoveries – ie DNA, and the workings of the cell,
            the loss of evolutionists crutches of junk DNA and Vestigial organs, the
            loss of Oort’s cloud and dark matter – the loss of “where did all the
            water GO” after the flood – all these and MANY more pillars of evolution
            all destroyed in the last decade.

            SO your comment “You are the
            brainwashed fool happylada You are the one believing in myth. I would
            never say a word and let you be happy in your make-believe world, but
            you so-called Christians begin a campaign of lies, false witness and
            deceit when you think your shaky groundless myth is about to tumble.
            This comment section is full of those who feel it is so important lying
            is OK.”

            I think would be QUITE accurate if you exchanged Christian
            with atheist and assumed it ALL applied to evolutionists. It SURE has
            NO application to Christians

            Edited to remove URL’s which cause the posy to be rejected I suppose.

        • happylada

          I was taught Piltdowen man. That’s how OLD I am or how recently it was taught – ONE of the other

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            The Haeckel embryo diagrams fraud was a big part of cementing my a-theism, and this lie is still being published today in textbooks! Google “Did your science textbook teach that embryo drawings prove evolution?” The brainwashing of the young continues.

  • uzza

    Well he’s right about one thing, No paleoanthropologist would seriously raise the question, ‘Did man evolve from apes?’ because anthropologists know what they’re talking about. Only people with no understanding of evolution ask that question.

    • Beleaguered

      If it is so obvious why we are there so many unanswered questions ?
      Why don’t they answer them with facts not speculation ?

      • ash_mobius

        Don’t bother, friend. Proponents of evolution go ape-crazy when “-like” is removed from the equation, but they know what people are saying. They enjoy deflecting from the obvious flaws when someone says, “ape” instead of “ape-like” ancestor. It’s the snobbery that comes when you realize you’ve believed a half-baked theory your whole life because you’ve been told to believe it—you know, like every other religion in the world.

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          Amen! It’s the hardest thing to admit one has been brainwashed by the godless Left. Was NOT easy for me.

          • happylada

            OR me.

      • Oboehner

        Because it’s a religion.

        • oregon_man

          It’s not a religion, you are an idiot. Please look up the “scientific method” and chew on that a while.

          • happylada

            There is NOTHING useful in the scientific method to evolutionists. Evolution fails EVERY tenant of the scientific method.

            Methinks you are just to illiterate to know that.

          • oregon_man

            “to illiterate to know” You are definitely psycho. That should be “too illiterate to know”. Now that I’ve corrected that and considering the context, are you too psycho to see the irony of your statement?

          • Oboehner

            Scientific method doesn’t exclude possibilities, your religion does.

          • oregon_man

            I don’t have a religion. Sorry you have so much trouble with that it has made you delusional.

          • Oboehner

            Delusional is a failure to face the facts of your religion.

    • bowie1

      Obviously some discoveries besides this one over the years have found out to be fakes, frauds and mistakes. There’s no denying that.

      • oregon_man

        Actually only one famous fossil was found to be fake. It was a human skull and monkey jaw. I do deny what you claim.

        • happylada

          Surely you jest. Please get an education. Read some accurate CREATIONIST books rather than the propaganda used and created for the sole purpose of deceiving you.

          LOOK up Minera – an important pillar of evolution at one time.

          • bowie1

            Where do you think they get their information?

          • oregon_man

            I just Googled “Minera” and laughed at the results. Nothing regarding evolution shows. I am very well read on hominid evolution and piltdown man was the only fraud that made it all the way through peer-reviewed science. There is no mention of a Nebraska Man or a “Minera”.

          • happylada

            Look up Earnest Haeckel the jokester that helped Darwin get his lies published by a COOK BOOK company (because NO self-respecting science publisher would touch it) and popularized.

            Haeckel created the Recapitulation fraud – out of pure imagination created pictures of embryos of various classes of animals – using the SAME woodcut for each class. He also invented Minera – the source of all life. Complete with pictures and life cycles.

            After 120 years and Gould’s outrage, recapitulation has gradually dropped from textbooks. Its NOT in the one our university uses – at LAST!!

            BUT for a deliberate fraud, investigated, confessed and discredited to be in Textbooks 120 years later shows the desperation of evolutionists for evidence.

            So maybe you should do more research. Nebraska man (and java man, and many other . . . men) certainly existed.

            Maybe you should actually search a CREATIONIST site and get REAL answers. Try Creation dot com – they have articles on Minera I think

        • bowie1

          Another one was a pig’s tooth mistaken for a human one. I would think it would be rather hard to determine what the creature is based on only a fragment.

          • oregon_man

            I never heard about that pig’s tooth. I’ll bet it was only popular in denier circles.

          • bowie1

            Or perhaps it was buried once it was discovered. Scientists do make mistakes.

      • happylada

        ALL of evolution was founded and continues on fakes, frauds, deceit and lies – Lyell, Darwin, Haeckel, Simpson etc – all deliberately deceived people to pry them away from Genesis. IT hasn’t let up.

        Tha walking whale descent has been exposed as a fraud, vestigial organs aren’t there is no such thing as JUNK DNA, etc.

        Poor evolutionists lose a pillar a week from their already shaky mythology

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          Thank you – excellent summary!

    • Levi

      Oh, you mean the anthropologists that presumptuously and mistakenly interpret baboon and pig fossils for so called intermediary species? And I have a degree in natural science and I love asking the question “did man evolve from apes?” Why not ask? Is the dogma so much that you can’t ask anymore? It seems to me that the dogma of faith in evolution is comparable to that of Militant Muslims. You should know that you can fully understand evolution AND be skeptical that it happened…like me and many other lovers of science.

    • happylada

      Funny one wrote seriously that we are the product of a mating of pigs and apes – that is why so many of our organs are closer to pigs than primates.
      THAT descendant thing is fraught with irrational logic and the dangers that creates for common sense.

      IF evolution happened, it happened ONLY because of a number of miracles. BUT since materialism denies miracles they have a rational problem.

  • Frank

    It’s been known for years that Lucy was a hodgepodge of bones from various animals. Weeee another one gets outed. Oh Luuucy…. I mean oh loosey.

  • Crono478

    Since evolution is obvious not true, evolutionists are a great story tellers. They have to come up with something that is convincing too. This article is a revelation of how one will go far with their lies. There will be more revelations similar to this in the future. God’s words will not be returned void regarding His creation.

    • Jerry C

      It’s their house of cards. Each time it gets harder to explain their faith, so the one who can keep everything standing (putting another card on top) gets the funds. Most people cannot even imagine the lies & deception that they’re in; especially evolutionalists.

      • Edsword

        In the beginning was nothing and nothingness was no where because it didn’t exist. Yet somehow nothing did something and exploded. Chaos ensued and formed planets and stars. the planets were rocks void of anything but dust and matter. Yet again chaos along with the help of lightning, good luck, a d a whole lot of good fortune formed the first living cell. Yet it died instantly because it did not have the required systems for life. So each time lightning reignited the dead cell it formed the necessary systems for cellular respiration…. You get my point

      • oregon_man

        Your acts make your religion a house of cards. Look up the story of Galileo and other famous scientists. You and those like you are destroying your religion.

  • beaucejim

    Sure, I always go to religious institutions for scientific information… just like I go to my auto mechanic when I am having health problems or my local garden center for financial advice….

    • smbelow

      ” just like I go to my…”
      I guess it depends on if they had formal training in that area. Can you tell me that the articles from Answers in Genesis are not supported by people with accredited degrees in those fields? This is not a question of your acceptance to their position, but that they have training in the area or are referencing those that do. Otherwise your comment offers no substance to Jim Deferio’s statement and link; just superficial and juvenile mockery.

      • uzza

        No, it doesn’t depend on who has the fanciest degree. It depends on who has the best evidence to back up their claims. Science has consummate evidence, Ken Ham has a musty old book.

        • smbelow

          Not only did you contradict your first post, but it seems you didn’t understand what I wrote.

          The same evidence is available to both sides of the debate (evolution vs religion). The interpretation is what we’re talking about. And yes, Ken Ham stands foundationally on the Bible, however, his and his researchers use science to help interpret the historical data.

          • SpeakTruth

            No. Ken Ham and company begin with their “knowing” that the bible is an accurate accounting of history. They then look at evidence and form excuses for why the evidence says what it does. There is a very small percentage of creationist scientists because there is no evidence whatsoever that proves their position. There is, however, vast amounts of evidence across every field of science that proves life has evolved and continues to do so.
            There is no debate. Scientists use their knowledge of evolution to find cures for diseases, develop medicines and vaccines. While there are a handful of scientists that are evangelical or fundamentalist Christians that hold their belief in the historical accuracy of the bible above any other evidence, it does not mean all of the other scientists are giving them any thought. Most scientists are focusing on helping people. If there was evidence at all that proved dinosaurs lived with man, or that the earth was only a few thousand years old, that would be an amazing discovery!

          • smbelow

            “They then look at evidence and form excuses for why the evidence says what it does. ”
            You can refer the “evolutionary faith” group with “they” just the same.

            “There is a very small percentage…”
            Appeal to popularity. Let’s not revisit fallacies I’ve already addressed.

            “scientists use their knowledge of evolution…”
            Not deep time evolution.

            “…above any other evidence…”
            False assumption.

            “Most scientists are focusing on helping people….”

            The argument isn’t science vs. religion. As I mentioned above, it is “deep time evolution” vs. Christianity. Now! If you can give me examples of this concept, I’ll attempt to reply. If you return with ignorant fallacies and assumptions. I’ll just make a simple troll remark and move on.

          • uzza

            OK, what the heck is “deep time evolution”? At first you denied evolution, and when that made you a laughingstock you guys invented “micro” and “macroevolution”. So now you are backing off again, with your evolution of the gaps, what is it this time?

          • smbelow

            First, you irrational evolutionists keep moving the stick.
            Second, billions of years.

            ” evolution of the gaps,”
            Now, I understand that evolutionists have gaps, but I’m not aware of any gaps in Christianity.

          • uzza

            What about billions of years? Life has been around, evolving, for billions of years, that’s “evolution”, it’s the only kind there is. So why do you say “deep time”?

          • smbelow

            “why do you say ‘deep time’?”
            I say time time as a reference to billions of years. If I’m not mistaken, I do believe that is a proper understanding of the expression.

            I point “deep time” out because it’s common for naturalists and the like to give examples of adaptation; claiming this to be in relation to billions of years evolution, which it’s not.

          • uzza

            You don’t express yourself very clearly here. You seem to accept the idea that evolution occurs over short time spans, calling it “adaptation”, while rejecting the idea that it occurs over long time spans.

          • smbelow

            Unless your knew to this topic, you completely understand the concept of what people call micro and macro evolution. Where micro evolution is the concept of “adaptation” and macro evolution is a reference to cell to man development, which “deep time evolutionists” use.

            Are you going to tell me you really didn’t understand my reference of adaptation? These terms have been running around for years.

            If you come back with “you didn’t.” I’m going to have to call “troll.”

          • uzza

            Yes I understand your POV that “adaptation” is not “evolution”. I just hadn’t encountered the term “deep time evolution” before.

          • Paul Hiett

            Did you not see Ken get destroyed by Bill Nye?

          • smbelow

            Different worldviews see the outcome differently. Diversionary!

          • Paul Hiett

            Even Christian website polls showed that pretty much everyone saw the same thing. Ham was utterly destroyed.

            A poll taken on “Christian Today” showed that 92% of 24,600 people agreed that Bill Nye won that debate.

          • smbelow

            Even though I was somewhat disappointed in the debate–I thought it could have been better. My personal belief, or yours, is irrelevant to the complete nature of the arguments. One debate, no matter what you believe of the outcome, does not settle the nature of evolution vs. Christianity.

          • Paul Hiett

            Only if you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend Ken Ham won.

          • smbelow

            Pray tell, what does your “debate” issue have to do with my original statements above? Are you bored today and just trolling?

          • Paul Hiett

            What Ken Ham and people at “Answers in Genesis” do is not science, and clearly Bill Nye brought up points and evidence that Ham simply could not refute. In fact, every time Ham was up against the wall and had no real answer, he kept reverting back to “well, we have this book.”

            It’s entirely unfair to real scientists to claim that what Ham and his brethren are doing is “science”.

          • smbelow

            Dear Mr. troll,
            You are using diversionary tactics to engage in an off topic subject matter. If you would like to continue to argue about Ken and Bill’s debate; please, locate an article about it and I’ll consider joining you there.

            Best regards,

            Steve

          • Jim Deferio

            EVERYTHING that Nye brought up in the debate is refuted in scholarly articles on the Answers in Genesis website. Ham chose to make his presentation more of an evangelistic one and also one based on presuppositions.

            Btw, I have two science degrees, how many do you have? WHAT is science? WHAT are the presuppositions of science? Do you even have a foggy idea what I’m asking?

          • Paul Hiett

            On the internet, I have 5 degrees in science.

            And gee, Jim, did you really expect to find information at “Answers in Genesis” that supported Nye? Did you really think that Ham’s own website would refute him, or offer up anything resembling truth?

          • Jim Deferio

            ???
            Paul, you are a known mocker on here but I at least thought you had some reading comprehension abilities.
            Your mocking and your silence concerning my questions speak volumes.

          • Jim Deferio

            EVERYTHING that Nye brought up in the debate is refuted in scholarly articles on the Answers in Genesis website. Ham chose to make his presentation more of an evangelistic one and also one based on presuppositions.

            Btw, I have two science degrees, how many do you have? WHAT is science? WHAT are the presuppositions of science? Do you even have a foggy idea what I’m asking?

          • oregon_man

            Troll alert!

          • Jerry C

            “Christian Today” a born-again Christian site?! ROFLMAO. You. Ignoramus. Why don’t you quote Huffington Post or NBC or some other liberal rag?!

          • Oboehner

            Bill Nye buried Ham in BS knowing full well there wouldn’t be a enough opportunity to answer all of Nye’s bilge. I wonder why he did that, hmmm… perhaps it was because if they went point by point one at a time, Ham would have made mr. “somehow, probably” look like the idiot he is.

          • Paul Hiett

            So you either didn’t watch the debate, or you’re just unwilling to admit that Ham simply wasn’t able to refute the truth.

          • Oboehner

            There wasn’t any “truth” to refute.

          • Paul Hiett

            Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight…which is why 92% of the Christians polled believe Nye won the debate hands down.

          • Oboehner

            Polls and toilet paper, one can at least wipe with toilet paper.

          • Paul Hiett

            So you’re simply unwilling to accept the truth that 92% of your fellow Christians accept.

          • Oboehner

            Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

          • Jerry C

            …which is why 92% of the “so-called Christians” polled “by the atheist godless secular liberal biased polling station” believe “blah blah blah.”

            There, I fixed it for you. lol

          • Jerry C

            Really? What was the score? 100 to 10? Because I didn’t see any scoring; only talking above someone else.

        • Jerry C

          Galileo thought differently too from the “modern” science of his day of the Roman Catholic Church. So did Kepler, whom I much admire. It’s not so much the musty old book that I would concern myself, but what’s actually written inside.

          • uzza

            Well that’s true. With regards to evolution though all Ham’s book has to offer is some hashed over Mesopotamian legends. Science has a lot, like space travel, the internet, and modern medicine

    • Jerry C

      I used to go to my mom for advice; God rest her soul. She was an uneducated divorced mother of seven but had more brains than the top scholars at my highly accredited private college. You’re first mistake was assuming the information wrong without even looking at it. My mom had a name for people like you and it wasn’t a compliment. 😉

    • Edsword

      The article references other evolutionists. You could learn a lot from looking at unexpected sources and stop holding a bias to those who think differently.

      • beaucejim

        This is also in the article… “God created each kind of animal. And He created Adam and Eve. He created them all on the same day, without using evolution. Adopting a biblical worldview means accepting God at His word.” … in other words to hell with science! Accept the word of God and stop questioning! So what`s your point? That two or three legitimate peer reviewed papers which question certain aspects of Australopithecus afarensis are referenced? I can find hundreds of scientific papers questioning various aspects of science; they are stepping stones to more research and more hypotheses not dead ends. In any case, most of the references are textbooks or books and articles (which anyone can write – Of Pandas and People is a prime example) or other articles from Answers in Genesis, Answers Journal and Creation Journal – none of these last three have any basis in science even though they like to pretend that they do!

        Some people still think the earth is flat, some that the earth is fixed in space (because the bible says so), some that man has never landed on the moon, some that 911 was a U.S, government conspiracy, some that there was a great flood that wiped out all of humanity except for one family who saved two of each `kind` of living thing on a huge boat, some that man and dinosaurs existed at the same time, etc., etc., etc., etc. ad nauseam. Those people all think differently even though all of the evidence is against their thinking…. give me a break!

  • Reason2012

    Evolutionism is anti-science. The bottom line the topics of origins (of all biological diversity of life, or of life, or of the universe) is beyond the scope of science b/c beliefs are all anyone can bring to the table.

    • oregon_man

      That is true only in your head. We have made major strides using science to demonstrate that evolution is very real. You people crack me up…your rationalizations.

  • PE Collier

    Who made this embarrassing discovery? Creationists? The boys at the Discovery Institute? No these folks never discover anything. The evolutionary scientists made it themselves, then publicized it, just as they did with Nebraska Man and paleoraptor. It’s a small matter. It’s a hiccup. Evolutionary theory is undiminished.

    • Edsword

      The only ones that had access, you’re so naive.

    • mike

      Seems odd to say an unproven theory is diminished when in reality there is no evidence for it. Just saying…

      • Bill

        evolution has been proven you moron

        • Craig Ewoldt

          What has proved it? In Dawkins “Climbing Mount Improbable” he explains how the odds against evolution are diminished by one small step at a time. Darwinian evolution is undirected and has no goal in mind. But Dawkins supplies the goal, and then uses intelligence to direct it. It is almost the same as admitting that species cannot evolve without direction and intelligence. Sorry to disappoint, but evolution is far from fact.

          • Bill

            you’re an idiot

            http:// necsi. edu/projects/evolution/evidence/evidence_intro.html

          • Craig Ewoldt

            Thanks. But you ad hominem adds nothing to the discussion. You have not addressed the argument. If you know how materialism and evolutionism can tell us how the information in the cell came about without intelligence, please let us know.

            I pasted your link, but it didn’t come up. Sorry. But I have read a lot about evolution. I would suggest you read some authors that don’t support your view, such as John Lennox and William Lane Craig. Or watch an online debate between one of these men and various materialists, including Dawkins. It might shake your faith.

          • Bill

            what information?. evolution occurs as a result of change, no information is needed

          • Craig Ewoldt

            Bill, all life is information based. Information is contained in the genome–it is a four letter molecular language. The amount information contained in each cell of our body is the equivalent of that contained in an encyclopedia set. This information is the same kind of information that is found in books and computer programs. All the evidence that we have is that this type of information always comes from intelligence. There is no evidence that it arises from natural processes.

            This information is used for the manufacture of proteins and directing other cellular functions. Each cell is like a miniaturized information driven manufacturing plant, very complex. Some have compared the complexity to that of an entire city.

            Now we are learning that not only the genome contains information, but also the epigenome and even the structure of the cell itself. It is almost as if the keyboard and display of your computer contained information as well as the hard disc.The cell is far more complex than we ever imagined. Darwin thought cells contained merely a gelatinous type of material.

            Evolution occurs when there are mutations in the genes–basically when the genetic information (code) changes–generally when it is corrupted. And of course, evolution (change over time or micro evolution) does take place. But the question posed is where did the information in the cell initially come from, that evolution works on. And is natural selection have the power to sort out all the bad (deleterious) mutations while retaining the good ones? It doesn’t seem so. The corruption of data, just like on your computer hard drive, doesn’t make your computer or organism work better. And secondly, when there is the occasional beneficial mutation or group of mutations, does this lead to new species–called macro evolution? There is really no good evidence for this either. What we know from the evidence we have is that there can be changes within a species, but natural selection does not have the power to create new species. And even the benefit of “beneficial” mutations may be limited to the specific environment, and may not make the organism stronger in general.

            On a materialistic view, no one knows where the information that evolution works on came from in the first place. There is only speculation. Hope this helps to understand the information basis of life and how it interacts with evolution.

          • Bill

            there is no information a cell isn’t a computer

          • Craig Ewoldt

            Wow, Bill.. Neither materialists nor theists dispute the information basis of life. The theist says the information source is God. The materialist says it arises from matter in motion. So what is your take on how the cell works and what do you base your position on? Where do you get your evidence that there is no information? Or are you just in the habit of creating your own reality?

          • Bill

            I really don’t care

          • Kara Connor

            Where did the information required for your god come from?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I was not familiar with that Dawkins reference. Thank you for posting this and God bless!

    • happylada

      FALSE.

  • weasel1886

    Since we never found Noahs ark it means it is a made up story

  • The Last Trump

    Ahh, the “science” of magic!
    And outright lies and fraud.
    Over 150 years of scientific research and it STILL remains unproven.
    I wonder why…

    • MisterPine

      Too bad 99.9% of the civilized world disagrees with you.

      • The Last Trump

        !
        Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
        99.9%!!
        Too funny!

        • MisterPine

          Well let’s see, most reasonable Christians have no problem with evolution, and certainly no one on the science end does, so…yep. Mind you, you live your life with your head in the sand and thrive on your little conspiracy theories. Hee, hee! Too funny, Rumpy

          • smbelow

            Yeah…but a plea of popularity has no bearing on whether something is true or not. And using the word “reasonable” in your post doesn’t help; seeing that you have no idea of how these “mostly Christian” people reasoned through their acceptance.

            For example: on occasion I will ask a person (friend, acquaintance) why they believe in evolution–only when the topic comes up. Do you know that most of the time I just get blanks stares and a fumbling response of “my teachers said so.” See? No sign of “reasoning,” just a droned sheepish response.

          • uzza

            Popularity has no bearing, so you offer an argument based on popularity, ROFLMAO. Just because you hang out with ignorant people has no bearing either, dude.

          • smbelow

            Are you trolling or just ignorant in your understanding of English? My point was to state that most people that “I” encounter, have no argument to support their belief. This is not an argument of popularity; at best, you could say it is a limited poll. So the laughing you are apparently doing should be directed towards your lack of understanding of argumentative dialog.

            But then again, you could just be trolling. In that case you’re not even trying to understand the dialog.

            So, what is it; are you trolling or just ignorant?

          • jmichael39

            don’t mind him, SM…like a great many other atheists I encounter, he is quite ignorant of the rules of rationality that is supposedly lives by. He wouldn’t know a logical fallacy if it slapped him across the face.

          • oregon_man

            You must be thinking of yourself when you speak of rationality and fallacy. Your religion has neither.

          • jmichael39

            LMAO…now THERE is a rational argument. Why didn’t you use that one to begin with? Then I could have skipped past ridiculing you and jumped right to laughing my ass off.

          • happylada

            What circles do you travel in? My circle of friends which includes corporate heads, professors and retired executives know almost nothing about evolution because it is irrelevant to every branch of their lives – including science.

            IT has NEVER produced an invention, a discovery, a medical breakthrough or procedure – NOTHING has EVER been produced by evolution. SO why would anyone really know much about it other than in a general sense – and SINCE it is the ONLY game in the educational universe, how would they NOT accept it as fact without serious investigation? Its the ONLY thing taught. That is called censorship in any other discipline.

            So one of my synthetic Chemistry professor buddies who has patents for drug delivery systems is an AVID creationist Another retired a few years ago from teaching Physics – he puts on Creationist seminars that are REALLY good.

            Once your friends get out of their 30’s they begin to think a bit.

          • smbelow

            I think you breezed past my posts, or I’m missing something. I’m not really sure what you’re trying to inform me of.

          • MisterPine

            Hm, is it really a “plea of popularity” when you’re not going by faith, but by facts? When we’re looking at reams and volumes of evidence?

            And what good is my “reasoning” with you when you’re talking faith and I’m talking evidence?

          • smbelow

            “Hm, is it really a “plea of popularity”
            Yes, your initial statement was a “plea to popularity.”

            “not going by faith, but by facts?…”

            As of yet, I’ve not seen or heard of any scientific arguments about deep time evolution that can be construed as facts–with the understanding that scientists like to say their theories are actually facts.

            “And what good is my “reasoning” with you when you’re talking faith and I’m talking evidence?”

            You are talking about interpretive theories, which is also going on faith.

          • MisterPine

            “Yes, your initial statement was a “plea to popularity.”

            Well it was a rhetorical question, but no, my statement was not a “plea to popularity” as I’ve already explained, because most Christians ACCEPT evolution as fact (such as the Catholics), and practically ALL scientists to as well. So you’re not “appealing” to anything apart from the ability to accept facts. There is no faith involved. Therefore, no “plea”.

            “As of yet, I’ve not seen or heard of any scientific arguments about deep time evolution that can be construed as facts–with the understanding that scientists like to say their theories are actually facts.”

            I’m sorry to hear that you deny evolution. But it’s fact and beyond dispute or argument except to those who fail to understand it.

            “You are talking about interpretive theories, which is also going on faith.”

            It’s important to understand what “theory” means. Gravity is also a theory, yet we know it exists. Evolution is not a matter of faith. It is taught in science classes in schools, not in religion classes.

          • Oboehner

            You may wish to stop trying to push your religious beliefs as you are completely void of rational arguments. “everyone believes it and it is taught in science class” doesn’t qualify.

          • MisterPine

            I have no religion. Keep trying.

          • Oboehner

            Denial is still nothing.

          • MisterPine

            Denial is all you’ve got. Get evolution moved to a comparative religion class and creationism moved to a science class and then maybe we can talk. Until that time, your war is with reality. Not me.

          • smbelow

            Again: There is no rational argument between science and Christianity. The argument is between evolution and Christianity.

          • MisterPine

            Evolution is science. It is not religion. This is a fact.

          • smbelow

            Please demonstrate one irrefutable example of a “fact” based repeatable experiment that proves billions of years; where the data can not have any other outcome.

          • MisterPine

            Sorry, Charlie. I’m not playing these games. I’ve been through this a million times, I’m going to tell you we know about it from radiometric dating and so forth and you’re going to play the “well you weren’t there then, were you” card, thinking you’ve played this amazing trump card when all you’ve done is say that your doubts about radiometric dating show that you don’t understand how it can work.

          • Jerry C

            Explain to me all the assumptions that go into radiometric dating (carbon dating for example). Go. Ahead. Tell me all of them.

          • MisterPine

            There are no assumptions, you boob. Do you understand what the word “evidence” means?

          • oregon_man

            So you offer a straw man argument. Who could explain volumes of science in the comment section of the web. Read about aging determination methods yourself.

          • smbelow

            Kind of!

            I would say that the science behind radiometric dating is solid, the data plugged in is what’s questionable. It’s an unsolvable puzzle do to the fact that we can’t travel back in time to determine what the environment was like. Uniformity is not likely, seeing that the earth is constantly in fluctuation. Past dating of different materials–according to scientists–have already produced conflicting measurements.

            So, as a person looking for truth, I find that the evolutionist’s explanations seem to always be reaching or making excuses for faulty or unexpected conclusions.

            “Sorry, Charlie. I’m not playing these games.”

            And unfortunately, for you, this is not a game. Your eternal soul is at odds with the one true God. You better really take a deep look at what you are accepting as reality.

          • oregon_man

            Troll alert

          • oregon_man

            You can do that yourself. Google “How old is the Earth”. Read up on scientific methods for determining age.

          • smbelow

            Good evening troll. I see you have really nothing challenging to say–I’m also referencing the other ignorant messages you left.

          • Jerry C

            “This is a fact.” ROFLMAO! You. Ignoramus.

            An honest quote from the above article:
            “Even though Lucy is fairly complete for a mammal fossil (47 of 207
            bones found), the bones are mostly small fragments with many pieces
            missing,” Henderson wrote. “Other specimens have been found, but they
            are far more fragmentary. No matter how complete, all fossils must be
            interpreted. Some interpretation is always left to the imagination of
            the person doing the reconstruction.”

          • MisterPine

            Evolution is a fact. We observe it. You lose…you ignoramus.

          • Edsword

            Not so, when has it been observed? You are misinformed. When have we witness a creature become another creature?

          • MisterPine

            Is that what you seriously believe evolution is – one creature becoming another creature?

            Do you not know how many millions of years the process is?

          • Edsword

            So it hasn’t been observed, huh?

          • MisterPine

            I’ll just swallow my incredulity for a moment – before we continue, may I ask how old you believe the earth to be?

          • Edsword

            The Earth could be billions of years old. It does not discredit my belief that man was made man from day 1, nor does it discredit the Bible. The Bible says in the beginning with no actual amount of time given from the beginning to man or from man to now.

          • MisterPine

            All right, I just wanted to be sure you were not a young earth creationist or there would be no point in continuing.

            Evolution does not mean a T-Rex turns into a chicken. An ape does not become a man. Men and apes had a COMMON ANCESTOR.

          • MisterPine

            You need to read up on evolution….a lot. Not a bit, a lot. An ape into a man? No. A common ancestor. No evolutionist believes T-Rexes turn into chickens. You can’t accurately fight evolution if you believe that’s what evolution is, because it isn’t.

          • oregon_man

            It has been observed. It has been observed in insects that live short lives, such as fruit flies in the laboratory, moths in England, etc. To evolve to a new species completely takes millions of years.

          • oregon_man

            Isn’t it hilarious and odd that these evolution deniers, overflowing in their ignorance, so often use terms like ignoramus, irrational that actually best fit themselves?

          • MisterPine

            Yeah no kidding! My authority is science, not some ridiculous holy book written by men, and I am the ignoramus?

          • oregon_man

            No, you are wrong again as you always are. Many Christians believe in evolution. The Pope and the Catholic Church admit evolution is real. The Catholic Church learned its lesson about what happens when they deny science and reality. You haven’t. I’ll assume you are not smart enough.

          • smbelow

            Troll comment! I’ve already been over your fallacy.

          • oregon_man

            Troll alert! You are a moron!

          • oregon_man

            You’re right about that Oboehner! And you’ve been posting denial and/or nothing since you chimed in on this discussion. Show me otherwise from one of your posts.

          • Oboehner

            Nothing to deny, either post a photo of the “common ancestor”, or admit it is religious belief. (Make sure it’s not a baboon.)

          • oregon_man

            Lucy is not a baboon you fool. Is that what you think?

          • Oboehner

            Baboon and imagination mostly.

          • smbelow

            “I have no religion. Keep trying.”
            Sure you do! Your religion may not encompass a deity, but you have a religion.

          • MisterPine

            Nope. No religion, no holy book, no faith.

          • smbelow

            Yep! You have a religion, you also have a holy book and you definitely have faith. Just explain WHAT you believe, then we can determine what those things are.

            I would venture to say your religion is “naturalism” your holy book “The Origin of Species”, and your faith is “abiogenesis.” Although, I’m only speculating now because you’ve not revealed that information personally.

          • MisterPine

            No holy book. Unless you want to talk about volumes and reams of science. I have no faith in any of this stuff, because faith means putting a belief in something that could conceivably be wrong. Having been proven, this stuff ISN’T wrong. There are a few religious holdouts such as yourself, obviously.

            I accept that which has been proven to be factual. Evolution is factual.

          • happylada

            HOW long are those volumes and reams of “science” valid for? Anbd how many, like whale evolution, are total frauds? How many of the 120 peer-reviewed papers recently recalled are among those you trust?

            You keep making irrational comments about FACTUAL. But you have never even given an example – only an unsubstantiated opinion. VERY unsubstantiated

          • happylada

            EVOLUTION is a fully functional religion. Ask your supposed peers in the evolutionary movement? Start with Michale Ruse.

          • oregon_man

            It’s the smbelow troll again. Science is not a religion fool, learn the difference.

          • smbelow

            ” Gravity is also …”
            The difference is we can repeat the effects of gravity and develop consistent results. However! Can you tell me what gravity is? Not the effects of gravity, but what it is.

            The beginning of your post is just a bunch of irrational statements. It’s sadly amusing how you keep making statements based on an appeal to popularity, but can’t see it.

          • MisterPine

            Gravity is a force that pulls a body toward the centre of the earth.

            The statements I made were not irrational, they were entirely factual and I said nothing that any person of science wouldn’t also have said. It seems clear to me that you are an evolution denier and experience has taught me that there is nothing I can say that will change your mind. To discuss this further is a waste of your time as well as mine.

          • smbelow

            “Gravity is a force that pulls a body toward the centre of the earth.”

            Are you describing gravity, or the product of gravity?

            “The statements I…”

            Facts are repeatable. If you can’t repeat the experiment, which is impossible when talking about history, than you can’t call it a “fact”.

            “It seems…”

            Ditto…

          • happylada

            Someone here is getting an intellectual thrashing. I wonder who?

          • oregon_man

            wrong. You can’t repeat history but you can repeat experiments that prove hypotheses about what happened in the past. You troll!

          • jmichael39

            “most Christians ACCEPT evolution as fact ” – that depends upon what element of evolution you’re referring to. If you’re referring to microevolution, then, yes, most do accept that as true. Because there is verifiable evidence to prove it. If you’re referring to macroevolution, then no, most do not accept it as fact, but as theory based upon other evidences.

          • MisterPine

            I’m talking about all of it, and most Christians is an accurate statement. The Catholics make up the biggest percentage of Christians worldwide, and they have no problem with it (in fact Ken Miller who is a Catholic also gives very good lectures on the subject). So even if it was just the Catholics (and it’s not) then the majority of Christians haven’t got a problem with evolution.

          • jmichael39

            First of all, it’s a logical fallacy to argue by popularity…even IF your claims are correct.
            Second, you’re still not asserting a difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. While few people I’ve read ever dispute the claims of micro-evolutionary theories, many, even in the a-theistic world, have a plethora of issues relating to macro-evolutionary theories.
            Third, you’re making disturbingly vague generalizations about “Christianity”. A vast number of people claiming to be Christian are not even remotely active in their faith and/or do not even actively engage in the primary literature of the faith.
            It would seem you’re arguments are general in nature, heavily reliant upon popular opinion and skewed with unsubstantiated statistics.
            So let me fix some of that for you. Catholics barely represent a majority of what we general affirm as “Christians”…51%. And a 2009 Harris poll showed that 42% of those calling themselves Christians believe in evolution (again no explanation as to what aspect of evolution, just generally speaking) and 39% believe in creationism. 37% of Catholics surveyed believe in Creationism, while 56% of Protestants, and 68% of born-again Christians believe in Creationism.
            So now, if you want to make the fallacious argument by popular opinion, you have the proper data.

          • MisterPine

            As I have mentioned before, it isn’t an argument by popularity because we are not discussing something which is a belief or opinion but a fact. The only appeal being made is your ability to recognize a fact as a fact. This isn’t about a bunch of scientists making an unfounded claim.

            Regarding microevolution and macroevolution, at both of these levels it still relies on the same, established mechanisms
            of evolutionary change: mutation, migration, genetic drift and natural selection.

            I’m not making any kind of generalization about Christianity. The largest single branch of Christianity, the Catholics, have no problem with evolution. Now you want to start to question whether they actually ARE Christians? Now YOU are the one making the logical fallacy, the No True Scotsman fallacy. I don’t think it’s your place to tell people if they are Christians or not.

            From Wikipedia (I don’t have to tell you that many Protestants are evolution accepters, as are the Anglicans).

            Largest denominations in the world
            Catholicism – 1.2 billion
            Protestantism – 800 million
            Eastern Orthodoxy – 225–300 million
            Oriental Orthodoxy – 86 million
            Anglicanism – 85 million
            Restorationism and Non-Trinitarianism – 41 million
            Church of the East – 0.6 million

          • jmichael39

            Let me explain this simply: “Too bad 99.9% of the civilized world disagrees with you.” IS an argument by popular opinion. You have no rational ability to know what 99.9% of any segment of the world’s population believe about anything, yet your argument is based upon some presumed belief that 99.9% of the civilized world (whatever “civilized world” subjectively means to you) agree with you. THAT is an argument by popular opinion…and it is a fundamental fallacy in logic.

            Now onto the rest of your post.

            “we are not discussing something which is a belief or opinion but a fact.” – while the theories regarding evolution are based upon certain known elements of biology and physics and other aspects of nature, for the most part…especially regarding macro-evolution…they are still unproven theories. Some of them have been proven true…especially within the realm of micro-evolution. But for the most part, macro-evolutionary theories are still highly debated even within Darwinian circles.

            As for your mechanisms…there are hundreds, if not thousands of papers written contesting virtually every element of the Darwinistic mechanisms. Why? Because they are purely theories. The facts that led Darwin to develop his theories may be indisputable but their applications as related to those theories are often disputed. Why? Because there are still deep gaps in the necessary evidence for proving many of those theories.

            Take natural selection. The greatest problem for the theory of evolution by natural selection, is that it cannot enable new organs or traits to emerge in living things. Natural selection cannot develop a species’ genetic data; therefore, it cannot be used to account for the emergence of new species. The greatest defender of the theory of punctuated equilibrium, Stephen Jay Gould, refer to this impasse of natural selection as follows;

            “The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well.”

            Apart from the theoretical weaknesses mentioned above, the theory of evolution by natural selection comes up against a fundamental impasse when faced with concrete scientific findings. The scientific value of a theory must be assessed according to its success or failure in experiment and observation. Evolution by natural selection fails on both counts.

            Since Darwin’s time, there has not been a single shred of evidence put forward to show that natural selection causes living things to evolve. Colin Patterson, the senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London and a prominent evolutionist, stresses that natural selection has never been observed to have the ability to cause things to evolve:

            “No one has ever produced a species by the mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever got near it, and most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question.”

            Pierre-Paul Grassé, a well-known French zoologist and critic of Darwinism, has these words to say in “Evolution and Natural Selection,” a chapter of his book The Evolution of Living Organisms.

            “The “evolution in action” of J. Huxley and other biologists is simply the observation of demographic facts, local fluctuations of genotypes, geographical distributions. Often the species concerned have remained practically unchanged for hundreds of centuries! Fluctuation as a result of circumstances, with prior modification of the genome, does not imply evolution, and we have tangible proof of this in many panchronic species [i.e. living fossils that remain unchanged for millions of years].”

            A close look at a few “observed examples of natural selection” presented by biologists who advocate the theory of evolution, would reveal that, in reality, they do not provide any evidence for evolution.

            I can keep going if you want. I’m just pulling from a couple of the hundreds of articles I’ve read on the subject. My point not being that you’re wrong, I’m right…but rather that a vast majority of the elements of the theories of evolution remain unsolved and purely theoretical. You may WANT them to be stone cold fact, but the vast majority of it has yet to be proven so.

            “Now you want to start to question whether they actually ARE Christians? Now YOU are the one making the logical fallacy, the No True Scotsman fallacy.” — read again and show me WHERE I said that no true Christian would believe anything. All I said was that a vast number of people who call themselves Christian are not ACTIVE in their faith. You want to dispute the word “vast”…fine, I’ll retract it as unproveable. But you are honestly naive if you think everyone who calls themselves by any label are active in living the lifestyle of that label. But again, I NEVER said that “no true Christian” would…anything. I was very careful about how I worded that.

            “I don’t have to tell you that many Protestants are evolution accepters” – actually You CAN’T tell me that…not unless you’re prepared to actually present evidence that refutes the Harris poll stats that I shared previously.

            “37% of Catholics surveyed believe in Creationism, while 56% of Protestants, and 68% of born-again Christians believe in Creationism.”

            Those stats make perfect sense too. Having been raised a Catholic I know that very few Catholics I’ve known over the years ever even read the bible. While having converted to protestantism later in life I have come to see that a large percentage of born again Christians that I have known over the past 35 years do read the bible somewhat regularly…which is likely why they’re more likely to believe the Creation account.

          • oregon_man

            jmichael39: Good heavens you are one windbag of total nonsense and baloney! One of the most humorous is your demand that evolution lacks “concrete scientific findings”, which is totally wrong. You haven’t read anything in 25 years except your selected anti-science religious propaganda. But do tell us about ” concrete scientific findings” of the bibles many stories, like virgin birth, burning bushes, walking on water, and much more. You really need to read a few current books to come into the current century.

          • jmichael39

            “Good heavens you are one windbag of total nonsense and baloney! ” – I’ll take to mean you’d prefer the comic book version to match your IQ.

            “One of the most humorous is your demand that evolution lacks “concrete scientific findings”, which is totally wrong” –

            To save you having to go back and re-read the full context of the statement, here it is:

            “the theory of evolution by natural selection comes up against a fundamental impasse when faced with concrete scientific findings. The scientific value of a theory must be assessed according to its success or failure in experiment and observation. Evolution by natural selection fails on both counts.”

            So I’m presuming you can produce “concrete evidence” from both ‘experiment AND observation’ to PROVE your assertion? Go for it. Put up or shut up.

            “haven’t read anything in 25 years except your selected anti-science religious propaganda.” – yet another example of your seeming inability to avoid making blatant fallacies in logic…prove this assertion. Oops, that’s right, YOU CAN’T.

            “But do tell us about ” concrete scientific findings” of the bibles many stories, like virgin birth, burning bushes, walking on water, and much more” – Now comes the red herring. You can’t prove YOUR assertions, so you are forced to cut a new trail and send a red herring down it. But in this case, you walked right into it.
            Here is it, little man… You want to utterly destroy everything that Christianity represents? You think you’re up to the challenge? One of the early leaders of Christianity placed the entirety of Christianity on a thread for people like you to cut…if you can. Everything that Christianity rests upon ONE event. Not the virgin birth…not some burning bush. One and only one event…the resurrection of Jesus. If you’re up to it…go read the challenge Paul lays out in I Corinthians 15.
            He puts it all right there for you. You think you can refute the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus? If you can, all of Christianity falls apart. You up to the challenge? Or are content just sitting throwing out insults and unsubstantiated accusations and assertions? Do you have it in you? Time to put up or shut up, OM

          • oregon_man

            “micro-evolution and macro-evolution” is a creation of creationists to explain irrefutable short-term evidence. There is only one form of evolution. Your micro and macro only differ by the amount of time. Therefore micro and macro are ridiculous terms of no value.

          • jmichael39

            LMAO…please show us the evidence that the terms ‘micro-evolution’ and ‘macro-evolution’ were invented by “Creationists”. You DO know to prove an assertion, right? Can’t wait to see this.

          • oregon_man

            It is this simple, micro is a short term, macro is a long term of the same subject. If you believe in micro-evolution then you have to believe in macro-evolution because they are one and the same differing only by *time*. The only place I see references to micro/macro evolution is in creationist baloney.

          • jmichael39

            “The only place I see references to micro/macro evolution is in creationist baloney.”

            THAT is your “proof” that Creationists came up with the different terms? LMAO. If you paid for your education, you need to demand your money back.

            In 1980 about 150 of the world’s leading evolutionary theorists gathered at the University of Chicago for a conference entitled “Macroevolution.” Their task: “to consider the mechanisms that underlie the origin of species” (Lewin, Science vol. 210, pp. 883-887). “The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution.

            Those who believe that the same mechanisms that cause the beak of a finch in the Galapagos Islands to change or the peppered moth to change its colors to adjust to the environmental changes caused by the industrial revolution can also cause one species to change, over any period of time, into a completely different species are hard pressed to prove that belief.

            While the micro evolutionary mutations (those within species) have been observed scientifically, no such scientific observations have been made of macro evolutionary mutations from one species into a completely new species.

            You can project and assume that the same mechanisms that lead to micro evolutionary mutations can extrapolate to a macro evolutionary level. But no evidence yet exists that proves this theory to be true. But you’re free to have faith that it is true if you want.

          • oregon_man

            Oh boy, more clippings from Christian propaganda. 1980 was how many years ago? Lets argue some more about Piltdown man! Why don’t you dig into some real science that has happened in the last 15-25 years? I doubt you ever will because you’re afraid to. As you suggested, lets end the debate because there is no debate. Evolution is real. Bury your head in radical Christian propaganda and die with a smile on your face (knowing you’re going to heaven).

            Since I intend to make this my last post I’ll say something else. I was a Christian most of my life. Since then I’ve learned a lot, experienced a lot and no longer believe in the bible or the existence of the God of Abraham. I am agnostic because being atheist demands declaring there is no god and no one can do that. The radical Christian movements of late, war on science have strengthened my disbelief in God. Religion once helped humans survive and make great achievements, but now it is a hindrance that may be responsible for the next great extinction.

          • jmichael39

            “Oh boy, more clippings from Christian propaganda. 1980 was how many years ago?” – just as a friendly reminder…the point to which I posted that quote was to refute your asinine assertion that the terms “micro evolution” and “macro evolution” are some how a fabrication of Creationists. Considering the name of the Conference and the people involved, I would say that I’ve sufficiently refuted your assertion. Considering the fact that the conference was held some 35 years ago, it would seem quite apparent that professionals in the field of evolution have been using those two terms for quite awhile. Perhaps it’s time YOU enter into the modern age of science.

            Bury your head in radical Christian propaganda and die with a smile on your face (knowing you’re going to heaven).” – Bury your head in the naïve notion that somehow your puny mind is going to show a world without God…and die with a smile on your face, since that’ll be the last smile you’ll ever likely have (knowing you’re going to the very place you’ve always wanted…a place without God…and you won’t be smiling there).

          • oregon_man

            I concede you win on that argument. Shouldn’t you be thrusting a pitchfork when you injected the “Bury your head” part? And you end it showing pleasure I’ll burn in hell. You’re telling too much about yourself!

            I realize what I suggest seems shocking to those like you and happylady. It was sort of a big deal for me too when I made my conclusions. But life does go on. I’m not a pillar of salt yet. You all just picked on an area of great interest to me, evolution of man. You should read that story before you consume your propaganda…to be fair. It is also an incredible story, based on real events too… and…science!

          • jmichael39

            “Shouldn’t you be thrusting a pitchfork when you injected the “Bury your head” part?” — what a sorry little hypocrite. You’re the one who threw out the ‘bury your head’ insult. What’s the matter, you can’t take it when its done to you. And, really…’pitchfork’…now who’s believing in fairy tales. There are no pitchforks in the bible, stupid. But like I said, you’ll finally get what you want…an eternity with no God. You can figure out what that’s like for yourself. I assure you, you won’t be smiling, though.

            There is no shock in what you write or read or believe. Humans have been rejecting God since the beginning. It’s your choice. I certainly don’t have to sit here and put up with your BS. You’re a sick fool who thinks that all truth has to pass the test of your five senses’ ability to perceive or your puny mind’s ability comprehend. And you, foolishly think we’re the close-minded ones. We’re not the ones elevating ourselves to the place of a god or even worse, raising science to the level of a god. At least we know where the value of science is and where it ends. You still haven’t figured that out. Good luck with that
            .
            Oh, and the challenge still stands. If you ever want to actually prove you’re something more than an intellectual fraud…the challenge still stands.

          • happylada

            “I’m sorry to hear that you deny evolution. But it’s fact and beyond dispute or argument except to those who fail to understand it.”

            Really? Funny definition you have of fact. Name ONE?

            Leading EVOLUTIONISTS cannot do so.

          • jmichael39

            Maybe the best thing to do here is to take a step back and ask what you consider to be ‘fact’ and what you consider to be ‘faith’? Often times disagreements are resolved as a result of a better understanding of terminology being used.

          • MisterPine

            Sure thing. Facts can be proven with evidence, faith cannot be.

            Creationism is faith. Evolution is fact.

          • jmichael39

            What is evidence? Sorry to ask so many clarifying questions…but at this point, you’re being very general and vague. I’m not sure if that’s on purpose or because you don’t have an articulate understanding what facts and faith and evidence are. So at this point, I can only ask questions, I apologize.

          • MisterPine

            The dictionary has always served me well. Go with what is says and I won’t fight you.

          • jmichael39

            That’s still being rather obtuse…look it up…and vague. There are multiple definitions of most words for the very FACT that words are often used in different ways depending upon many circumstances, such as context. You’re talking to a man who has studied word origins and etymology. So word meanings are very very important in my book.

            Fact

            1. something that actually exists; reality; truth:

            2. something known to exist or to have happened:

            3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true:

            4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened:

            5. Law.. Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence.

            Faith
            1. confidence or trust in a person or thing:

            2. belief that is not based on proof:

            3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion:

            4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.:

            5. a system of religious belief:

            6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.:

            7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one’s promise, oath, allegiance, etc

            Evidence:
            1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

            2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:

            3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

            and, of course, you could be speaking of these words as idioms…for example, it is idiomatic to think of ‘evidence’ as something which can be seen, heard, tasted, touched or smelled (i.e. – through our five senses)…but the clear definition of the word does not exclude other forms of observations outside the realm of our human five senses.

            And as one reads those definitions, it becomes even more complex, because then other words within those definitions must be clarified and defined. Such as, “truth” “reality” “known”, “actual” and so on and so forth.

            So, at this point, you’re once again leaving me with a very broad and vague idea of what you’re trying to communicate when you say, “And what good is my “reasoning” with you when you’re talking faith and I’m talking evidence?”
            Perhaps it may help if I give a more specific idea of what I mean by faith and facts and evidence. Included in this entire discussion should be the concept of “belief” as well.
            Most people idiomatically think of belief as having to do faith. But it’s not the same in a more fundamental way. Belief is the degree to which we accept something as being true.
            Look at a very simplistic example: 2+2 = 4. To an infant child they don’t believe that to be true. Why? Because they cannot even yet conceptualize what a ‘2’ is, let alone what 2+2 is. It doesn’t make 2+2=4 false simply because they can’t conceptualize it.
            As they get older, perhaps their older sibling or mom or dad teach them that 2+2=4. They still don’t necessarily have the ability to conceptualize it, but they accept it as true and believe it to be true. Why? Because someone they trust told them so. Perhaps later in life they actually sit down and think about the very concept of numbers and addition and how 2+2=4 and not 5. But for the most part they simply believe because people they trust told them so and because in every situation they’ve been in 2+2 actually did equal 4.
            But then someone comes along and asks them, “does 2+2 ALWAYS equal 4?” They don’t know any better and they say yes, not knowing at all that in base 3 scenarios, 2+2 doesn’t equal 4 but rather it equals 11. And they flip out. I’ve seen it happen. My wife is an AP level math teacher and every year there is invariably someone who can’t quite conceptualize this truth.
            What is actually happening in those cases is very much like the struggles we might have learning a new language. Trinary math is a new language to most of us. It doesn’t live in the ‘reality’ of our base ten worlds…at least not easily.
            How does this relate to our discussion? Fair question. We live, predominantly, in a world centered around our five senses and what our minds can conceive of. But like a new language or a world of binary or trinary numbers, any concept of facts falling outside the realm of our five senses or outside the realm of human comprehension is utterly foreign to those who have not taken the time to immerse themselves in it.
            “Faith” is not about belief in something that is factless or without evidence, but rather represents a form of sensing and conception that goes beyond our five physical senses and our standardized human comprehension. It is a human’s willingness to accept the plausibility of truth and reality beyond our five senses and simple human comprehension. It doesn’t make those things we perceive outside the realm of the humans senses any less real or true.
            We even have terms for those things. We focus our sciences on the ‘natural’ world and anything outside the ‘natural’ world we often identify as being supernatural or such. Yet, here we are, often trying to naturalize the unnatural…or understand the supernatural from a natural perspective.
            And those who refuse to accept this realm of reality mock those who do as being irrational or illogical. Yet, the very nature of rationality and logic would forbid us from dogmatically rejecting the possibility of truth that cannot somehow be perceived by our five senses or understood with our limited human minds.
            So when it comes right down to anything…even evolution vs. intelligent design (and I use that, rather than the biblical creation account, because they require two totally sets of evidences to prove or disprove them)…it is honestly an issue of degrees of belief. While I’ve read books on evolutionary Darwinism and have read books on intelligent design, I’ve concluded that the full scope of evidences make intelligent design more believable than Darwinistic macroevolutionary theories. I don’t think you’re a horrible person or stupid or anything of the such for concluding the opposite. In fact, I fully understand why you believe what you believe. If you’re like most people, your exposure to intelligent design is almost exclusively from what opponents of it have written or said, rather from being exposed to it school or by reading the material directly. If that were the gist of my exposure to intelligent design I’d likely have the same belief as you. It’s a perfectly reasonable conclusion to come to.
            But let’s be realistic, both our conclusions are based off of a religiously biased view of the world. I’m a born again Christian and have an already existing acceptance of the supernatural world. Those who write things that confirm that worldview are more likely to be believable to me. The same is true for you. Those who espouse an origins worldview that is a-theistic in nature are doing so FROM that atheistic worldview. That’s their theological worldview and it must, by necessity, be applied to other subjects as well. We’re both bound by our religious views to some lesser or greater degree.

          • happylada

            BUT ANY dictionary definition of FACT disallows evolution

          • oregon_man

            What evidence? You are the biggest fool in here. Educational institutions, libraries, museums are full of evidence that you refuse to see. Your ignorance on evolution and science is profound. Everyone who doubts evolution should at least become informed about what they are doubting, and that does not mean get informed by listening to fools in denial.

          • jmichael39

            LOL…are you even following the thread? Or are you just looking for places to jump in with your obscenely ignorant statements. If you want to be party to this particular thread, I suggest you read the entirety of it first. Then feel free to jump on in. Until then, your comment above is worse than worthless. It honestly makes you look stupid. But I’ll let that go out of respect over the obvious reality that you haven’t be reading the entire discussion between me and MisterPine.

          • happylada

            Fact? where did life come from? Where are the missing links? Where did time matter and energy come from? Its really HARD to nail down a theory that changes every few years because ALL the evidence it relied on is NOW obsolete, false fraudulent etc.

            WHERE is there ONE transitional fossil? Whale lineage is NOW known to be a fraud, Horse the same. In fact there is NO lineage that is anything but a guess.

            You talk about fact – you are seriously JOKING. The evidence for the Creation account can be seen everywhere – there is NO OBSERVABLE evidence for evolution.

            IF that’s fact you have succeeded is a semantic inversion.

          • MisterPine

            You are asking questions about origins. Evolution is not concerned with origins but change. If you want to discuss abiogenesis, that would be about origins.

            The evidence for the Creation account can be seen everywhere? You’re serious? Even though there is no archaeological evidence for Noah’s flood?

            Regarding transitional fossils, here you go:

            en dot wikipedia dot org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

          • happylada

            Evolution is faith. Creation is evidence. Its that simple IF you plan on staying with OBSERVABLE science.

          • MisterPine

            Then what have all the scientists been talking about and discovering all these years? A lie?

          • oregon_man

            You get those “blank stares” because evolution is not a “belief” it is a fact, proven by the best technique humans have to date, science.

          • smbelow

            Troll alert.

          • oregon_man

            Now that is funny. You went to every one of my posts and replied “troll alert”, with not a word of information. Look up the definition, you are the troll, and a moron.

          • happylada

            Silly argument – NO serious Christian who has ever thought this trough accepts evolution. Jesus was rather plain on the subject and there’s NO point following someone who lies to you.

            Never in church history was there a major issue with the literal Biblical creation.

            And you OBVIOUSLY are ignorant of the incredible number of NON-Christian scientist who have abandoned evolution. Read the report on the Altenberg 16 conference – all Darwin deniers and all leaders in their field. And as far as I KNOW, all atheists

            Thomas Naigle just wrote a book subtitled “why Darwin is almost certainly wrong” another atheist writing of his confusion on origins.

            The ones with their heads in the sand are the irrational atheists with their just so stories, blind faith, deliberate frauds, and silly mythology.

          • MisterPine

            Get it straight, buddy. I’m not lying. You are. To everyone here and worst of all to yourself.

            OK, I get it, you’re a science denier. And so all the things you laugh and mock the science people about, you’re totally OK believing yourself in a 2000 year old man-made book? “Evolution is just faith” – so you mock faith, and what have you got YOURSELF? Facts?

            You don’t see the COMPLETELY IRONY in that?

          • happylada

            Talk about irrational arrogance.

            First you have not challenged ONE statement in the OP quoting an eminent professor – YOU seem to think for some reason we should take YOUR uneducated and simplistic word over a trained and competent professor. How arrogant!!

            Secondly you have presented nothing but your opinion – and from the way its been presented – you don’t seem to know anything about science except YOU are right and everyone else wrong..

            Third – I am NOT a science denier in any way – THAT distinction is firmly in your court. I have not only spent a good deal of my life in one leading museum, BUT I am a retired technology instructor/engineer. I have both inventions and copyrites to my name.

            YOU on the other hand seem not to understand the simplest basics of science – OBSERVABLE, REPEATABLE, MEASURABLE etc – and NONE of those can be applied to your religion. It fails on EACH count.

            Forth – the Bible is NOT 2000 years old, is NOT man made and predated many science “discoveries by thousands of years. Every statement in it is accurate to the Nth degree. Your objection to it is based purely on ignorance.

            I have elsewhere listed several FACTS iof science that the Bible had right thousands of years ahead of science – such as the statement there were billions of stars when mankind could only see 3000. And the fact that the LAW of biogenesis which eliminated the possibility of evolution empirically, was written there from the beginning. handwashing and epidemiology, quarantine and the prohibition against eating meat that could contain worms was in the BIBLE three thousand years before scientists figured it out.

            YOU cannot disprove a single sentence in the Bible; you cannot prove a single sentence about evolution.

            Compare that to the intentional and foundation frauds upon which evolution is based and the OBSERVABLE FACT that there is almost 0 “FACTS” of evolution that have EVER survived 50 years. Everything about evolution is constantly changing as science catches up with the Bible.

            I earlier mentioned the fixed universe that has NOW been abandoned for an expanding universe – written about in the Bible 3500 years ago. The Bible didn’t change – your irrational “science” had to. And still does.

            And personally – you have simply insulted everyone who disagrees with your silliness. You have presented absolutely NOTHING scientific to the conversation. I know why – you simply aren’t smart enough to even KNOW that which you blindly believe let alone are able to defend it against criticism.

            “You don’t see the COMPLETELY IRONY in that?”

          • MisterPine

            “Talk about irrational arrogance.” Yes, let’s do that. Let’s talk about yours.

            “YOU seem to think for some reason we should take YOUR uneducated and simplistic word over a trained and competent professor. How arrogant!”

            Why should I pay attention to one when I can listen to the ones that outnumber him by several thousand to one? Thomas Nagel (you spelled his name wrong) has had some response, would you like to see it?

            scienceblogs dot com/evolutionblog/2013/03/19/thomas-nagel-needs-better-defenders/

            “Secondly you have presented nothing but your opinion”

            I have presented NOTHING but facts. No opinions whatsoever Unless you also want to call the facts and findings of scientists “opinions” too – which of course you do.

            “Third – I am NOT a science denier in any way – THAT distinction is firmly in your court.”

            Oh, when did I deny science? Are you going to call your Bible a science book now?

            “OBSERVABLE, REPEATABLE, MEASURABLE etc – and NONE of those can be applied to your religion. It fails on EACH count.”

            And how does it fail? Just because you don’t understand the methodology used doesn’t mean it fails. If it failed, they wouldn’t use the information on a daily basis and continue to learn from it.

            “Forth – the Bible is NOT 2000 years old, is NOT man made and predated many science “discoveries” by thousands of years. Every statement in it is accurate to the Nth degree. Your objection to it is based purely on ignorance.”

            My objection to it is based on the fact that it is a ridiculous, badly written fairy tale that asks me to believe in talking snakes, a worldwide flood which there is no archaeological record of, and a mountain of cruelty from a monstrous, megalomaniacal god. There is no proof of it, and of course it was written by human beings, do you think it fell from the sky one day in a leather bound KJV edition?

            I can’t go on talking to you. Your stupidity is torturous.

          • oregon_man

            You limit your information sources to only books that confirm your preexisting bias and beliefs. Google “confirmation bias”.

      • Oboehner

        Popular opinion rides again!

        • MisterPine

          Where facts are concerned, opinion doesn’t matter much, does it? If your popular opinion is that the colour of the sky should be green when it’s blue, you lose.

          You always lose.

          • Oboehner

            You can cite popular opinion and jump up and down screaming “you lose” over and over and over again, it still is nothing.

          • MisterPine

            I am really sorry about your comprehension problems, but it’s not opinion, it’s fact. It’s also not religion, it’s taught in science class in schools. This is why you lose. Facts are not in your side, only faith.

          • Edsword

            I was taught a lot of stuff in school that wasn’t true. Just because it is in a textbook doesn’t make it so. There are absolutes, but evolution is far from that. It is completely based on assumption. The facts you state are all also based on assumptions. If not, point us to one piece of evidence where an artist rendition doesn’t fill in the “gaps” for us. Point to one transitional skeleton that is more than just fragments with a bunch of clay to make up the missing parts. Why have they only found fragments of transitional humans, but complete dinosaurs? Shouldn’t that be opposite given the 63 million year gap?

          • oregon_man

            They find lots of dinosaurs because they dominated the planet for hundreds of millions of years, the whole planet. Humans have only been around for a tiny amount of geologic time.

          • Jerry C

            Nice try Oboehner. MisterPine is like the drunk in the bar screaming the loudest & longest and believing he’s right when everyone walks away. Until he searches for the truth for himself, he’ll continue to trust those in the world who are more “educated” than himself. Huge. Mistake.

          • oregon_man

            It is very obvious you have never listened to people “more educated” than yourself, Jerry C

          • oregon_man

            You’re right MisterPine. This group believes they can prove global warming is a liberal hoax by a Rasmussen poll.

          • MisterPine

            Only in a fundie’s world would “liberal” be a bad word…

      • happylada

        YOUR statement is categorically false. 50% – maybe. BUT so what? For years science universally stated there were 3300 stars – while the Bible claimed billions. For years science claimed a steady state universe while the Bible claimed an expanding universe.

        JUST because the uninformed majority believe something by blind and irrational faith does NOT make it so. SO either based on science OR popularity, you lose.

        ONE man ended the previous origins myth – and gradually science caught up with the Bible

        • MisterPine

          i stand by my statement. If you deny evolution in this day and age you are irresponsible and ignorant. This isn’t something up for debate and hasn’t been for many, many years.

          • jmichael39

            Again…what part(s) of evolution? Some elements have passed the scientific tests. Others have not and are still purely theoretic. Just because you’re convinced those theories are correct does not mean they are.
            Many aspects of micro evolution have been clearly observed and proven. Most aspects of macro evolution have not. You’re free to have faith in those theories that have not yet been proven. I choose not to. And you’re also free to be an arrogant fool by calling those who don’t have the same faith as you do “irresponsible and ignorant”

          • MisterPine

            How old do you believe the earth to be?

          • jmichael39

            It doesn’t make a bit of difference to me. The universe could be millions or billions of years old and it wouldn’t change my views on ID. It could be 10000 years old and it wouldn’t make any difference to me. The age of the universe doesn’t effect the general scientific views of ID. Do you still beat your wife?

          • MisterPine

            I never beat my wife. How old do you believe the earth to be? A ballpark figure will do.

          • jmichael39

            somewhere between 10000 and 15+ billion years. It doesn’t matter to me. So I’ve never done any deep investigating. I did ask a sequoia once…but he didn’t know either.
            Honestly, it doesn’t matter to me. My views of the origins of the universe do not require me to make that estimation. And the God that I believe in and serve is more than capable of creating the universe in six nanoseconds, let alone six days or six periods of time or whatever.

    • oregon_man

      2000+ years of bible fairy tales not a one proven. Look in the mirror. Isn’t it funny how the bible writers always use “magic” to prove divinity?

      • jmichael39

        Let’s go for the big one, OM…I noticed you’ve ignored my earlier challenge on this….so here I am again…laying out the challenge to the former Christian, current agnostic. Would you like to refute the resurrection of Jesus? You DO know how to refute an historical event, right? Take a chance, smart guy. You think you’ve become so enlightened now without God…show us. Refute the resurrection account. Without the resurrection, Christianity is useless. Come one, big guy…show all your pals on here how stupid us Christians are…refute the resurrection account.

        You wanna start by challenging whether Jesus ever existed? go for it.
        Maybe you think the 66 historical documents that make up the Bible are historically unreliable. Go for it…prove it.

        Maybe you think Jesus never really died on cross…or His followers conspired to steal His body…or that it was all a delusion that 500+ people experienced. Come on OM…give it a shot.

        • oregon_man

          Good God are you a sadist? The resurrection of Jesus is far from evolution so you need to find a fight. I don’t believe any of the super-natural events in the bible. Why would I care to refute anything? You are one of the reasons I stopped being a Christian. I can tell.

          I give up on you all. I am not against you gaining all you can from your religion. But I do object to your attacking science…or attacking anything to push your religious beliefs. Go ahead and believe whatever you want. You have that right. It’s just false. Don’t attack science and I’ll never say a word.

          • jmichael39

            Then why in the world bring in the bible and your asinine insult about “2000 years of bible fairy tales and not a one proven”? YOU are the one who brought it up, idiot. Are you telling me you don’t put the resurrection of Jesus into your categorical insult of fairy tales? Huh? You’re such an ignorant ass.
            Science in your new religion, little man…you come here to attack ours with your insults and want us to leave your religion alone? Piss off. Take the challenge and prove your intellectual acumen or shut the hell up.

          • oregon_man

            You’re getting more obvious with each post. You seem to misunderstand the pitch fork comment, yet you took pleasure in condemning me to hell, you referred to me as “idiot”, “ignorant ass”, “piss off”, “shut the hell up” and more. You better quit before you embarrass yourself any more, like Jim Deferit did.

          • jmichael39

            “you took pleasure in condemning me to hell” – seriously dude, do you ever get tired of being stupid? I neither took pleasure in the thought of you going to hell, nor am I the one ‘condemning’ to go there. You condemn yourself by rejecting God. I will admit that when I’m spending eternity with God that I won’t think twice about you.

            Are you going to tell me now how a “real Christian” is supposed to behave? So we’re back the logical fallacies. Gees.

            BTW, you made yourself obvious a LOOONG time ago. You’re not here to debate, argue, or defend your precious science. You’re here to hate, ridicule and mock. You’re as obvious as the day is long. That’s why I knew you’d never have the intellectual courage to take the challenge. You’re a fraud and a coward.

          • oregon_man

            Your “challenge” is just like Defeerit’s “questions”. What challenge? You want me to convince you that Lucy is not a fake? Maybe you want a thorough explanation of aging methods like another poster demanded in a comment section? You are all fools because all the evidence, proof and information is just as available to you as it is to me. You could easily find it yourself, but you won’t look and you keep your blinders on by reading creationist propaganda exclusively. You’re the close minded fool. Got some more ad hominem to throw at me now? You’re a loser.

          • jmichael39

            OMG, are you on drugs? You must be..to sound that stupid. I don’t give a crap about your precious ‘lucy’. You’ve seen my challenge three times, moron. Put up or shut up.

          • oregon_man

            You nitwit. Now you’ve got me using ad hominem. I don’t know what your “challenge” is. You could have replied with the “challenge” but instead you chose ad hominem and diversion. Get lost dummy. Better yet go solve your challenge yourself, but that might require you to look elsewhere beside Christian propaganda which you will not do. Talk about closed mind. I am finished arguing with a 3rd grader.

          • jmichael39

            “Now you’ve got me using ad hominem” – LMAO…what a pathetic hypocrite. Even IF you hadn’t already been casting insults at people all over this site since you showed up, at least have the decency to take responsibility for your own behavior. Oh, I forgot, you’re incapable of that.

            “I don’t know what your “challenge” is.” – an again blaming others for YOUR laziness and ignorance. You even addressed my ‘challenge’ once, if only to side-step it. Are you to lazy to go back and re-read…oh perhaps you were just too lazy to read them in the first place.

            But just because I WANT you to take the challenge. Here it is again. You have the nerve to disparage Christianity and our Bible and the historicity of the events of the Bible, then I’ll challenge you to debate the single most important historic event in Christianity…the Resurrection of Jesus. You think its a fairy tale? Then take up of the challenge to debate the historical evidence surrounding the Resurrection account. Make a case for the resurrection of Jesus to be anything else. All of Christianity hangs in the balance. If you’re so familiar with Christianity then you know that….and you know where to find I Cor. 15 to read the very real challenge that Paul put forth about the Resurrection of Jesus. For as he put it, if there is no Resurrection of Jesus then Christians are the most to pitied, our faith is in vain. He agrees with you…IF there is no resurrection of Jesus. You up to the challenge? You think you can present a stronger case for some other explanation for what Christians call the resurrection of Jesus?

            If you don’t already know about the validation of historical documents, contextual criticism, the dating of historical documents (you seem to like that area somewhat), ancient Greek, church and secular history and much more, you’ll learn a lot in the process. You up for it? Or would you just like to recant your slam against the Bible and Christianity right now and admit you don’t know squat about any of this?

          • oregon_man

            Why would anyone want to debate with someone who cannot discuss anything beyond the level of a child? Why would I want to debate a supernatural event that never happened and you have zero evidence for, nor will you ever have. You’re like a pouting little child, I can picture you on the floor, face burning red as you kick your feet in tantrum. End of discussion.

          • jmichael39

            Thank you for confirming what I already knew about you: namely that you’re a fraud…and an intellectual coward.

            There is plenty of evidence that something happened. The early church called in the resurrection of Jesus and the entirety of Christianity is based off that resurrection event. If the facts that led the early church to believe that Jesus rose from the dead are wrong, then you should have no trouble refuting that evidence and/or coming up with a far more rational explanation for those facts.

            But apparently you’re more interested in spewing anger and hatred for Christianity than in backing up your own childish assertions. You think they’re all fairy tales…I’m here to debate you on the one story that matters most to CHristians. And you can’t even come up with an intelligent excuse for not taking the challenge. I’d have at least respected you for admitting you don’t know anything about the evidence surrounding the resurrection account. But no, you can’t step away from your lame ego.

            And you have to nerve to call ME childish. LMAO. What a lovely sequoia you have in your eye.

          • oregon_man

            I think you are more crazy than happylady. You two should date.

          • jmichael39

            Intellectual coward and fraud.

          • oregon_man

            One thing that is so terribly ironic, how you demand every possible irrefutable bit of evidence that supports evolution, even totally unreasonable proof, while at the same time you say you have “evidence” that Jesus came back from the dead and drifted on up through the sky into heaven and now sits at the right hand of God. This is the sort of logic (lack) that turned me against Christianity, and drives me further as you radicalize yourself into an insane state.

          • jmichael39

            You really need to take a class on reading comprehension. Never once have I demanded “every possible irrefutable bit of evidence that supports evolution, even totally unreasonable proof”. I dare you to show me where I’ve ‘demanded’ anything even close to that. Once again you’re talking without thinking. A very common trait of yours.

            What I DID say was that there are some aspects of evolution, primarily in the area of micro evolution, where there is sufficient evidence to support the theories that mutations WITHIN a species have been clearly observed. And the evidence bears that out. Where there is NOT sufficient evidence is those areas where evolutionists have theorized the extrapolation of the same mutational mechanics from one species to another. There are a few conflicting theories about these areas of evolution, even within the evolutionary biologists community. All of them legitimate theories, but none have been substantially proven over another…or at all for that matter.

            “same time you say you have “evidence” that Jesus came back from the dead and drifted on up through the sky into heaven and now sits at the right hand of God” – Again, I never said that either. I said there is substantial historical evidence surrounding the resurrection account, much of which is broadly accepted as historic fact, that can be evaluated to determine that something did happen. What I challenged YOU to do is evaluate the more broadly accepted facts and come up with a conclusion that is more rational and logical than that Jesus was raised from the dead.

            Thus far, you’ve shown no interest in taking on the challenge. Your vanity won’t allow you to merely accept that you don’t have the intellectual acumen to deal with this subject…so you deride and mock and misquote me in some laughable attempt to avoid the embarrassing reality that you have made fun of Christianity without even the remotest clue of what you’re talking about.

  • Michael Stevens

    This is old news to creationists. But no one listens to the Truth of God’s Word…you know, the Creator. Otherwise, this would have received the proper condemnation when first hypothecised. Yep, its a big old fake. Now lets see the retraction, and scorn for Dr Leakey and his scam….

    • Paul Hiett

      How can you claim that one bone being accidentally placed in with the specimen invalidates the entire thing?

      • Jerry C

        “Mike pointed out that one of the [vertebra] fragments, which no one,
        including me, had really paid close attention to, looked fairly small to
        fit with the rest of Lucy’s vertebral column,” Williams said.

        Not only does the inerrant specimen invalidate the entire thing but the competency of the those conducting it. Do you really want to put your trust into people who admit they didn’t really “paid close attention to” a specimen which refute evolution? Obviously, you’re willing to do so. What does that say about you? Your beliefs?

  • oregon_man

    You claim “many scientists” doubt Lucy and evolution. That is not true. All real scientists believe in evolution. Many Lucy-like specimens have been found since Lucy was discovered. Every find further confirms evolution.

    • jmichael39

      key word there being “real”…leave it to a atheist to invoke a logical fallacy in his vain attempt to make a point.

      • Edsword

        Exactly, belittle anyone who disagrees. Insult and diminish them. IT is easier than actually trying to intellectually address them. It is what bullies have always done. Get people on your side by making baseless accusations against anyone who wants to play on your playground. Childish and intellectually barren.

        • jmichael39

          If some of these atheists were half as rational as they like to believe themselves to be they’d realize that atheism is utterly self-refuting and one of the most deeply illogical world views ever concocted.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            They are in utter darkness. I remember the feeling. It was only 12 years ago…

          • happylada

            And evolution is its origins myth – similarly flawed and irrational. For something that claims to restrict itself to materialistic explanations – there are some half dozen OR more miracles at its base – by their OWN admission

          • oregon_man

            I just can’t believe you would use the word “rational” for the nonsense you espouse.

          • jmichael39

            I don’t see you using any form of rational thinking to REFUTE anything. You squawk pretty loudly, but I don’t see you making an argument. Or do just rely on smarmy insults as a form of chest beating in hopes of intimidating your opponents?

          • oregon_man

            I guess you couldn’t come up with any rational thought to refute anything so now you are squawking and spewing smarty insults. Look in the mirror, troll.

          • happylada

            His point was well made – you simply respond with more insults. It appears you have no rational response; ignorance on display.

          • jmichael39

            the word is “smarmy”…look it up. If feel the need to copy a post at least get it right.

          • oregon_man

            Now you are descending into semantics, vocabulary for debate on evolution. You should give up too. You cannot win this debate.

          • jmichael39

            This particular thread, moron, is NOT a debate. A debate would require two people engaged in a rational discussion about a specific issue. You’ve made no logical assertion. You’ve presented no argument. You’ve merely projected insults, innuendos and logical fallacious statements
            “All real scientists believe in evolution.”.. When you’re honestly ready to debate something…let me know. Until then remember, it’s wiser to be silent and thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.

          • oregon_man

            Yes I agree it is not a debate any more. It never was because creationists have no evidence, facts or anything except repeated propaganda from Christians afraid the truth will deplete their flock. Yes you should be silent and stop resorting to worn out metaphors. As for insults, innuendos, and fallacious arguments…go read your posts. I have not made one fallacious argument and I challenge you to show otherwise. You are doing about as good as Jim Deferit.

          • jmichael39

            “Yes I agree it is not a debate any more. It never was…” – yeah, because you’ve never presented a single argument, moron.

            “creationists have no evidence” – LMAO…you’re obviously living in the 80s. ID proponents have presents reams of material supporting their theories. You want to tell us which books or papers YOU’VE read that have led you to believe they have not ‘evidence’ as you put it? I’m betting you haven’t even opened an ID book or paper, let alone read anything. Which makes it rather difficult for you to refute anything, doesn’t it. So, again, NO DEBATE. Just you flapping your trap and spewing ignorant hatred over something you have never even read a damned thing about. What does that make you? Worse than a village idiot.

            “I have not made one fallacious argument and I challenge you to show otherwise.”

            “All real scientists believe in evolution” – logical fallacy (no real Scotsman argument)
            Now, I challenge you to show me one non-fallacious argument you’ve made…and PROVE it.

          • Lupe

            Aha. The deflection.
            You keep telling us we need evidence. We don’t. Not once have we claimed our belief in God as a science or theory.
            We BELIEVE in God and His word. Simple. Eh?
            We believe ours is a relationship with God.
            When I was a boy they taught us in school that God created… It wasn’t until 1963/64 that they brought the THEORY of evolution into our class rooms.
            Yup, it was taught as a theory.
            The theory portion was gradually omitted from speech and writing, slowly indoctrinating students into believing it to be science and a fact.
            You, on the other hand, refuse to admit that evolution is a BELIEF SYSTEM. The theory of evolution has yet to provide proof. Much circular thinking and supposition is offered but no solid evidence to establish it as a science.

          • oregon_man

            No, you flat-earthers cannot understand we are still learning and evolving. Mankind has learned so much since 1963, especially sciences like evolution. So much evidence has been found recently it is no longer a theory. Not theory – its fact. But I understand it is a difficult concept to swallow as I went through it myself once. Go ahead and walk with your God. Just don’t attack science and facts with lies. I got so passionate about my resistance after I watched a couple of national religious channels. I watched primetime lies and deception, misinformation and propaganda — all routed in lies. It is disgraceful what they teach the viewers. They do brainwashing when not asking, pleading for money, money, money.

          • oregon_man

            Yes you are correct it was introduced as a theory. But so much has happened since 1963. The most significant discoveries happened in the last 25 years or so. Evolution is not a theory a belief system or anything but scientific fact, but it gives you comfort to keep calling it that and living in 1963. There is evolutionary evidence everywhere, all you have to do is google it and not select a religious site that has special interests in keeping you thinking otherwise. You have no solid evidence for anything in the bible that was supernatural. People are impressed with myths of the supernatural. The bible is illogical. Why did they heal a leper to show supernatual proof when a god could have easy healed all lepers on the planet? Radical Christianity has taken a dangerous turn with their war on science. Watch a couple of national religious TV syndicates where they lie and deceive…and suck money out of little old ladies. Religion wasn’t always that way in America. A god would not allow what we have done. A god would bury dinosaurs and make them look old to deceive humans so they go to hell? On and on like this.

          • Lupe

            For reasons unknown to me you guys turn a friendly debate into an an argument.
            “Radical Christianity”, as you call it, is not at war with science.
            Again, ours is a belief system just as evolution is a belief system.
            I can point you to books or websites that posit evidence for creation but, as you wrote, you would not accept it.
            Before you decide what God would or would not do, you should do an in-depth study of the Bible. No, not to become a convert but to disprove it.
            God gave us 10 simple rules to follow and gave us free will. If you read and understand these rules you will see that they make for a solid and peaceful existence. Don’t hate, don’t hurt, don’t steal, love God.
            That free will is what man uses to cause the misery on this earth.
            We can’t have both free will and God’s involvement. It won’t work. We would then be puppets responding to the string pull of God.
            As to the televangelists.
            You are 100% correct. They are what the Bible calls “false prophets”. Liars distorting God’s word.
            They use God’s word for profit.
            You’re wrong about one thing you wrote. They don’t suck money from just little old ladies. They suck money from young, old and anyone who doesn’t understand the Bible. Jesus pointed that out to his followers. He warned us to be on the look out for these guys.
            Anyway, thanks for the lively discussion.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “This particular thread, moron, is NOT a debate. A debate would require two people engaged in a rational discussion about a specific issue. ”

            Haha – good one, JMichael! That one goes into your Hall of Quotes!

          • happylada

            Whats rational about everything coming from nothing?

          • happylada

            NOR I YOU. YOU use the word but ignore the definition.

          • Rastaman426

            Atheism…illogical? Really? Tell me again how Eve came from Adam’s rib and how there was a talking snake who caused the downfall of man from Garden of Eden…and then explain how Lot’s wife was turned into a “pillar of salt” just for looking….LOOKING…because all that is just so logical….right?

          • jmichael39

            LMAO…talk about illogical…you answer the illogic of your own world view by attacking another. And you think YOU’RE the rational one.

            How in the world will you EVER prove your world view that there is no god? hmm? You can’t…impossible…not in the slightest.

            Oh and btw, my worldview is not based upon a talking serpent…but upon the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Would you like to engage in a discussion about that? Christianity remains in tact whether or not there was ever a talking serpent (an event that you can no more disprove than I can prove). But if you take away the resurrection of Jesus, there IS no Christianity. So if you want to destroy Christianity…attack that. Give it a shot if you have the intellectual courage.

          • Rastaman426

            I don’t want to destroy any religion…but…speaking of disproving anything (talking serpent for example), can you DISPROVE Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny or Unicorns? Because that’s one thing they have in common with Jesus Christ…

          • jmichael39

            Ah, so you think Jesus never existed or is some sort of urban legend?
            Of course, Santa Clause is merely a fablized/commercialized version of a real man who once existed. No one has ever attempted to suggest that the Easter Bunny was real. And unicorns have existed for millennia…just not the fabled horse version. There is historical evidence for single-horned (unicorn) creatures existing throughout history. The one referenced in the Bible, for example, was like a single horned oxen that once existed in that region.
            But that’s irrelevant, you think Jesus never existed. Right? or do you think he was just some urban legend?

          • Rastaman426

            No one has ever attempted to suggest that the Easter Bunny was real

            I’m saying that Eater Bunny and Unicorns are real (like Jesus for you)….so YOU must PROVE that they are NOT real….

          • jmichael39

            Why would I have to do that? That’s an absurd red herring. At this point you haven’t even affirmed that you don’t believe that Jesus ever existed. Or what you believe about Jesus. I would be more than happy to present any amount of historical evidence that Jesus existed to you, if that’s what you desire.

      • Rastaman426

        key word there being “real”…

        Please tell me where all the talking snakes have gone if we are being “real’?

        • jmichael39

          You win the 2015 Village Idiot Award.

          • Rastaman426

            Ooh…what a BURN…but you STILL have not answered my question….

          • jmichael39

            let me put it this way, your question is utterly and completely irrelevant to the context of the use of the word ‘real’ in this thread. You’re trying to sound smart. I know, you really are trying. But you’re an idiot for dispensing with a question that is 100% out of context of the thread. You want to start another thread and ask that question, feel free.
            But that being said, I’ll your question with a question. Have you observed and confirmed that every living serpent that ever existed was incapable of talking?
            I know, a rhetorical question…much like yours. You obviously have no ability to have observed every serpent that ever existed. Nor have I. Have you ever seen a blind man suddenly healed and made to see again…or observed a lame man stand up and walk? I know people who have. You reject the notion that can happen. Yet these people say it has happened. You want to meet them and tell them how they’re wrong? How its not possible because your precious mind can’t conceive of it being possible?
            All of Christianity is based upon the Resurrection of Jesus. Did you see Him rise from the dead? I didn’t. Can you come up with another explanation for the historical facts surrounding that story? There are hundreds of historical facts about the resurrection of Jesus. Most are highly debated. But there ARE a handful or two that are very broadly accepted as true by people from all over the spectrum of belief, including atheists and agnostics. You want to go over those facts and see if YOU can come up with a more viable, rational and reasonable explanation for them?
            We can argue talking snakes all night long. Neither one of us can either prove or disprove the account of the talking snake in the Pentateuch. And besides which Christianity is not reliant upon there having been an actual historical talking snake.

          • Rastaman426

            Have you observed and confirmed that every living serpent that ever existed was incapable of talking?

            ahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaa……and I’m idiotic…..hahahaha

          • jmichael39

            clearly you’re acting like you are.

          • Rastaman426

            Come on….you SERIOUSLY think that there is a *possibility* of a TALKING SNAKE…seriously…and I can’t laugh at that prospect?

          • jmichael39

            Come on…you really think, with all the historical evidence, that Jesus didn’t exist?
            But to answer your question…are you REALLY ready to say you know all that’s possible and not possible in the universe? I suppose in your closed mind, 2+2 is always equal to 4.

          • Rastaman426

            with all the historical evidence, that Jesus didn’t exist?

            No, Jesus DIDN’T exist, and there is absolutely ZERO evidence to his existance…none…nada, zilch!

          • jmichael39

            Really? then you must be pretty sure that people like Alexander the Great and other historical figures never existed either. Right?

            It IS interesting how atheists think. There is utterly no way in which you can ever be certain there is no evidence, none, nada, zilch…and yet you seem to be willing to stake you reputation on such claims.

          • Rastaman426

            Wrong…Alexander the Great and other historical figures DID exist, because there is contempereneous historical evidence…there is NONE for Jesus…

          • jmichael39

            Really? You mean like the writings of Roman historian Tacitus

            Or Pliny the Younger

            Or Josephus

            Or the Jewish Talmud

            Or Lucian

            All written within 100 years of the life of Jesus.

            There are several others. Would you like me to go through them?

            Then, of course, there are the four gospels, the several writings of Paul, Peter, James, and John and thousands of writings from other early church leaders. All of them, historically significant and well accepted. Yes, I know, people like you reject the historicity of the church writings as biased and conspiratorial in nature. Oh what those crazy Christians wouldn’t do to perpetuate their lies and vain attempts to start this new religion in the face of certain persecution and execution by the Romans. But it’s easy to understand why they did it…it made them so rich and famous. (insert sarcasm font)

            The FACT is there are over 42 sources within 150 years after Jesus’ death which mention his existence and record many events of his life.

            9 Traditional New Testament Authors

            Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Author of Hebrews, James, Peter, and Jude.

            20 Early Christian Writers Outside the New Testament

            Clement of Rome, 2 Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Didache, Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, Fragments of Papias, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Quadratus, Aristo of Pella, Melito of Sardis, Diognetus, Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, and Epistula Apostolorum.

            4 Heretical Writings

            Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, Apocryphon of John, and Treatise on Resurrection.

            9 Secular Sources

            Josephus (Jewish historian), Tacitus (Roman historian), Pliny the Younger (Roman politician), Phlegon (freed slave who wrote histories), Lucian (Greek satirist), Celsus (Roman philosopher), Mara Bar Serapion (prisoner awaiting execution), Suetonius, and Thallus.

            And what are the primary contemporaneous writings about the life of Alexander the Great?

            Arrian – written 200 years after Alexander lived and based off writings, supposedly of Ptolemy and others. Though we don’t have any copies of those writings.

            Plutarch – ditto

            Diodorus – written 300 years after…and ditto

            Curtius – written 400 years after as little more than a history book…taking this to be historical evidence, while acceptable, is little different than saying the writings of the church fathers in Alexandria and Antioch in the 4th Century about Jesus are historical evidence for his existence…which they are.

            Justin – more of the same and accepted as even less historically accurate simply because it was not written as an historical account.

            Oh yes, there are definitely far more pieces of evidence for the existence of both men, but my original point being that if you’re going to be so adamant about there being absolutely no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus then, by using the same methodology, you would have to also conclude that Alexander the great never existed.

            A.E. Harvey, one of the most outspoken critics of the life of Jesus, once wrote, “It can still be argued that we can have no reliable historical knowledge about Jesus with regard to anything that really matters”

            – Harvey, A.E. (1982), Jesus and the Constraints of History (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster). But he also said in that very same book, that there are certain facts about Jesus that “are attested by at least as much reliable evidence as are countless others taken for granted as historical facts known to us from the ancient world.”

            You want to deny the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth? Feel free. But it will not be because “there is absolutely ZERO evidence to his existance…none…nada, zilch!” It will be because you have made the conscious effort to be an intellectual hypocrite. Perhaps, as with Harvey, the life of Jesus doesn’t matter to you…but your indifference to His life or hatred for His followers are not acceptable historical evidence for His non-existence.

          • Rastaman426

            Speaking of “intellectual dishonesty,” can you offer proof, ANY proof, that Jesus or God exist? Because it sounds like to me that YOU are LYING to YOURSELF about the existance of Jesus and god because you are TOO AFRAID to face the TRUTH….what EVIDENCE do you have that any god exists? But hey, listen….I don’t expect you to change your mind just because you can’t prove god’s existance any more than you van prove the exiatance of Santa Clause or unicorns…I get it….but don’t think you can lie to change anyone else’s mind about it….

          • jmichael39

            Are you an ignorant illiterate moron or are you just trying to sound like one? I just posted you more than sufficient evidence that Jesus existed. If you wish to try to refute that evidence, please feel free. But sitting here asking me to provide that which I just provided you is the epitome of arrogance.
            As for the existence of a God…I’m presuming you’re asking for natural evidence of a supernatural being, correct?

          • Rastaman426

            So you DON’T have any proof that Jesus existed…glad we BOTH agree on that…so can can we move on to you agreeing that there is no supernatural power or god?

          • jmichael39

            Thank you for acknowledging that you’re NOT here to engage in an intelligent debate. And thank you for acknowledging that you have no intelligent rebuttal to the evidence presented. It makes it so much easier when everyone can see so clearly how intellectually impoverished you are.

          • Rastaman426

            Can you prove I’m not god…or Jesus? If you CANNOT, you should worship me….

          • jmichael39

            That’s about as illogical as anything I’ve ever heard on these sites. So anyone I can’t prove is NOT God, I should worship. You’ve been burning up brain cells just a wee bit too long.

          • Rastaman426

            That’s the point…how can you prove th existance of something that DOESN’T exist…never has, and never will?

          • jmichael39

            Where in the world do you get your logic, from a village idiot? You just refuted your entire worldview as an atheist. I presented you more than sufficient evidence that Jesus existed. Why don’t you try refuting that, instead of slip-sliding down these insanely illogical rabbit holes.

    • happylada

      FALSE – every find negates another aspect of evolution.

      Lucy is the MOST complete, and NOTHING new is added by the other discoveries. Its still chaos and confusion and deliberate manipulation of the bones to make her appear to walk upright – amazing what a saw and Dremmel can do.

      Recent evidence from paleontology proved that walking whales evolution was a deliberate fraud – BUT is still in textbooks. Horse evolution is a fraud. Lucy appears to be an imaginative collection of miscellaneous bones (Some creationists have been making this claim for years)

      Very few REAL SCIENTISTS know very much about evolution. Why would an engineer know anything more than I do? WHY would an astrophysicist know ANYthing about it?

      AS Patterson asked – do ANY of you know ANY one THING from YOUR area of expertise about EVOLUTION that is TRUE? (at a symposium of evolutionists)

      NOT ONE positive assertion – silence reigned.

      SO your statement is categorically false. IF your keyword is “REAL” to differentiate from fake, then you are enjoying the advances of a LOT of fake scientists – space travel, Computers, autos and flying, Immunology, MRIs, and more than I could think of in the next hour.

      • John N

        I see here a lot of accusations vs. scientist – “deliberate manipulation of the bones to make her appear to walk upright”, “walking whales evolution was a deliberate fraud” – but not one piece of evidence.

        And the quote by Colin Patterson has been misused by creationists long enough. As Patterson himself explained, the question was specifically about systematics, not the theory of evolution. I’m sure you know that.

        And the scientists that certainly know a lot more about evolution than you do, are called biologists.

    • happylada

      YOUR statement is false. None of the subsequent discoveries have added anything but VOLUME to the exhibits. Still none of the missing pieces, and since THIS exhibit is a composite who knows IF there is actually a real skeleton at all. They do NOT come with labels – and an atheists imagination can overcome all kinds of fact deficits.

      Look at the entire HUMAN cultures stated as fact, based on the tooth of a PIG.

      Creationists do NOT have to destroy your mythology – there are lots of evolutionists who are happy to do so. So its NOT a matter of evolution being factual, but evolution being the religion of some; dogmatic, blind, and irrational religious beliefs sans facts, evidence and totally failing the “scientific method”.

      BUT some believe it anyway. And then have the gall to mock those with a rational and factual faith.

      • Zasz

        Nebraska man was a fraud from one scientist.

        *Creationists do NOT have to destroy your mythology*

        James McCarter of Divergence Incorporated states that the work of 2001 Nobel Prize winner Leland Hartwell which has substantial implications for combatting cancer relied heavily on the use of evolutionary knowledge and predictions. McCarter points out that 47 of the last 50 Nobel Prizes in medicine or physiology also depended on the use of evolutionary theory. Apparently these scientists are utilizing a figment of imagination for medical advancement.

        *rational and factual faith.*
        Thats an oxymoron. Faith is neither rational nor factial because if you have a rational or factual concept, you have no need for faith. Science has proof without any certainty. Faith is certainty without any proof.

        • happylada

          He’s a radical evolutionist. His statement is NOT evidence – its OPINION. Evolutionists seem to constantly conflate the two.

          Dawkins claims everything is evolution, whether its simple adaptation of divine intervention – its the ONLY word these single track folk know. Proves NOTHING!!

          The FACT is that not ONE part of their discovery could NOT have been made if they had never heard of evolution. And many other PhD scientists and medical profs make that very statement.

          “*rational and factual faith.*
          Thats an oxymoron. Faith is neither
          rational nor factial because if you have a rational or factual concept,
          you have no need for faith. Science has proof without any certainty.
          Faith is certainty without any proof.”

          Totally false – you hace faith your car will start, the airplane overhead will stay there and that the chair you sit on will hold you. FAITH is ONLY as valid as the object of your faith and the HISTORY of that object. “Science” has NO proof of evolution, ONLY faith. True science is repeatable, testable and observable – evolution fails on every count as science. True science is immune to your statement of prrof without certainty. True Science can be observed and known with certainty.

          Since FAITH is all you can have in evolution, you are stuck. Because it has been the hotbed of deceit, fraud and lies from the time of Hutton til now. Recapitulation, Piltdown man (and all the other man frauds), and whale evolution are simple highlites in the deliberate and conscious frauds relied upon by evolutionists as FACT for almost two centuries; TAUGHT as fact and used as evidence to mock those who don’t follow blindly the faith of evolution.

          Evolutionary science is the true oxymoron here.

    • Lupe

      Which part of evolution?
      Punctuated Equilibrium?
      Phyletic Gradualism? (Most are getting away from this one)
      Are there DEFINITIVE proofs for evolution?
      Still don’t have a “missing link”. Me thinks your “real scientists” have much to prove with very little evidence. Eh?

      • John N

        Puntuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism are two possible ways for evolution to occur in different species. What is your problem with that?

        No there are no ‘DEFINITIVE proofs’ for evolution. Science does not work with ‘proofs’. There is lots of evidence for, and so far none against the theory of evolution. You’ve got some?

        The ‘Missing link’-idea is a creationist term not used by scientist. Any organisms that ever lived was a link between their ancestors and their offspring. For all extant species, no link is ‘missing’, because they still exist. If your talking about humans, a lot of ancestors or probable ancestors of Homo sapiens have been found that links us to our common ancestors with chimps and bonobo’s. I’m sure you know about that.

        And how about evidence for creation? Any of that already?

        • AnotherOutsider

          Have you found any evidence of your own existence? That’s all the creationist needs.

  • Ben Jarmain

    As a creationist Christian my beliefs are obvious, but we (creationists) must never forget the importance of Science, many of us are all too quick to jump up and down with glee screaming “science was wrong!” but was it not science that found its own error?

    • smbelow

      No…it was science that found the error in someone’s evolutionary worldview, which is not science.

      • Ben Jarmain

        Semantics, maybe I should have worded it different, including the phrase “scientific theory” but I wasn’t focused on that as it really wasn’t my point

        • smbelow

          Understand. However, these types of semantics (IMHO) tend to establish a false idea of science vs religion. When it is more accurately evolution (billions of years) vs Christianity.

          • uzza

            ” it is more accurately evolution (billions of years) vs Christianity. a small segment of fanatical Christian extremists.”
            FTFY

          • smbelow

            Can you please define what you mean by “fanatical” and “extremist?”

          • Jerry C

            fanatical Evolutionary extremists

            It takes two to tango.

          • Ben Jarmain

            Touché!

    • Jerry C

      No…it was a human being looking at the evidence more closely who found the error. The same human being who made the earlier fraudulent claim with the said erroneous evidence. At least this human being looked closer and admitted he was wrong. Maybe all the others should look more closely as well? No?

      • Ben Jarmain

        Not really sure what you’re saying. People are fallible? Science is wrong? Or my beliefs are?

        • Jerry C

          What I am saying is that it was a human being who found the error. Yes, people are fallible. Science is our best (& worst) understanding based upon the available physical evidence. People interpret the exact same physical evidence differently.

          I believe we agree on many things.

          • Ben Jarmain

            For starters, I agree with everything you just said 😉

  • John Roberson

    sorry Michelle Obama and Pope Francis, we guess this blows your theories out of your minds, that you were descendants from the apes. Ha, Ha Ha Ha Ha

    • Paul Hiett

      So one bone misplaced invalidates all of the rest of them?

      • Jerry C

        So, you’d believe a liar again? Fool me once, shame of me. Fool me twice… you get my point. Or do you?

      • John Roberson

        Ok Cheta, guess ewe were there with Johnny and Maureen and Boy. Ha Ha ha Ha Ha. Or are you another Cheta River and flow with the tides and are liken onto the ebb and flow of the oceanic plane that is just all wet. Well, guess Michelle, my bell can just wear her tunic, just like any good little roman and play her fiddle like Nero and watch Rome burn again. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

  • Vito Zabala Halasan

    the facts, the evolutionist are right, the LUCY was ancestor of Darwins.

  • Harry Oh!

    These truth denying, atheists will cling to any scap of ‘evidence’ they can get their desperate hands on to try and prop up their flimsy TOE. The world is full of complete Dinosaur skeletons and they existed long before humans, yet all these eggheads can come up with for pre-human species is a measly 47 bones of which one or more are now suspect? Thats pathetic. And they have the nerve to call people who don’t subscribe to this micro thin evidence as not being too bright. People who thought the world was flat and that the earth was the centre of the universe were treated in a similar manner, but look how that turned out.

    • Paul Hiett

      Uh Harry…it was religion that put the pressure on people who claimed that the earth was round, and revolved around the sun. The scientists were right, and religion was wrong then too.

      • Jerry C

        Um, religion doesn’t put pressure on anything. It’s not alive. People put pressure on others & claim whatever they want. Call it what is was and maybe I’ll agree with you. The Roman Catholic Church put pressure on people… Seriously, separate evil people from the word religion and maybe you’ll start seeing the truth.

      • Harry Oh!

        Galileo, who invented the concept of heliocentrism, was a devout Catholic. The vast majority of the fathers of modern day science were Christian. Look it up.

  • noah

    Just shows that only science can refute science.

  • Tom Haynie

    The thing that evolutionists don’t explain is that if evolution is a true principle, why is it that only one animal evolved to make computers, the Internet, airplanes, automobiles, etc. etc.? Yet, no other animal has ever progressed to even making the most rudimentary tools. You would think that if monkeys had evolved into man, then bears and giraffes and alligators and tigers should have evolved as well and been driving around in self propelled vehicles of some sort – or at least talking to each other. The genetics of the rest of the animal kingdom should have shown some sort of evolutionary evidence.

    The evolutionists have taken tremendous license with Darwin’s theory. Darwin theorized on natural selection that, according to him, dinosaurs evolved into birds, land mammals evolved into whales, etc. He also accounted for microevolution where species adapted to their environment without changing form. But those who have since developed on his theory have not explained why only one got smarter, more intelligent. The intelligence of birds, whales, elephants, dogs, etc. aren’t much different beyond their environmental adaptability. This monkey to man theory doesn’t explain our intelligence development in such a short period of geological time.

    • Edsword

      The whole thing is flawed. It only takes a few minutes of silent thought to realize we exist. How did nothing create us? How did that nothing create us to admire it and ponder it? Just a brief, real, open minded, silent reflection and you realize there are some serious flaws with any theory that denies a creator.

      • oregon_man

        This is why I am an agnostic, not an atheist. I have a hard time accepting current physicists’ argument the universe came from nothing. There may be a God, just not the fairy tale one that you defend. Evolution can explain why you defend it so.

        • happylada

          Have you bread Flew’s book “There is a GOD” Top ranked atheist changes mind . . .

          BUT your defense of evolution is as disingenuous as your rejection of the Creator God.

          In what way is the “fairy tale” God we worship NOT the perfect embodiment of everything a Creator God should be?

          And NO, evolution CANNOT explain why I an in Live with God. I have NO need to defend God, and few do.

      • Bill

        that makes no senses. and evolution and the big bang aren’t nothing

        • Edsword

          It makes a lot of sense. What exists without design? Does complexity exist without design? Show me one example of complexity without design. Then figure out how a cell, that requires more than one system to function, created itsself. It would have died before it had the chance to reproduce under any scenario. DNA, a blueprint, by accident? It is the complexity of life that proves to me there is a designer. Try as you might, you cannot explain the complexity we see around us through evolution. Evolution simply attempts to bury complexity in “it took billions of years.” That is the answer everytime complexity comes into the equation. I don’t accept that as an answer because its not one.

          • John N

            What a lot of nonsense. Everything in nature exists without design. No cell ever did create itsself, they came from more simple ancesters. The origin of life has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. DNA is not in anyway a blueprint – what makes you think it is?

            And you cannot explain the complexity of life by pointing to a designer, which is by logically more complex than the design.

          • Edsword

            If you say so…

          • Bill

            evolution explains the complexity and that is the answer whether you accept it or not

    • oregon_man

      “why is it that only one animal evolved to make computers, the Internet”

      That is easy. Because humans came along and killed off everything else. Look at the megafauna on every continent before and after humans arrived. We are a killer species. Consider how we treat our own specie just because our color or culture is different. Imagine how we would treat even more different.

      • happylada

        Rubbish. Where is your evidence for that?

        its utter silliness.

        And we treat our varieties of humans badly, partly, and almost entirely in the 20th century, because of evolution. The “favored races” of Darwin gave license to brutal men to act on improving the species and killed 200 MILLION people in the 20th century alone – on the grounds of evolution.

        Darwin not only justified killing anything that wasn’t European and white, but considered women as grossly inferior.

        The holocaust of abortion is a direct result of Darwin’s bloody ignorance, just as the German holocaust was.

        • oregon_man

          killed 200 million? justified killing? You are either drunk for psychotic.

          • MisterPine

            I gave up talking to this lunatic a few minutes ago. It was getting too painful.

          • Guest

            So, oregon_man, who simply stated facts that anyone could read about at their nearest museum of natural history, is a lunatic. But happylada, who seems to have pulled a bunch of words out of Conspiracy Theorist 101, is credible? Interesting theory.

          • MisterPine

            Couldn’t agree with you more…are you sure you addressed this to the right person?

          • AnotherOutsider

            You realize the holocaust, which enacted social darwinism, was a conspiracy, right? Just because it’s conspiratorial, doesn’t make it untrue.

    • Bill

      different species evolved in different ways, that’s all there is to it

  • CuttheBS

    Billions of humans, millions of apes/chimps….where are the multitudes of “evolutionary humanoids”? They never existed.

    • Edsword

      Yet we have complete dinosaurs from 65 million years prior. Most people believe the malarkey though.

      • Bailey Nix

        And dinosaurs are tested and shown to be under 50000 years old. The circular rock fossil theory is wrong.

  • uzza

    Here’s what I’d like to know. First there was nothing, and then there was our modern world;
    both sides have an explanation for what happened. Science offers a process with a step by step progression from point A to point B. If I ask a scientist how it happened he’ll outline it for me, not just say “Evolution did it”.

    The Abrahamic side says “God did it”–well OK, but how? The bible god says “let there be X” and all of a sudden there it is–how did he do that? By what process does a word become something real? What were the intermediate stages? Any christians out there have an explanation?

    • uzza

      well, well, 19 hours and no answer, fancy that.

  • Lucifer Almighty

    Evolution is an OBSERVED fact that DNA alone proves.

    • Bailey Nix

      Actually what DNA proves is we all descended from a single woman, just as it was written thousands of years ago.
      The universe came from nothing just as it was written thousands of years ago.

  • mike

    Each human has a choice … believe what the Creator revealed, that “in the beginning we were made in His image” or believe the lie that men continue to tell that “many billions of years ago something, somewhere suddenly happened”.

    • Bill

      believe a 2000 year old fairy tale or accept a scientific truth

    • oregon_man

      The “Creator” didn’t reveal that, or anything in the bible. A man created that story, as other men created the rest of the story.

  • Linda

    When you don’t have any evidence to back up your theory, zero, nada, zip, after 150 years of searching, you fabricate it.

    • happylada

      OR when your grant is about to expire. Great motivation to find anything . . .

    • Bill

      how about you visit a real museum and educate yourself. evolution wouldn’t have stood for as long as it had without evidence to support

  • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

    This has happened more than once. An example falls back to the day when a pronounced Scientist presented a complete specimen to the Smithsonian. They had dug up bones, assembled them and presented them as an example of another lineage in ape to man. He was given much praise in the scientific community, until some years passed and they tested the time period of the skull and bones. To the amazement of those that did the testing, the jawbone came from an animal which was not even in the same time period of the skull, and the skeleton??? It turns out that the find was a complete hoax, the scientist has tried to fit the jawbone to the skull by modifying it, then through later testing would not have worked. Source: Dark Matters Documentary of science in the 1800s and early 1900s.

    • John N

      This has happened more than once, but the only example you can give is more than 100 years old? Anything more recent maybe?

      And what kind of retesting do you mean? Retested against what? You mean for age?

      But I’m sure scientist all over the world are continuously busy looking at the ‘ape-to-man’-issue. That’s what real scientists do. That’s why all those new findings have been reported since the seventies, and that’s why the discussion is still continuing. One misidentified bone will not change that. The evidence for our primate ancestry is to large to be dismissed like this.

      • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

        Today’s knowledge of fossil ages comes primarily from radiometric dating, also known as radioactive dating. Radiometric dating relies on the properties of isotopes. These are chemical elements, like carbon or uranium, that are identical except for one key feature — the number ofneutrons in their nucleus.

        Piltdown Man is revealed as fake

        Calaveras Skull

        In 1912, Sussex England, the remains of an early human ancestor were found in a gravel pit and named Eanthropus dawsoni, after the man who discovered it – Charles Dawson. Dawson claimed to have spent 5 years collecting parts of the specimen in a gravel quarry, after first receiving a fragment from a worker. After revealing the skull to prominent scientists, including those at the Royal Geological Society of London, it turned out that there were a number of scientists who believed that this fossil was the “missing link” between apes and humans and just so happened to be in the UK, which was a major center for paleontological science at the time. It took several decades before geological research and fluorine chemistry tests (1949) determined that Piltdown was a hoax. However as early as the 1910’s, there were scientists in Europe who believed it was nothing more than a combination of fossilized ape and human parts put together. It turned out to be predominantly fragmented ape skull bones, along with several human molars. The identity of the forger was never found, but it was clear that it was either Dawson or someone close to him. The forgery was officially declared in 1953. Given the widespread promotion of the find as the “first Englishman” for decades, it has also been regarded as a key example of the problems in science and a symbol of Western arrogance.

        Archaeoraptor : “The Dinosaur-Bird Missing Link”

        Acinonyx Kurteni – Linxia Cheetah

        Cardiff Giant

        So, why do people make fraudulent fossils?

        Well, there are many incentives. For some people, who are under pressure to perform within the scientific community, it’s all about publish or perish. Sometimes, you need a discovery “or else” – and out of desperation, some scientists resort to unethical behavior. Sometimes, people, especially amateur enthusiasts, are looking for attention and want to create a hoax to gain attention. In some cases, reputable scientists have been duped because they have not ever experienced a hoax before, and are eager to promote a new discovery. In some cases, fossil thieves/poachers merely want a little extra money, so they “enhance” their fossils a bit without realizing the ramifications of their actions – that they might be fooling people who are in the real world of science. However, by far the biggest incentive to create “fraudulent fossils” is money. Fossil sales can be big business. As we have learned time and time again, in the news, you can make pretty big bucks with very large and popular fossils, as well as extremely rare and important fossils.

        • John N

          Your examples are or more than 100 years old, or were never accepted by scientist in the first place.

          You are right that sometimes fossil hunters try to trick scientists into buying suspicious fossils. However all these hoaxes were discovered and corrected … by scientists.

          Fossils that old are not dated directly by radiometric dating. The rocks in the layers below and on top of the fossils are dated, so you only get a maximum and a minimum age for the fossil. ‘Retesting’ the fossil will not change anything about the age of the fossil, since they were all found in the same layer.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            That is simply a false statement.

          • oregon_man

            No, John’s statement is correct and you are wrong. You should at least try to support your claim, but we know why you didn’t.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            That is entirely the point. When he states that the fossil will not change anything about the age of the fossil, that is entirely why I would want to re-test all bones that represent ape to man biology. It took some 50 years before my example above was tested, and when found to be a hoax, scientists were dumbfounded. If you get a chance to watch “Dark Matters” it explains the case in detail, and how disappointed scientists had become. It wasn’t just one scientist involved.

          • oregon_man

            Oh come on. It took 50 years to rule Piltdown man a fraud and that supports your theories? How many years ago did that occur? Paleoanthro science was in infancy then. And now you demand all fossils be retested. What a challenge just to satisfy you. Creationists love to throw out absurd challenges to fight the facts. In this century science has numerous methods of determining age of objects. I am certain “Dark Matters” is baloney, smoke and mirrors, intentional deceit like all creationist materials. Go get your teeth checked at a veterinarian.

  • oregon_man

    What you people don’t get is that there have been hundreds, maybe thousands of other examples pre-homo species. Lucy just happened to be the first. Some of the most substantial find happened just in the last 15 years. Please get that through your head. It isn’t just this one “Lucy”. Do a tiny bit of research in any source that is not religion. How can you be such an ignorant fool?

    • Jim Deferio

      Hey, I was fed a steady dose of this “evidence” in college (one of my degrees is in biology). Funny thing, all of this “evidence”‘ was nothing more than fairy tale scenarios of supposed evolutionary origins. Even the famed evolutionary biologist and paleontologist, Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, had to admit that there were no transitional fossils so he conveniently came up with the ad hoc “punctuated equilibrium” to explain this lack. But, funny thing, there is NO EVIDENCE for Gould’s ad hoc explanation.

      Evolutionism is a religion, make no mistake about that.

      • oregon_man

        How long ago were you in college? I’ll bet it was a long time ago (don’t bear false witness now). What degrees did you get? Gould died years ago and has been shown to be wrong about a few of his assertions. A big problem with posters in here is you have no real factual science information on discoveries in the last 25 years. You should read at least one good book, by a real scientist, on human evolution. I have read about 6 books on it in recent years. Let me know if you need titles.

        • Jim Deferio

          So far you have provided NO evidence for your claims, merely assertions. I doubt that you even went to college.

          Of course Gould was wrong! I stated it! Einstein was wrong about his assertion that the universe was a steady state one. Stephen Hawking admitted being wrong about two major cosmological theories (and expect him to be shown wrong on others – William Lane Craig already has shown him wrong on his Quantum Gravity Model and eventually Hawking may admit this theory of his is wrong too). This all underscores the fact that YOUR BIBLE, secular science, is highly flawed!

          If evolution and naturalism were true please tell me how in the world you would even know this?

          • oregon_man

            Good distraction post to avoid from answering the question about your education and degree(s). I smell false witness. Pray for all those died in Nepal who are going to Hell because they were not baptized.

          • Jim Deferio

            I have two science degrees, biology and the science part of forestry and I have completed about 230 semester hours of college course work (undergraduate and graduate). I study all of the time. All three of my “kids” are well into their 30’s and are by far more intellectual than you can ever hope to be. My wife also has a science degree.

            No one goes to “hell” (whatever THAT is) because they were not baptized. Have you even read the Bible? What an ignoramus.

            Now, lets see some of this “evidence” for your religion of evolutionism. LOL

            And, btw, answer my question about how in the world you could even know evolution-naturalism were true if indeed they are true. LOL You are in a bad dilemma.

            Also, stop using language to communicate as it betrays your evolutionary origins since language is logic based and communicates information, both of which are not possible in a Godless, naturalistic universe.

          • oregon_man

            No kidding? You have a degree in Science? From what school? I’ve never heard of a degree in “Science”. Wow, I especially didn’t know any school offered a degree in, “science part of forestry”. What is your degree? I don’t think you know what a degree is. What does the number and age of your kids have to do with evolution?
            In the version of bible I grew up with it said, “He that believeth in me and is baptized shall have everlasting life”. I looked for it but it appears to have changed in last 50 years. Wow, so many different versions of the bible.

            We know evolution is true by *science*. So how long ago was your “degree” and what school did you attend?

          • Jim Deferio

            Still haven’t answered my questions and everyone knows why – YOU CAN’T!

            Go to my Facebook page to find out what colleges I went to (at least two of the colleges anyway). You will be surprised “oregon_man”, lol.
            Btw, two of my kids were born in Lebanon, OR and my youngest daughter went to Canyonville Christian Academy in Canyonville, OR which is between Grants Pass and Roseburg. Look it up.

            There is no such verse as the one you quoted. Pathetic try though. The closest would be Mark 16:16 but the verse ends with “but whoever does not believe will be condemned” and therefore it is not the baptizing part that saves you but the believing part that saves you. To believe in Christ is not mere mental ascension but putting one’s trust in Him knowing that He is God and salvation is in no other.

          • oregon_man

            What questions? Like “where is evidence of evolution?” as I said before you can find buildings full of evidence if you visit a university, museum, library, etc. Be sure to Google “King James version Mark 16:16”.

            What other questions?

          • Jim Deferio

            I’m wasting my time with you and I need to obey what Jesus said about casting pearls before swine.

            Btw, I know an enormous amount about Bible translations and textual issues. I have been actively involved in debating KJV Onlyists for several years and I have never lost a debate.

            Not all “Christians” tell the truth. There is a group who lie, distort, fabricate, and cause severe divisions and they are of the cult known as KJV Onlyists (they have Peter Ruckman, Sam Gipp, Gail Riplinger, Stephen Anderson and a few others as their cult leaders).

            I used to open air preach with a number of these guys and when their cultism became apparent I had to disfellowship from them. I also learned that many of them are divorced & remarried and have unsaved kids and use crass language. I have called them to repentance many times. They are hypocrites and Jesus’ most severe rebukes were directed against the hypocrites of that day.

          • oregon_man

            You are it is not a debate because I’ve been whooping your ass with every lie you put out and exactly like Jesus said about lying, one lie leads to another. Now you are distracting to “cults” and preachers that lie and curse. It is definitely time for you to give up.

          • Jim Deferio

            You are clearly delusional. I’ll tell you what, I will make an effort to be in Oregon this summer. I would love to debate you face to face in front of an audience – your cult perhaps. How about it?

            How old are you? Are you a teenager? If so, I don’t debate kiddies because they are incapable of rational argumentation.

          • oregon_man

            Oh, oh, now you want to meet in person, to debate! And I am a delusional cult member? Who is delusional Jim. For the third time now, you keep digging your hole deeper. Better give up while your able to crawl out. Nothing you have said is rational.

          • Jim Deferio

            You have proven to be a coward and everyone reading these comments will know it.
            Bye.

          • Jim Deferio

            At SUNY (State University of New York), we had much flexibility in what we wanted to concentrate in within a general major. Thus, my statement about the SCIENCE part of forestry because some chose the management part and others something else. So, I dealt with soil science, entomology, fungi (especially mycorrhizae), hydrology, physiological ecology, etc. Lots of fun, lol (just kidding, it was hard work and that was why most chose management instead).

          • Jim Deferio

            @ oregon_man
            I will not be answering any more personal questions. Stick to the topic. Provide your evidence for evolution so that I can critique it. Also, answer my previous questions.

          • oregon_man

            You start talking about your children then tell others to “stick to topic”. Your educational experience is very odd. You never answered what your degree was. The only biology class that would doubt evolution would be from a “Christian” school, where students are intentionally deceived.

            Mark 16:16
            Viewing the King James Version. Click to switch to 1611 King James Version of Mark 16:16.
            “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”
            – King James Bible “Authorized Version”, Cambridge Edition

            Once again, as always you are wrong and bear false witness.

          • Jim Deferio

            For some reason my reply to you did not post. Here, let me re-post it:

            “Still haven’t answered my questions and everyone knows why – YOU CAN’T!

            Go to my Facebook page to find out what colleges I went to (at least two of the colleges anyway). You will be surprised “oregon_man”, lol.
            Btw, two of my kids were born in Lebanon, OR and my youngest daughter went to Canyonville Christian Academy in Canyonville, OR which is between Grants Pass and Roseburg. Look it up.

            There is no such verse as the one you quoted. Pathetic try though. The closest would be Mark 16:16 but the verse ends with “but whoever does not believe will be condemned” and therefore it is not the baptizing part that saves you but the believing part that saves you. To believe in Christ is not mere mental ascension but putting one’s trust in Him knowing that He is God and salvation is in no other.”

          • Jim Deferio

            @ oregon_man
            You wanted some personal info so I provided some. That’s all you will get.

            Now, where is that “evidence” for evolution and where are your answers to my questions?

            If we were having a face to face debate in front of an audience I would absolutely make you look foolish. I may be in Oregon sometime this summer. What cult do you belong to?

          • oregon_man

            Apparently you don’t know much about bible history. As I stated, I quoted the very main stream King James version, exactly. You are quoting some “Bible-Lite” version. Do tell what version you are quoting. Then go learn about Bible versions. Begin by Googling “King James version Mark 16:16”. You’ll find it everywhere. All the versions is another big problem of Christianity. It has been revised and embellished so much in 2000 years.

  • oregon_man

    I wish to understand those who deny evolution, how they manage to maintain such a ridiculous position in the face of mountains of evidence. The same can be said of those who deny global warming while every bit of ice on the planet melts.

    • John_33

      I agree, it’s just like global warming. It’s also just like spontaneous generation where real scientists were ridiculed and attacked for not believing in it. It’s also just like geocentrism where people actually faced death if they doubted it. Real science doesn’t need to bully and threaten others into submission. Evolution is a fantasy and it’s going to fall like the previous theories that fell before it.

      • John N

        The downfall of the theory of evolution has been predicted for almost 200 years. Still as healthy as a fish.

        And it were heliocentrists who were actually put to death. By religuous people. Check your history.

        • John_33

          Actually evolution has only been for approximately 150 years, which is nothing considering that spontaneous generation was the dominant theory for over 1800 years. That means that evolution could last for another 1500 years and it still would not last as long as spontaneous generation had. History proves that time does not make a theory correct. If anything, we should scrutinize the things that we have accepted as dogma because they can still be wrong. This includes the theory of evolution.

          As for heliocentrism, I am familiar with the history, which is why I brought it up. If you delve deeper, then you will find that the Catholic Church was not enamored with geocentrism because they believed that it was in the Bible (although they weakly threw a few verses around). The real reason why they supported geocentrism was because they widely accepted the Greek philosopher, Aristotle, who believed and taught it. That’s why Protestants who placed a greater emphasis on the Bible were more likely to accept Galileo’s ideas – they didn’t hold to Aristotelian theory as the Catholic Church did.

          Aristotle was considered the preeminent scientist, philosopher, and political thinker of the Medieval period. His ideas became entrenched in society so much so that they became extremely hard to undo. For example, he was also the one who also taught spontaneous generation – the idea that living things could spontaneously come to life from nonliving things. People held onto this theory for over 1800s years. Even though it was disproven in the 1600s, many still clung to the theory and claimed that it was still possible. It wasn’t until 1859 that it was finally disproven.

          This serves as a good warning against entrenched science where people blindly accept things because the theory has remained the dominant one for so long or because ‘smart’ people believe in it. History shows that real science merely presents the truth and doesn’t try to bully people into submission. Those who need to mock or bully don’t have the facts.

          • John N

            The theory of evolution did not survive due to people blindly accepting it or being bullied into submission.
            It survives and flourishes till today because it is the best explanation we have for the diversity we see in nature.

          • John_33

            It actually is being forced and bullied. There are many unsubstantiated theories that are taught as fact to school children. Even fraudulent ideas, such as Haeckael’s drawings, have continued to pop up in text books.

            We should settle for nothing less than the truth. If there are known imperfections in our current understanding of evolution, then we need to toss them out and move on. Today we laugh at what was considered science 500 years ago. It’s hypocritical to point and laugh at the past when we have grown complacent with today’s science.

          • John N

            So you’re saying teachers are forced and bullied to teach the theory of evolution in science classes? There must be lots of protests from them, is it not?

            >There are many unsubstantiated theories that are taught as fact to school children

            Examples?

            >Even fraudulent ideas, such as Haeckel’s drawings, have continued to pop up in text books.

            I can’t remember Haeckel being sentenced for fraud. His ‘theory’ turned out to be wrong, and some of his drawings were exagerated to illustrate it. They should not be used in text books. I don’t think they are, so unless you have evidence?

            >If there are known imperfections in our current understanding of evolution

            Again, examples?

          • John_33

            Trying to post again…

  • Randolph Politte

    HMMM? If it looks just like an ape… then guess what?… it IS an ape!… What a joke… I have been saying ‘LUCY’ is a farce from the beginning. You want to know why they will never find a ‘missing link’? I’ll tell you… That’s because there IS NO link.

    • John N

      Randolp, of course it looks like an ape. It is an ape. Just like gorilla’s, orangutans, chimpansees and humans. What did you expect? Wings?

      And I’m eagerly awaiting your scientific evidence for Lucy being a farce. Since it has already been discovered in 1974, you must have done a lot of research on that. Can you also give evidence to refute the 20-or so other finds of Australopithecus afarensis? And while your busy, for the 100ths of finds of other specimens of

      One thing I have to admit, there is indeed no missing link. There are a lot of pieces of the puzzle, and every year new pieces are found. The history of the human species is not complete, but becoming clearer. There is no ‘missing link’ to be found, just other pieces of the big puzzle.

  • Rastaman426

    Ohh…ohhh…there is ONE bone in Lucy from a BABOON which means evolution is WRONG and God created us after all, and nope, we don’t need no stinkin formulas and dastardly numbers or ANYTHING resembling scientific facts or research to prove that we are all decedent from Adam and Eve came from his rib and there was a talking snake in Eden that caused the downfall of man….YAY….We WIN!!!!!!!

  • obionekenobi

    Evolution is all about conditioning! no more no less

    • oregon_man

      LOL, evolution is backed up by science. What do you think religion is? Religion is conditioning, sometimes brainwashing to believe in things that are not real.

  • Lesli Spice

    I do not believe in the religion of evolution which is based on faith in a theory. It is not proven.

    • John N

      Definition of a ‘scientific’ theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation (Wikipedia).

      No mention of ‘faith’ or ‘believe’. Confirmed through evidence (or proof as you call it).

      • oregon_man

        science is not a “theory”. It is a method of finding facts and truth.

        • John N

          Oregon Man, I was responding to the comment by Lesli Spice. He/she came up with the ‘faith in a theory’.

          • oregon_man

            OK, not the first time I made a mistake.

    • oregon_man

      I don’t believe in the “religion of evolution” either. I most certainly believe in evolution however. It is just a big pile of irrefutable evidence and scientific facts.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Didn’t we know it? Atheists lie.

    • John N

      Atheists? Why do you think Donald Johanson, the discoverer of Lucy, is an atheist?

  • Bailey Nix

    Yet another in the long line of fakes..Yet they still deny truth..Science must deny God at all cost to preserve secular society and maintain order.
    The aftermath of actually admitting the truth in their eyes is catastrophic. .Religions around the world would regain their place and standing as respected institutions. All the modern viewpoints they have promoted so militantly would be disgraced..
    To admit the existence of God would mean to accept morality, that there is a right and wrong, that there is a good and evil.The churches are vilified as hate groups and religion seen as an enemy of liberal atheistic society. Guilt and sin would become a reality, not simply an idea.
    The political ramifications of this truth is seen as too great of a consequence to allow.
    We all came from one woman, the universe came from nothing, science admits to this recently discovered truth, yet it was written thousands of years ago that this was the way the universe and how man came to be.
    No other creature cares or questions where they came from, or debates where they are going..Man is separated from the animal kingdom, the only life on this earth ever to do so.
    To believe in God is more than simple idiocy,I think at this point it is far more intelligent to believe.

  • Josey

    The evolutionists are the baboons…Ha, this is hilarious!

  • supermike

    John Glenn, who declared as a 77-year-old in a news conference from space that “to look out at this kind of creation out here and not believe in God is to me impossible,” says facts about scientific discovery should be taught in schools — and that includes evolution.

    The astronaut, now 93 with fading eyesight and hearing, told The Associated Press in a recent interview that he sees no contradiction between believing in God and believing in evolution.

    “I don’t see that I’m any less religious by the fact that I can appreciate the fact that science just records that we change with evolution and time, and that’s a fact,” said Glenn, a Presbyterian. “It doesn’t mean it’s less wondrous and it doesn’t mean that there can’t be some power greater than any of us that has been behind and is behind whatever is going on.”

  • supermike

    Evolution is change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations.[1] Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including the level of species, individual organisms, and at the level of molecular evolution.[2]

    All life on Earth originated through common descent from a last universal ancestor that lived approximately 3.5–3.8 billion years ago.[3][4][5] Repeated formation of new species (speciation), change within species (anagenesis), and loss of species (extinction) throughout the evolutionary history of life on Earth can be inferred from shared sets of morphological and biochemicaltraits, including shared DNA sequences.[6] These shared traits are more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor, and can be used to reconstruct a biological “tree of life” based on evolutionary relationships (phylogenetics), using both existing species and the fossil record. Existing patterns of biodiversity have been shaped both by speciation and by extinction.[7] Although more than 99 percent of all species that ever lived on the planet are estimated to be extinct,[8] there are currently 10–14 million species of life on Earth.[9]

    In the mid 19th century, Charles Darwin formulated the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection, published in his book On the Origin of Species (1859). Evolution by natural selection is a process inferred from the observation that more offspring are produced than can possibly survive, along with three facts about populations: 1) traits vary among individuals with respect to morphology, physiology, and behaviour (phenotypic variation), 2) different traits confer different rates of survival and reproduction (differential fitness), and 3) traits can be passed from generation to generation (heritability of fitness).[10] Thus, in successive generations members of a population are replaced by progeny of parents better adapted to survive and reproduce in the biophysical environment in which natural selection takes place. This teleonomy is the quality whereby the process of natural selection creates and preserves traits that are seemingly fitted for the functional roles they perform.[11] Natural selection is the only known cause of adaptation, but not the only known cause of evolution. Other, nonadaptive causes of microevolutioninclude mutation and genetic drift.[12]

    In the early 20th century the modern evolutionary synthesis integrated classical genetics with Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection through the discipline of population genetics. The importance of natural selection as a cause of evolution was accepted into other branches of biology. Moreover, previously held notions about evolution, such as orthogenesis,evolutionism, and other beliefs about innate “progress” within the largest-scale trends in evolution, became obsolete scientific theories.[13] Scientists continue to study various aspects ofevolutionary biology by forming and testing hypotheses, constructing mathematical models of theoretical biology and biological theories, using observational data, and performing experimentsin both the field and the laboratory. There is scientific consensus among biologists that descent with modification is one of the most reliably established of all the facts and theories inscience.[14] Discoveries in evolutionary biology have made a significant impact not just within the traditional branches of biology, but also in other academic disciplines (e.g., biological anthropology and evolutionary psychology) and on society at large.[15][16]

  • supermike

    Millions of species of animals are now extinct. Do you believe in extinction? If you do, and don’t believe in Evolution, then you have to believe the Earth was created with millions and millions more types of creatures on it than there are now, and by deduction, believe over time there will be less and less creatures until all are extinct.

  • http://mattbierbaum.github.io/zombies-usa/ Zombie Lee

    “Lucy” isn’t the only specimen found in the Australopithecus species.. And why is it whenever science refines and corrects mistakes, it is considered “bad”. If anything uncovering mistakes and misunderstands strengthens the evolutionary model. Each time something is fixed or found, it tightens and refines the evolutionary model. It only gets better. Not worse.

    Notable specimens:
    * AL 129-1, an A. afarensis knee joint, discovered in Hadar, Ethiopia
    * Karabo, a juvenile male A. sediba, discovered in South Africa
    * Lucy, a 40% complete skeleton of a female A. afarensis, discovered in Hadar, Ethiopia
    * Selam, remains of a three-year-old A. afarensis female, discovered in Dikika, Ethiopia
    * STS 5 (Mrs. Ples), the most complete skull of an A. africanus ever found in South Africa
    * STS 14, remains of an A. africanus, discovered in Sterkfontein, South Africa
    * STS 71, skull of an A. africanus, discovered in Sterkfontein, South Africa
    * Taung Child, skull of a young A. africanus, discovered in Taung, South Africa

  • Guest

    ,,

  • Jimpithecus

    Mr. Haley writes: “Dr. David Menton, a former professor emeritus of anatomy…” Does this mean he has gone back to teaching? I have independently concluded that Dr. Menton, while being a wonderful bone histologist, I am sure, knows next to nothing about evolution.

  • DB01

    They discovered NI**ERS?