Evolution Supporters Oppose Bill That Encourages Objective Review of Scientific Theories

school book pdMONTGOMERY, Ala. – A bill introduced in the Alabama legislature that would allow students to learn the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories is being criticized and ridiculed by evolutionists as an attempt by “religious fanatics” to “undermine the integrity of science education.”

On April 30, House Bill 592 was introduced in the Alabama House of Representatives. HB 592 would amend the state’s education policy to allow for objective review and discussion of existing scientific theories.

“This bill would require the State Board of Education, local boards of education, and staff of K-12 public schools to create an environment that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about scientific subjects,” the bill’s synopsis states. “This bill would also allow public school teachers to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of all existing scientific theories covered in a science course.”

HB 592 also encourages public schools to “review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of all existing scientific theories.” The bill would also allow students to discuss and debate disputed scientific subjects, “including, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, and human cloning.”

Though the bill specifically prohibits the promotion of “any religious doctrine,” supporters of evolution claim HB 592 is a backhanded attempt to undermine Darwin’s theory.

“This is a thinly-veiled attempt to open the door to religious fanatics who don’t believe in evolution, climate change or other scientifically-based teaching in our schools,” ACLU of Alabama executive director Susan Watson told AL.com.

The National Center for Science Education, a pro-evolution activist group, denounced HB 592 as “antiscience.”

  • Connect with Christian News

“[The bill] would undermine the integrity of science education in the state by encouraging science teachers with idiosyncratic opinions to teach whatever they pleased while preventing responsible educational authorities from intervening,” the group claimed on their website.

Supporters of the legislation, however, stress that HB 592 simply encourages honest discussion and debate about scientific issues. The bill’s lead sponsor, Representative Mack Butler, says he doesn’t understand why so many people are vehemently opposed to the proposed law.

“To clarify HB 592 only encourages debate on scientific theories! Nothing is mandated,” Butler posted on Facebook last week. “I don’t understand all the profanity laced emails from a few liberals I’m receiving about this bill. There is nothing to fear in a little healthy debate as debate helps develop critical thinking skills for our students.”

Later, Butler explained via a Facebook post that many teachers in Alabama are in favor of the bill. The most vocal opposition has come from pro-evolution organizations, like the ACLU.

In recent years, supporters of evolution have routinely resisted candid debates of scientific issues in classrooms. As previously reported, a Pennsylvanian lawmaker was accused of attacking evolution when he introduced legislation to protect teachers’ freedoms to discuss controversial topics. In 2014, a Virginia bill that encouraged discussion of scientific theories’ strengths and weaknesses was described by evolutionists as an “antiscience bill.” Then, last month, two atheist organizations complained about a Christian science teacher’s practice of teaching “both sides of the argument” surrounding evolution.


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
  • Frank

    This is an awesome bill that helps to encourage real science not pseudo-science.

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      Indeed!

      “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

      • Nathan Z Solomon

        Agreed! Our Universe, as we know it, is only as big as our imaginations. If we only imagine what can be proven or constrain it in any way, then our Universe will, indeed, remain small.

    • bill2

      evolution isn’t pseudo science you moron

  • Richard

    These evolution supporters demonstrate just how unscientific they are by rejecting anything that they personally disagree with. It also provides a glimpse into the world of the politics of science: it’s not about truth, but about what THEY want us to believe.

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      You got it!

      “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

      • MisterPine

        “There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot.” — Professor Richard Dawkins

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          Dawkins is correct here: there actually can be no refutation for Darwinism because it is a blind faith religion that has no falsifiability criteria, unlike, say the General Theory of Relativity.

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

          ”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 Laughli

          • MisterPine

            Except that evolution is neither a religion nor does it require blind faith. You are thinking of Christianity.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Take it up with your scientific superiors (like me) who know it is a religion – including the a-theistic ones. I fell for it too, MisterPine: you can admit you were wrong about something you know. 🙂

          • MisterPine

            No need. I will stick with both science and the dictionary, even though you choose to fight them.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            But, Mister Pine – I thought my four degrees in engineering and mathematics would at least trump your home economics degree!

          • MisterPine

            Oh my – isn’t that shameful? Four degrees in engineering and you cannot read a dictionary still? Tsk tsk. Or perhaps this four engineering degrees have inflated your ego to the point that you feel you know BETTER than the dictionary does? Yes, that must be it.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I’m sorry, MisterPine, but those of us who are educated – particularly in engineering – are not big users of basic dictionaries: we are too busy using our intelligence to design (that’s ID!) things that work, like the two spacecraft I have in orbit, while lazy New Absurdists like you sit at home soaking up welfare off of the backs of hard workers like us, spouting “evolution is a FACT – now stop asking so many questions!” 🙂

          • MisterPine

            Well, when you’re not busy splitting atoms sometime, reach for the dictionary on your shelf and look up evolution – unless you have an ultra-important version of the dictionary for spacecraft builders that has entirely new definitions, I think you’ll find that evolution isn’t a religion. Maybe you’ve noticed, but it’s taught in SCIENCE class in school. My my. And you with a myriad of engineering degrees don’t know this. Shocking.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Darwinism is a blind faith religious cult. Please don’t blame me just because I escaped it and you are still drinking the grape kool-aid. It was my engineering and math degrees that helped me leave it behind. Once you peer behind the curtain, you will find that there is no “there” there.

            “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

            “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the
            mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” ― Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers

          • MisterPine

            It makes no difference to me if you choose to ignore science. The nice thing about science is that it’s true whether you believe in it or not.

            How funny that your engineering and math degrees, which lead most people to the inescapable conclusion that evolution occurs, is the very thing that make you run the other direction towards fairy tales and woo.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            The number of people believing in Darwinism is not how we in the science world get at truth: we don’t take polls. Nevertheless, here are a few great scientists from the past who believed in some sort of Deity: Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Decartes, Bacon, Isaac Newton, Leibnitz, Boyle, Faraday (the greatest experimental scientist of all time was also a fundamentalist preacher), Mendel, Pasteur, Kelvin, Stokes, Maxwell. Planck, Einstein, Pauli, von Braun. I will cast my lot with them and you can have Stephen “The Universe Created Itself” Hawking. 🙂 I can get you a modern-day list, but the bottom line is: you should come out of your parents’ basement more often. 🙂

            Also, you should note that many engineers believe in a Deity and are not fans of Darwinism. (I won’t use the term “evolution,” because you seem to be confused by it.) One of the reasons we tend to understand the flaws in random mutations – is that we work very hard for decades to put together relatively simple innovations (as compared with the cosmos, the human body, the brain, etc), and we see just how much intelligent design goes into the simple stuff and realize that chance and time can’t do it on the really complex stuff – like even basic DNA.

          • David Cromie

            As a scientist you should know that if ‘X’ is verifiably true, or has yet to be falsified, then it matters not one jot if a string of people refuse to believe it to be so.

          • David Cromie

            You may be a scientist, of some sort, you may even be a successful one, but you are hardly qualified to pronounce on the falsity, or otherwise, of evolution, much less on the existence of any ‘gods’ (unless you are hiding a valid proof for the existence of same up your sleeve), if I read your posts correctly. It is also strange that anyone claiming to be a scientist, should also be afraid of questions, or debate.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I’m not exactly sure who you are posting to here, but I engage in debate every day – online (this site and others) and in public. (I also was an a-theist and, obviously, Darwinist, for 42 years.) I have posted numerous scientific and philosophical evidences for the existence of God on this site, and 9 times out of 10, what I get back is “There is no God – and I hate Him!” or “Darwinism is true – and stop asking so many questions!” or ad hominems, like yours is dangerously close to being. Those types of individuals, I do not debate. Perhaps you are new to this site, but MisterPine is not only an absurdist, but a member of the Gaystapo. While I respect his right to own those positions, I generally do not debate people like that either – just engage in friendly banter.

            “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

          • David Cromie

            I know of no atheist who declares that he/she hates god. In what way is it possible to hate any entity for which there is no reason to assume it actually exists? Hyperbole is not a very logical trait for a ‘scientist’, I would opine.
            It does not matter whether a theory is counterintuitive or not, what matters is if the theory is sustainable after the rigours of testing. The universe is materialistic in its very nature, not the plaything of a supernatural entity, for which no viable argument has yet been forthcoming.
            Application of Ockham’s Razor would curtly excise all extraneous projections from any causal theories for the existence of the natural world, including the intervention of, or any input from, any ‘god/s’, or other supernatural entities, whatsoever, no matter the ‘source’ material relied upon. In any case, which particular, and non-counterintuitive, supernatural, or ethereal, entity have you chosen for the role of ‘creator’, out of all possible candidate entities, and why?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “I know of no atheist who declares that he/she hates god.”

            Stick around on this site for awhile and you will see a-theists argue from that position. Chris Hitchens was an a-theist who seemed to epitomize that view, God rest his amazingly humorous soul. Some a-theists have a very big problem with even the possibility that they might have a Higher Authority to amswer to. And, it is not just I who assert that, but many intellectually honest a-theists. (I would not use the word hyperbole as much as metaphor, but that is just me.)

            “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

            “But for you to make this move would reveal the two fundamental tenets of true atheism. One: There is no God. Two: I hate Him.” ― Douglas Wilson, Is Christianity Good for the World?

            I think the root of this cosmic authority problem MIGHT be poor relationships with one’s father – if such a relationship even existed: https://winteryknight .wordpress .com/2015/05/03/why-do-famous-atheists-believe-that-god-does-not-exist-4/

            (Just take the spaces out before the dots. Obviously, this is a tendency, not a mathematical proof.)

            Take it up with your betters in the a-theist world: “The universe created itself” is not counterintuitive; it is delusional and metaphysically impossible.

            “The universe is materialistic in its very nature, not the plaything of a supernatural entity, for which no viable argument has yet been forthcoming.”

            Kalam (and other cosmological arguments) supported by Big Bang, BGV Theorem, etc, Moral Argument (from evil), Teleology, Arguments from Conscious, Mathematical Applicability to the Universe, even Plantinga’s Ontological Argument, etc are all reasonable and plausible. They certainly trump “the universe miraculously popped into existence out of nothing uncaused by anything,” life magically sprang forth from non-life when lightning hit some mud,” “minds and moral evolved from molecules through monkeys,” etc.

            “Application of Ockham’s Razor…”

            Actually, Ockham’s Razor works against materialism – as it is fantastically more improbable that the universe popped into existence out of nothing uncaused rather than caused. Such a strange belief also violates the known science.

            “In any case, which particular, and non-counterintuitive, supernatural, or ethereal, entity have you chosen for the role of ‘creator’, out of all possible candidate entities, and why?”

            The metaphysical implications that fall out from Kalam point to a First Uncaused Cause that has most, but not all, of the properties of the Judeo-Christian God. Further refinements on this will follow.

          • David Cromie

            I have listened to the late Christopher Hichens many times, and never once has he hinted, much less said, that he ‘hates god’. What you read into other people’s words is up to you, just be aware that you are doing so, and have the honesty to admit it to yourself, because you are not fooling anyone else. Nagel does not say so either, nor would it be right to accuse him of ‘hating’ god. Otherwise it would be wrong to think this characterisation represents all atheists, and in spite of Wilson’s biased delusions on the matter.
            The ‘cosmic authority problem’, you refer to, is nothing more than the latent indoctrination of children expressing itself on receiving the right triggers, a kind of Pavlovian response, or even the product of operant conditioning, depending on the regime the person has been forcibly subjected to.
            As for the really counterintuitive, and absurd, in all of this, that would be the assumption of agency by a supernatural entity for which there is no tangible evidence. That kind of nonsense was understandable in a prescientific age of multiple gods, and other supernatural entities, whereof there were countless examples.
            On the question of the origin of the universe, science is slowly, but surely, untangling the physical laws behind it. But whatever the outcome, you may be sure some supernatural entity will not pop up to say ”It’s me wot dun it, and it is all my own work”! If we were to consider the origin of the universe, as we know it, as the output of a black box, the question would be what were the inputs? This is what cosmologists are pondering, and it seems that the likely answer is Big Bang, since the universe is still expanding. The other question is about the contents of the black box; is Descartes’ deus ex machina lurking inside, or is it physics/chemistry? The answer seems to be the latter, with not a hint of supernatural magic. Thus with the interactions of both physics and chemistry, we now have biology, and when evolution is initiated by the formation of blue/green algae we end up with the myriad of life forms that exist today, thanks to the right conditions being met for this to start to happen. Adding a ‘creator god’ to this complexity would be totally superfluous, hence for the need for Ockham’s Razor when theists insist (for no apparent reason) on such an addition. So, the internal workings of the black box need no arbitrary creator, either, to set them in motion. When Wittgenstein declared that the world is all that there is, I would hope that he meant the universe is the full package, with no added external, supernatural, ingredients. There is also the possibility of other ‘worlds’, which, ceteris paribus, would probably be much the same as ours, but with different topographies, and differing in size, but whether the latter would make any major differences is debatable. If such there are, then exactly the same interactions of physics and chemistry would eventually produce life, and evolution some form of ‘human’ beings. These may well infer some supernatural entities, too, before they grasp the rudiments of physics, and eventually grow out of their childish imaginings, as they learn more about their world. Hopefully they will have skipped the Kalam, and throwback suerstitius TV evangelist phase of ridiculousness.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            The fact that Hitchens or many other a-theists do not say the words “I hate God” is not warrant for the presuppositions of the arguments they set forth. Nagel is an a-theist who believes there is a Cosmic Authority problem – feel free to take it up with him and others with the courage to admit same. I also provided you with compelling evidence for a-theists and a Father Authority problem. I don’t think I am reading anything into this, but we shall let the readers make their decisions rather than you engaging in ad hominem.

            “What you read into other people’s words is up to you, just be aware that you are doing so, and have the honesty to admit it to yourself, because you are not fooling anyone else.”

            This statement is blatantly self-refuting and remarkably hypocritical. You are criticizing me for reading into other people’s words based on your reading into of my words! You are even going one step further: you are claiming to know my motivation or feelings – a SERIOUS reading into of my words. Making self-refutational statements is the sign of an absurdist (which many a-theists are), and an indication of a very poor understanding of basic philosophy and the search for truth. (It is found, however, in blind faith scientific cults, like Darwinism.)

            “On the question of the origin of the universe, science is slowly, but surely, untangling the physical laws behind it.”

            You should know that in the 1800’s most scientists believed that the universe was past eternal. Christians were walking around saying “But, my Bible says that the universe was created, so it cannot be past eternal.” The evidence of the 20th and now early 21st century has all but slammed the door shut on the blind faith of the a-theist. The progress of science has gone completely away from the a-theist’s strength (a past eternal universe which needs no Cause) and toward the Christian view (a First Uncaused Cause). The data I gave to you is practically overwhelming that the universe had a beginning – not good for your side. (You even admit same, since you wrote “This is what cosmologists are pondering, and it seems that the likely answer is Big Bang, since the universe is still expanding.” I concur 100%!)

            “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the
            mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
            ― Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers

            “So, the internal workings of the black box need no arbitrary creator, either, to set them in motion.”

            Where did the black box come from and Who created its internal parts? You see, this is precisely why science is “small ball” compared with philosophy plus science, which is what I gave you in my reply. You have asserted a black box and internal workings, yet miss the point of Kalam Premise 1: everything that begins to exist has a cause. (Premise 2 is all but proven with Big Bang, BGV, etc.) Now, we have tons of evidence FOR Premise 1 being true, yet all it takes is one counterexample from you or anyone else to refute Premise 1, and every philosopher on earth will discard Kalam for all eternity (future eternity, not past – as Premise 2 is safe and sound. :-)).

            “There is also the possibility of other ‘worlds’,”

            Yes, I think you mean the unobserved and possibly unobservable multiverse? Despite the fact that this is sheer speculation, I actually find this hypothesis to be quite interesting. Let’s assume a multiverse, for the sake of argument, one which spawned our universe (and many others). Well, the BGV Theorem is as applicable to the multiverse as it is to our universe. Thus, the multiverse cannot be past eternal – implicating a First Uncaused Cause for the multiverse. More interestingly, the multiverse would require a cosmic fine tuning that makes the fine tuning of our universe look like a piece of cake by comparison, mathematically impossible though even that is. That is because the bubbling of the universes (in the multiverse) has to be well-controlled with initial and transient conditions so that they do not “interfere” with each other. If the multiverse exists, and I kind of hope it does, it just makes my God that much bigger – more powerful and vastly more intelligent!

            “Hopefully they all will have skipped the Kalam, and throwback TV evangelist, phases of superstitious, reductionist, ridiculousness, too.”

            Now, see, here you show how immature the a-theist is in his natural environment. 🙂 If you can refute Premise 1 of Kalam, please do so, pick up your Nobel prize, and wait for the statues to be built to you. Lacking that, philosophers and scientists will continue to engage with Kalam and avoid the ad hominems that seem to overpopulate the world of the New A-theists. God bless you, David!

          • David Cromie

            In what way is my statement self-refuting? When it is alleged that an atheist ‘hates god’ but no reference is supplied in support, this is an example of reading into someone’s writing and/or interviews something which is not warranted. It is you who has been refuted by the signal lack of evidence. Either your words mean what they say, or you have contrived to redefine English to suit your own perspectives.

            Hitchens was concerned with the hoax, referred to as religious beliefs, and since no proof for the existence of any god, or gods, has yet been proffered, he was quite right to expose the ‘business’ known as religion for the con it really is. You go even further and appear to claim that all atheists hate ‘god’. If it can be shown that even one member of the set ‘atheist’ does not hate ‘god’, then your claim is false. With this in mind, it seems that you are over eager to somehow blacken atheists for your own ends, and tripping yourself up in the process.

            I do not have the time to go into your other points at this moment (it is 0103hrs. here), Suffice it to say, unless and until a logical argument can be adduced for the existence of any god or gods, the question of which one of these might, or might not, be a prime mover is redundant. That some people entertain, or outrightly believe in, such an assumed entity is of little interest or import without this evidence. That goes for the Kalams of this world too.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “In what way is my statement self-refuting?”

            You wrote: “What you read into other people’s words is up to you, just be aware that you are doing so, and have the honesty to admit it to yourself, because you are not fooling anyone else.”

            Premise 1. It is dishonest to read into other people’s words without admitting it to oneself.
            Premise 2. Dishonesty is objectively immoral.
            Premise 3. In arriving at Premise 1, you necessarily read into my words without admitting it to yourself.
            Conclusion1. Therefore, by Premises 1 and 3, you are dishonest.
            Conclusion 2. Therefore, by Premise 2, you are objectively immoral.

            You may call it self-refuting, hypocritical, or an honest admission that you are objectively immoral – it is up to you. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. 🙂 God bless you, David!

          • David Cromie

            I read nothing into your words, other than what was there in plain English. Or, do you use words to mean other than an English speaker would reasonably understand them to mean?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            David, I gave you a formal proof – here is an easier one:

            Everyone interprets what a writer is trying to get across. You called me out for doing so, but the only way you could accomplish this was by doing the very thing (interpreting what I, the writer, was trying to get across) that you were condemning. I am NOT saying your interpretation of my words was wrong – just that your point of philosophy is self-refuting or hypocritical, that’s all.

            Why is it a big deal? We are trapped in self-refuting post-modernism in the Western cultures. It is actually a really big deal, because it is engaging in irrational thought. (Not saying that everything you say is irrational, by any means.) The very people who self-refute the most are a-theists who actually believe they are the most rational. It is a form of absurdism, in which the Law of Non-Contradiction is violated. When this happens, basic conversation, much less philosophical debate, cannot be engaged in. (Try to get rid of the Law of Non-Contradiction: you must use it in order to get rid of it! It is inviolable, and a good argument for the existence of God, BTW.)

            I did it a lot of this myself when I was an a-theist, so I was no better, and even many cultural Christians and other worldviews engage in it. But, it is NOT rational thought. I have some good references on this, if you like. Again, I am not trying to pick on you – just pointing it out when it happens. it is nothing personal. God bless!

          • David Cromie

            There is a world of difference between reading and understanding what the words on the page mean, to any literate person and, on the other hand, ‘reading into’ what someone has written, which involves ignoring the obvious meaning and the reader substituting what he/she wishes to believe about the words on the page, usually by knowingly twisting the words, because they do not like what it is they are reading.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I agree 100%. But, in both cases, the goal is to determine the intended meaning of the author – not what we desire to believe. Regardless, you were reading into my words as much as I was reading into others. And, if you believe otherwise, the burden is on you, and mere assertion does not cut it.

            Here is a site you might enjoy since you like to debate – it is Christian, but we get a fair number of solid atheists in there as well (just take the spaces out):

            https://winteryknight .wordpress .com/2012/09/12/self-refuting-statements-defined-and-some-common-examples/

            He usually puts out a couple of posts a day, and there are folks on both sides (plus a variety of theological views within Christianity) making comments. I welcome you to subscribe to the posts and go there since enjoy debate – I think you would like it. (Here is a post that just came across – it should fire you up, as it addresses the phenomenon called “There is no God and I hate Him”: https://winteryknight .wordpress .com/2015/05/22/study-explores-whether-atheism-is-rooted-in-reason-or-emotion-3/#comments)

            The atheists that comment there are usually not absurdists, like the majority of atheists on this site. (Sorry, but it’s true, present company excluded.) They are quite often positive evidentialist atheists – the sharpest tools in the shed of unbelief. So, this invitation is meant as a compliment to you. God bless, David – hope to see you over there!

  • LadyFreeBird<God'sNotDead

    This bill just might be a good thing ,if they oppose it.

  • Mr. Avatar

    I remember the documentary from that scientist – atheist Hawking – He said there was no need for a 1st cause because our creation was before time and gravity existed – so we came from nothing – thats right – the scientific mind can not explain creation!

    • amostpolitedebate

      I believe it was more “we can’t know because the tools we use to measure the universe (spacetime/gravity/particles) didn’t exist”.

      Also: The big bang has nothing to do with how biological organisms change on a genetic level over time.

  • FoJC_Forever

    Science gets far too much attention, and is taught as if it is the highest knowledge. It has become the anti-Word of God for most in today’s society. Christians need to keep science in its place, rather than looking to it for answers and proof about God and His Word and Will.

    • Tim

      You might want to take a look at the site godandscience. I think you would enjoy the questions, answers, book recommendations, etc. I find it to be a good place for information on God and Science.

    • Richard

      Christians have nothing to fear and all to gain from true science. It’s pseudoscience that is the problem: preferences dressed up as facts and theories, then leveraged to suppress other ideas.

      • Tim

        Richard, hello, I am in agreement on that. Science and God to me can be complementary in many instances.

        • Richard

          We’re on the same page!

          Science is the discovery of what is. God created all there is. They should be 100 percent compatible. Nothing to worry about from a Christian perspective…and all to gain.

          The problem, however, is with ‘scientists’ who prefer not to consider God, then fabricate theories to dismiss him and call that science.

          These evolutionists demonstrate how closed-minded they are, and how real ‘scientists’ they aren’t.

          Real scientists go where the facts lead them. Close-minded ‘scientists’ only go where their preferences allow.

        • Jean-Marie Hendricks

          In fact, science, philosophy, and religion were for centuries. It hasn’t been until recent that issues between the unreasonable and closed minded stooges of these fields, that they have come at odds with one another (speaking of the extremes here – not the average conflicts)!

          • Tim

            Interesting, I was just reading an article on that particular subject.

    • AeA

      You’re right, Christians should get off the internet and stop going to doctors. Or drive cars, or use anything science has created.

      • FoJC_Forever

        Yeah, I’ve already seen this line used to exalt science. I know you think it’s witty and clever. It is only foolish and stated from ignorance.

        One Day, those who have rejected Jesus (the) Christ will get the Eternal opportunity to exist apart from the good things that God has created. These people will exist in a place void of all pleasure, goodness, creativity, painlessness, contentment, comfort, and rest. These are merely a few of the things God has created within His universe.

        Seeing the created being mock his Creator is sad, but the LORD foretold of your existence. It is only Him, Jesus (the) Christ, who can save you from the Eternal Damnation you are currently and ardently seeking.

        • AeA

          LOL

  • Andrew Diamond

    This would actually be great, we need students to be taught how to think critically.

  • Threefiddy6

    Intelligent isn’t science. So I’m not sure how this bill helps the intelligent design people.

    • Richard

      ID is more science since it considers supernatural agents, not just those limited by our physical space and its laws. True scientists think outside the box, which evolutionists don’t. They like to stay within their preconceived preferences.

      • Threefiddy6

        Congratulations! By including supernatural agency, you’ve just rewritten 400 years of science.

        • Richard

          Your bias is showing. If some scientists can speculate about multiple dimensions, multiple universes, why not supernatural agency? Isn’t it closed-minded not to consider that, especially in light of all of the scientific evidence that points to it?

          • Threefiddy6

            Because it’s lazy. It’s a science show stopper… Just 50 years ago, how much knowledge would we have missed out on if we just shrugged our shoulders and said, “Well, I guess God just did it”.

          • Richard

            But it’s okay 100 years ago to guess and say “everything came from pond scum using random chance and time.” Then, everyone believe it in spite of the evidence against it?

            As I said, your bias is showing. But your bias isn’t good science.

          • Threefiddy6

            Evolution isn’t random.. There is an order to it. But order can be seen in nature. Snowflakes. Rock formations. Crystalline structures.
            Order doesn’t prove intelligence.

          • John_33

            Order does prove intelligence since God created these things.

          • SpiderWatch

            Well unless you can create an experiment that consistently shows how god did it, I’d say you are standing on a pretty rocky claim.

          • David Cromie

            What is your evidence for the falsity of evolution?

          • David Cromie

            Of course, human beings may contemplate any entity that takes their fancy, but when anyone reifies a unicorn, say, and attributes magical powers to it, the rest of us just ignore that person’s ramblings, seeing him/her as in need of psychiatric help when they insist they know, and believe, that unicorns, as described, really exist and act on the world.

      • Threefiddy6

        Do you believe astrology should also be taught in high school?

        • http://www.google.com/ Jan van Niekerk

          Why not teach astrology? Surely students can safely be exposed to the notions held as science by people in the past, along with the best scientific defense of the concepts? Why should they not know the names of the constellations, and their significance to the ancient world (and modern quacks)? How are they going to learn to think outside the box, if they don’t even understand that there is a box?

          • Threefiddy6

            Astrology is the study of the Zodiak and its effects on personality and relationships.

            I think you’re confusing it with Astronomy.

            Should we teach Astrology as science? It also deals with Supernatural things? Or palm reading?

          • http://www.google.com/ Jan van Niekerk

            You introduced the confusion: it’s a red herring. Go and cook your herring and see if it’s half-baked or not.

          • Threefiddy6

            We’re allowing the supernatural into science. That’s not confusing.
            Intelligent Design, Astrology, Palm Reading, Tarot Cards. Ouija Boards.
            All would fall under the umbrella of science, if Creationists get what they want.

          • http://www.google.com/ Jan van Niekerk

            If you cannot scientifically examine your herrings, then you should stick to finger painting.

          • Threefiddy6

            That makes absolutely no sense.

          • David Cromie

            This would be all very well for a History of Ideas course, but hardly in an Applied Physics course.

          • http://www.google.com/ Jan van Niekerk

            Poor “Threefiddy6” thought that “teach astrology” is a slam dunk argument against examining evolution critically (a marvel of misdirection that has no substance). While evolution also belongs in a “history of ideas” course, it should be subject to the same critical evaluation that is applied to astrology. In the history of scientific ideas both occupy prominent positions.

          • David Cromie

            Sorry, Jan, but anyone who thinks astrology is a science is off his head, Some might consider it proto cosmology, but if that were the case, why is it still practiced? The discovery of a missing thirteenth ‘astrological sign’ a few months ago, rather gives the lie to all the guff around the subject,

      • Paul Hiett

        “ID is more science since it considers supernatural agents”

        I’ve read some ignorant things in my life, but that right there takes the cake.

      • SpiderWatch

        Science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiments.

        Supernatural: (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

        They are incompatible by definition.

      • David Cromie

        Why not just admit you believe in magic, and have done with it? How many ‘gods’ does it take to create an idiot?

  • bowie1

    Shouldn’t science be able to withstand scrutiny like any other hypothesis or theory, or are critics of this bill treating science like a fundamentalist tract?

    • http://www.google.com/ Jan van Niekerk

      Here’s the rub: some theories don’t stand up to scrutiny. These theories need special legal protection, or the people might … oh boy, there’s no way to know what the people might!

      • amostpolitedebate

        LOL! Wow I actually thought you were criticizing ID until I read your post a couple more times. Project much?

        • http://www.google.com/ Jan van Niekerk

          The LOL is on you. You are projecting your projection of projection.

    • Threefiddy6

      Science is founded on scrutiny and peer review.
      But there is currently no valid competing theory to teach as an alternative to evolution.

      No nationally recognized science organizations recognize intelligent design as a scientific theory.
      Also, no statistically significant population of scientists recognize intelligent design.

      • FoJC_Forever

        Science is wrong more times than it is right.

        • amostpolitedebate

          Technically correct!

          Science is a technique for understanding the world that relies on it’s willingness to challenge itself and grow out of obsolete ways of thinking. Pretty much EVERY scientific understanding of the world is eventually challenged and replaced with a more accurate model. That’s good! That’s how science is supposed to work.

          It’s like when Einstein’s theory of relativity replaced Newtonian physics. It’s not that science was lying about Newtonian physics before. It’s just that pre-Einstien that was the best model of the universe we could come up with. It even worked worked well enough to send a man to the moon. It’s only when people started toying with the concept of spacetime that holes in the theory started to form. Thus, one theory was replaced with another.

          Now I ask you this: Why should I take your untested, unchallenged word on the nature of reality over the ideas generated by the scientific method?

          • FoJC_Forever

            Science will declare something to be fact and true, then “discover” that it was wrong the first time.

            Jesus (the) Christ, the Living Word of God, is Truth,the same yesterday, today, and forever. He doesn’t change, because He is never wrong.

          • Rebus Caneebus

            Science will declare something to be fact and true, then “discover” that it was wrong the first time.
            No, science is always tentative and subject to revising. Religion is the one that pretends to be true all the time.

          • FoJC_Forever

            Wrong. People who worship science teach and profess it as being fact. When scientists “discover” a new “fact” which makes their previous “facts” wrong, they opt for your pathetic excuse to make changes and continue to teach as though they teach fact.

          • Tangent001

            It is exceeding and increasingly rare that new discoveries result in the wholesale overthrow of a previous fact or theory. Science may adjust or ‘tweak’ a theory to better fit with the evidence, but that’s about it. Most of these adjustments are due to the increasing accuracy and power of instrumentation. Updating the age of the Earth from 4.5 billion years to 4.54 billion years is not really ‘wrong’ on the apocalyptic level you are suggesting.

          • FoJC_Forever

            Science does not and will not lead to Truth. Mankind cannot test everything and is not evolving into a better life form, nor going to eradicate the problems inherent in it. Science is little more than a distraction for people who continually think they are improving society.

            Science is being accredited for increased life spans. Science is also credited for the murdering of babies in the womb as a solution to control population growth and eradicate the cycle of poverty and other societal problems. It creates a problem, then claims to be the answer to fix it.

            Without Jesus (the) Christ, without Salvation through Him, mankind is doomed to be cast away into Eternal Damnation with the Devil, when the LORD remakes the universe and purges it of evil.

          • Tim

            What about Dawkins proposal that the earth is 14.8 billion years ago. Hmm, and I disagree totally with the statement of theories becoming discarded. That has been going on for some 4.54 billion years lol

          • Tangent001

            When did Dawkins say the Earth was 14.8 billion years old?

          • Tim

            Go to youtube and look up Dawkins debates. Just recently.

          • Rebus Caneebus

            Wrong. People who worship science teach and profess it as being fact.

            Well, since that’s nobody competent, it doesn’t matter, since you need to refer to actual scientists.

            When scientists “discover” a new “fact” which makes their previous “facts” wrong, they opt for your pathetic excuse to make changes and continue to teach as though they teach fact.
            You don’t appear to know the difference between a fact and a scientific theory. Give an example of what you mean.

          • FoJC_Forever

            You have affirmed that science isn’t Truth, just mankind’s attempt to believe it has been “enlightened”.

          • Rebus Caneebus

            You have affirmed that science isn’t Truth
            Religions pretend to have “Truth”; science is about theories that match observations and make predictions.
            People tried for centuries to cure smallpox by praying, but it took science to wipe it out. I’ll stick with what actually works instead of what fails for centuries.

          • FoJC_Forever

            Smallpox isn’t “wiped out”. More diseases, more science, more diseases, more science… you’re stuck in a cycle that will only end when God remakes the universe in Righteousness.

            The prayer of Faith saves the sick and if sin is present, they are forgiven. No Faith, no healing.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            I think you’re saying something very important here…but allow me to reiterate in my own words to see if what I think is what you’re saying (if I may): Science is not the search for truth? Science is the continuous attempt to understand the Universe around us and with the Universe being infinite then our understanding will never be complete? But as “science” learns, it builds theories (models) that seem to work in the current environment and are usable, repeatable…to some degree…until they are not. When the model no longer works, it is adapted to work given the new constraint(s), parameters, understandings?

            I’m not trying to be argumentative here. I’m trying to understand what you’re saying. Because if I think what you’re saying is what you’re saying, then there will always be tension in science because it will never be complete. I’ve actually come to enjoy tension because it reminds me that I’m finite, yet I grapple with infinite.

            Thanks for any help you can provide.

          • Rebus Caneebus

            Science is not the search for truth?

            Not really, no. It’s the search for models that explain observations and make predictions.

            Science is the continuous attempt to understand the Universe around us and with the Universe being infinite then our understanding will never be complete?

            You haven’t established that the universe is infinite. There are plenty of hypotheses that the universe is finite but unbounded, like a four-dimensional sphere.

            But as “science” learns, it builds theories (models) that seem to work in the current environment and are usable, repeatable…to some degree…until they are not.

            It’s not that they stop working, it’s that their predictions might fail in new conditions. A good example is how Newtonian mechanics work until you look at really large masses or speeds near the speed of light — then Newton’s laws start to disagree with observations, and Einsteinian mechanics are seen to be more accurate.

            Because if I think what you’re saying is what you’re saying, then there will always be tension in science because it will never be complete.

            It probably won’t be. If it ever is, that’s probably quite a long way off.

          • amostpolitedebate

            Correct. Which is why Christians still practice polygamy, own slaves, and sacrifice small animals on Sundays.

        • Threefiddy6

          I’ll say that science changes as new discoveries are made. I would also say that Religious beliefs are resistant to change, and therefore makes for poor science.

          • FoJC_Forever

            Science is not complete and true Understanding and makes way for many lies to be accepted by mankind.

          • The Skeptical Chymist

            It’s a feature, not a bug! Science is a progression toward a more accurate and more complete understanding of the world in which we live. It is a self-correcting way of discovering how the world works. If something in your religion were untrue, how would you be able to determine that? What would you do if you discovered something in your religion is untrue? Or is that a possibility that by definition cannot occur?

          • FoJC_Forever

            Jesus (the ) Christ is Truth. He cannot be wrong, so there is no need to correct Him.

            Science is worshiped by many and considered the definitive answer to mankind’s woes. It is not. All humanists and secularists have done is mislead people about the nature of science. Fortunately, all those who seek Truth will find Jesus (the) Christ and have the opportunity to receive Salvation.

            Science has always been flawed and always will be flawed. Science isn’t Truth and will only lead people farther away from the LORD.

      • bowie1

        In other words it’s not engraved in stone and could change at any moment with new evidence?

        • Tangent001

          Certainly, that is the nature of science. That does not mean that evolution, or any science really, is at all ‘tentative’.

      • Nathan Z Solomon

        I think you’re missing the point of the article. Re-read it. It’s about allowing the student to decide…giving the teachers lea-way to decide…rather than dictate. Notice it said, “objective” and “scientific”. The law doesn’t say anything about faith-based ideas or God…only the ACLU has thrown that in because they’re afraid of something…what? Who knows. But if you follow them, then they lead to political-science (a.k.a pseudo-science) Real science should never…ever…have an agenda. It’s purpose is to find truth. Without the freedom to do that, which most people on this discussion seem to be against, you’re attempting to control. No one likes to be controlled. We’d much rather have freedom to choose. Don’t you agree?

    • Nox

      no from idiots like you who have absolutely no understanding of science.

      • bowie1

        In other words you don’t think science can stand scrutiny because you don’t think it is convincing enough? P.S. My knowledge from mainline science comes from the Canadian Public School system and from some of the mainline science media by the way.

        • Nox

          when you should have a better understanding of evolution. that education was wasted on you

          • bowie1

            How do you know I don’t understand evolution?

          • Nox

            by the fact that you support this “teach the controversy” garbage

  • Tim

    “create an environment that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about scientific subjects,” the bill’s synopsis states. “This bill would also allow public school teachers to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of all existing scientific theories covered in a science course.”

    Heck I would like to take courses like the ones proposed. I consider this a step in the right direction, providing more open minded students who want to ‘Discover’ and discuss sciences. Who knows it might just give us some bright young Einsteins. My feeling is that our kids will be the next scientists, with new tools that may shake up the foundations of current theories.

    “In recent years, supporters of evolution have routinely resisted candid debates of scientific issues in classrooms.” I suppose my question would be why? Is evolution a theory. If so, I would think it would be worthy of debate, just like any other scientific theory. This is to me, a good bill and I’m hoping it passes based on what I read in the article.

    • Paul Hiett

      “A scientific theory is 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.”

      • Tim

        Yes sir I’m aware of that. I’m also aware that theories that stand the test of time are foundational. There is also theories that are not so well established and are debated frequently in the scientific community. I feel it is this bill will give our kids a more open forum to discuss those theories, find their weaknesses and strengths as described above. Our kids today are getting smarter and smarter and it’s a pleasure speaking with them. Open minds to me, mean better discoveries for tomorrow. Is that what you are saying as well?

        • Paul Hiett

          Yet, the theory of evolution is founded in fact and repeatedly observed, ergo why it’s called a theory and not a hypothesis. It seems that this is geared towards getting away from the facts, which is detrimental to education, as it incorrectly purports creationism to be on the same level as a theory, which is clearly is not.

          Furthermore, evolution has nothing to do with creationism…evolution does not put forth a hypothesis on the origin of life, merely how life has evolved from it’s beginnings.

          Sparking critical thinking is one thing, but leading students away from the facts has no advantage to their education.

          • Tim

            According to the article: “The bill would also allow students to discuss and debate disputed scientific subjects, “including, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, and human cloning.”. I’m not sure I saw anything in the article that would define “creationism”. Did you? You stated “the theory of evolution is founded in fact and repeatedly observed,”. Does that mean to you that Evolution should not be debated? In other words are there strengths and weaknesses in Evolution? I would propose that the students could make determinations on the strengths and weaknesses of Evolution or any other ‘well founded’ theory. An example would be Einstein’s theories which were highly debated and other theories proposed during Einstein’s legacy. I think theory will always be based on fact, future theories on a similar subject, scrutiny, and critical thinking, so again I am for this bill.

          • Apostaste

            Yeah these clowns are well know liars who have been at this same stick for years, please see the Kitzmiller V Dover trial to see just how dishonest and loathsome these con men are.

          • Tim

            I am aware of the trial. I’m very much for this bill, primarily because science will advance over time, new discoveries will be made, and as I mention even what we consider to be fact will one day be questioned or debated, scrutinized, built upon, or completely removed as new tools develop. These kids will have what I consider the gift of a lifetime to expand on current theory, find strengths and weaknesses and overall these students will have the ability to grow, without stigma’s put on them. What better way to learn science then to do as scientists currently do.

          • Tangent001

            “These kids will have what I consider the gift of a lifetime to expand on
            current theory, find strengths and weaknesses and overall these
            students will have the ability to grow, without stigma’s put on them.”

            If you think that is the actual goal of this bill, I think you’re being tremendously naive.

          • Tim

            I appreciate your concern. Have you seen anything in the article that would not indicate that our kids would benefit from discussing, discovering, and debating Theory strengths and weaknesses as the article describes it? I may be naive, I often am lol, but in this case I just don’t see how this bill could be anything but great for our kids. I know they are intelligent and if they analyse Theories, they can better associate with science, and be more participative in the process.

          • Tangent001

            I would have no problem with general courses in critical thinking/basic Epistemology. I simply do not trust Alabama to have the best interest of students at heart when they have tried repeatedly to inject Creationism into public school science courses.

            As I have pointed out already. There is no standard that would preclude the sort of fallacious arguments presented on this very board by people who claim to have ‘superior authority’.

          • Apostaste

            Stop being dishonest, this bill is an ungraceful attempt to introduce christian dogma into the schools and nothing more, it is illegal and will be challenged immediately which will waste so much tax money.

            These charlatans have not changed tactics or even language in years.

          • David Cromie

            How much has the science of astrology, or the reading of tea leaves, advanced over time? About as much as the delusion that a ‘god’, or a flying spaghetti monster, created the world, and you and me in it.

          • Tim

            Concerning the second portion of your statement, science, at least materialistic science, makes no conclusions either way concerning God or a spaghetti monster. Empirical science can’t and thus the debate continues.

            However, it is interesting that large numbers of people look at their horoscopes daily. Applying the Dawkins statements does not help, simply because he is now a Philosopher as you can see from his debates with people such as Jon Lennox of Oxford who specializes in mathematics.

      • http://www.google.com/ Jan van Niekerk

        “Dictionary!” “Ok.”
        Definitions aside: not all theories are equal. Theories have strengths and weaknesses: they include or omit significant observations. They are simple or complex, precise or vague. When a theory simultaneously explains everything and nothing, that is a weakness that should be explored. When its predictions are absent, obtuse, or consistently incorrect, that is important. An evaluation of the amount of ad-hocery that is used to munge observations into a theory is a necessary part of education. You know which theory I mean, don’t you? No, not that one: the other one.

    • Apostaste

      Filling the kids minds with known lies, misrepresentations and dogma under the dishonest guise of science is not a path to enlightenment.

      The purpose of education is to overcome ignorance not to bolster it.

      • Tim

        That would be making somewhat of a prediction. A path to enlightenment? Ugh that sounds familiar. How would you be able to determine what the teacher might teach that would be conclusive evidence of lies and misrepresentations. If you determine exactly what the article says about the bill, could it be possible that you could be mistaken? I’m asking that because again, I see nothing that any scientific mind would not already be debating. To raise the level of discoveries, science has always been defined this way,

        So, what IS science? It has been defined many ways, and its meaning has changed with time. Like many words, “science” has more than one proper use, and the word can also be misused. In its most fundamental sense, modern science is a process by which we try tounderstand how the natural world works and how it came to be that way. It is NOT a process for merely collecting “facts” about, or just describing, the natural world, although such observations do provide the raw material for scientific understanding. Scientific knowledge is the inferences that scientists draw from the data – the models for how things work.

        As a process, certain rules must be followed, but there is NO one “scientific method”, contrary to its popular treatment in textbooks. The rules of science are intended to make the process as objective as is humanly possible, and thereby produce a degree of understanding that is as close to reality as possible. One constant theme is that there is no certainty in science, only degrees of probability (likelihood), and potential for change. Scientific understanding can always be challenged, and even changed, with new ways of observing, and with different interpretations. The same is true of scientific facts. New tools and techniques have resulted in new observations, someti mes forcing revision of what had been taken as fact in the past. Therefore, unlike mathematics, and contrary to popular perception, in science nothing is ever proven (in the sense of finality or certainty that the word suggests).

        Modern science is based upon several underlying assumptions:
        1. The world is real. The physical universe exists, whether we can sense it or not. In other words, it is not just our imagination.

        2. Humans can accurately perceive and understand the physical universe. In other words, such understanding is possible.

        3. Natural processes are sufficient to explain the natural world; non-natural processes are unnecessary.

        4. Nature operates the same way everywhere in the universe, and at all times, except where we have contrary evidence.

        Modern science has its limitations:
        1. Observations are confined to the biological limits of our senses, even with technological enhancement.

        2. The mental processing of our sensory information is unconsciously influenced by previous experiences, which may result in inaccurate or biased perceptions of the world.

        3. It is impossible to know if we have observed every possible aspect of a phenomenon, have thought of every possible alternative explanation, or controlled for every possible variable.

        4. Scientific knowledge is necessarily contingent knowledge rather than absolute knowledge:
        –a. Scientific knowledge is based only on the available evidence which must be assessed and (and is
        therefore subject to more than one possible interpretation), not on indisputable “proof”.
        –b. The history of science is filled with numerous examples of scientific knowledge changing over time.

        5. Science must follow certain rules, such as:
        –a. Scientific explanations must be based on careful observations and the testing of hypotheses.
        –b. It must be possible to disprove a hypothesis.(with discriminating evidence)
        –c. Scientific solutions cannot be based merely upon personal opinion, popular vote, belief, or judgment.
        –d. Scientific explanations cannot include supernatural forces (these can never be disproved).
        –e. All hypotheses are not of equal value; some are better (work better) than others.
        –f. The “best” hypothesis, out of the choices, must be one that best fits all the facts.
        –g. Science is not democratic or fair. The empirical evidence and logical critical analysis rules

        6. Science, as for any human endeavor, can be done poorly.

        7. Science can be misused.

        So, if there are so many limitations and uncertainties to science, why is science so useful? It turns out that the limitations are the strengths of science. From the actual use and application of the knowledge of science to real world problems, we have found that scientific knowledge is the most reliable knowledge we have about the natural world. In other words, most of the time, it works! Predictions based on that knowledge are usually confirmed. This has enabled much of our work in space exploration, modern medicine, agriculture and technology to be as successful as it has been, at an ever-increasing rate.

        • Tangent001

          ” I’m asking that because again, I see nothing that any scientific mind would not already be debating.”

          Yes, but these discussions are not happening in a K-12 public school paradigm. There are no curriculum guidelines or standards for what constitutes a reasonable ‘weakness’. This is little more than muddying the educational waters to accommodate a group of people whose religious ‘sensibilities’ are threatened when their notions of Biblical literalism are challenged.

  • weasel1886

    Good science is always open to change ID is not science

    • Tim

      “Evolution Supporters Oppose Bill That Encourages Objective Review of Scientific Theories”
      No offense intended but I didn’t see mention of ID in the bill. Did you?

      • weasel1886

        This is what it is about no matter what they say

        • Tim

          Hmm, I didn’t see that in the article. “Though the bill specifically prohibits the promotion of “any religious doctrine,” it would seem to me that scientific theory as presented, is what the issue is and how it is debated in scientific circles. When you have fresh minds that are debating these issues, it may open the door to new discoveries that have not been looked at by the scientific community at large. I would not want science to become stagnant, and that is why I support the bill.

          • amostpolitedebate

            Please don’t be willfully dense. This is a transparent attempt to get Creationism in schools and you know it.

          • Tim

            If it is the article doesn’t represent that. If the bill can’t promote religion than it can’t promote religion. Students are smart enough to know what science strengths and weaknesses there are in theory. I have faith in them as intelligent kids.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            Amen Tim! This Bill seems to be about bringing objective information into the classroom. Allow Students to sift through that information and come to their own conclusions. Faith in each person to make their own determination is the best way forward. In addition, by presenting all the objective information, we eliminate the possibility of returning to the Dark Ages or to China or to Russia or North Korea or to Hitler or any time when only “certain” types of information are approved by the authorities.

          • Tim

            I agree with you sir. You have made a very observable point. It almost would seem that some here commenting are afraid of the implications that science is too big and concrete for our children to contemplate. With that in mind, the freedom of discovery in the classroom, and the debates about current theories is exactly what students will need to excel. Yes we do not need limitations set on science, I propose we need more open doors in science using the methods of science and interpretation to make science an interesting field for students to pursue to start with.

          • David Cromie

            Indeed, but Tim would have us believe that ‘creationism’ is a branch of science, even though I presume he, as with all other theists, has never come up with a cogent argument, based on evidence, that would lead any reasonable person to entertain the probability that any ‘creator god’, or prime mover, actually exists.

          • weasel1886

            The problem with ID is that supporters say it is all about science but when they get stuck they just say God has his ways and chooses not to reveal things

          • Tim

            I would suggest that there are similar people that do the Evolution dance as seen in the article. Science is about discovery. Again, there should be an opportunity to explore any and all possibilities, wouldn’t you agree?

          • weasel1886

            Yes I do but how much time should we spend on someone that believes the Earth came from a cabbage patch ?

          • Tim

            I suppose it depends on what we discover in the cabbage patch. For instance, making a million bucks on cabbage looking like the Earth would be a unique little creation lol

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            It would certainly bring a whole new idea for “Cabbage Patch Kids”. 🙂

    • Richard

      > Good science is always open to change

      Good science is the key. Much of science today, however, is pseudoscience. As the article demonstrates, these evolutionists don’t represent good science. They aren’t open to concepts that could shake their preferences.

      • weasel1886

        I see challendges to evolutionary principles all the time scientific publications

        • Richard

          > I see challendges to evolutionary principles all the time scientific publications

          But only the challenges they allow. Mention the science of macroevolution and they dismiss it without even a consideration…even though all of the real facts show macroevolution is false. That’s hardly science, but protectionism based on a preference.

          • weasel1886

            You are simply wrong

          • Richard

            Can you prove your assertion?

            Just provide one example of macroevolution that contains all of the intermediate transitionals. If I’m wrong, proving it should be easy.

          • John N

            Richard, please give us a “scientical” based definition of “macroevolution”. And tell us again why the ToE needs all intermediate transitionals.

          • Richard

            Without all of the transitionals, the conclusion is speculation. This is like saying the car evolved from a lawnmower because they both have wheels.

          • MisterPine

            We have transitionals.

          • John N

            No’ it’s not.

            You don’t need every Ford ever built before you to see that a Ford Orion is related to a Ford T. With enough intermediates, we can fill in the blanks.

            Speculation is saying that, even if we see transitional fossils that are intermediate between predecessors and offspring, this is proof for some kind of common design.

          • amostpolitedebate

            Dig up the Wikipedia article for “transitional fossils”

            Keep in mind though that you will never have a “complete set” of transitional fossils because there are as many potential “missing links” as there are generations in the family tree. You could line up tens of thousands of fossils and still technically never have the whole thing.

            It’s also worth noting that fossils aren’t the only evidence for evolution.

          • weasel1886

            There is no terms marco and micro in relationship to evolution. Snakes don’t turn into birds. dogs don’t turn into cats, etc.

          • Apostaste

            Evidently you don’t have the slightest idea what evolution is. Your examples would disprove evolutionary theory not confirm it. Pretending to know what you do not know is tantamount to lying.

          • Tim

            I agree with you related to interspecies relationships such as ape to man. In 2500 years or so, there has not been any indication that we continue to evolve into something else. I think we would have seen some indication of that process in 2500 years, but we are physically constructed the same as we were back then. We may have evolved from the standpoint of education and/or knowledge since we have developed so many new tools, but physically I would like to see an example of a human being slowly turning into a giraffe. That would be fun.

          • Tangent001

            ” In 2500 years or so, there has not been any indication that we continue to evolve into something else.”

            I’m not sure what you’re expecting to find in such a relatively short amount of time, but actually, yes, there has been. 95% of Northern European descendents comfortably derive nutrition from non-human milk foods, this was not the case 3,000 years ago. An estimated 35% of people are being born without one or more of their wisdom teeth (I know, I’m one of them).

          • Tim

            Although that is interesting, it does not provide much evidence that human beings evolve or have evolved from a different species, such as ape to man. I’m proposing there is nothing in our physical makeup in the last 2500 years that indicate any physical evolutionary improvement. Are you stating that people born without wisdom teeth is a form of evolution? If you are saying that, then there are more problems with the definition of evolution than I thought.

          • Tangent001

            “Are you stating that people born without wisdom teeth is a form of
            evolution?”

            Yes, it certainly is.

            “If you are saying that, then there are more problems with
            the definition of evolution than I thought.”

            Why is that at all problematic?

          • Tim

            Oh I want to hear this. What form of Evolution are you speaking about? That is like saying because I was born without a finger, that is Evolution. Not even close to an evolutionary process neither does it come close to explaining cross species evolution which was what was originally discussed.

          • David Cromie

            I suppose we are all (along with all other life forms) ‘intermediate transitionals’. So, as Aristotle has it, ‘the proper study of man is man’.

          • Apostaste

            That is a straight up lie, there is nothing more to say.

      • weasel1886

        I’m sorry but “God did it” is not science

        • Richard

          And you think ‘something from nothing could happen’ is real science?

          • weasel1886

            Their is no scienticfic thought that believes that

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Actually, the negative of premise 1 of Kalam is that the universe popped into existence out of nothing uncaused by anything. Premise 2 is supported by Big Bang cosmology, cosmic background radiation, inflationary universe, and most significantly, the BGV Theorem – all secular scientific evidence (not one Bible verse!). So, in order to defeat the Kalam conclusion that the universe has a First Uncaused Cause (what we call God), the a-theist must refute premise 1 – thus asserting that the universe popped into existence out of nothing uncaused by anything. This is a blind faith far worse than magic – it is delusional.

            “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” ― Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            I advocate you study some M-theory and perhaps read

          • Tim

            Please, if you have a point to make, explain it. Telling people to read is no explanation. It’s more a form of mocking. Tell us about M-theory so you as a genius can explain it to us non-scientists lol

          • Apostaste

            You deserve mocking.

          • Tim

            Not a very sound argument in which to base your assumption. I asked for your perspective on Evolution not instructions on finding the information. I read constantly, and yet you presume to think I don’t. You have presumed a lot, and it’s time for you to step up to the plate about Evolution, and your perspective of it. That way, we can either agree, or disagree on what you find is Evolutionary theory.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            This was a mispost.

            Your ridiculous neo-Platonic ideas were obsolete by the Edwardian age. See above.

            Today we know that we can project the Feynman path Integrals of the Universe back into imaginary time before the Big Bang and obsoleting all of your utterly unfounded metaphysical speculation shown to be no more that an infelicitous consequence of ignoring Ockham’s razor and multiplying entities unnecessarily.

          • Tim

            LOL, imaginary time?, so now you’re argument is that the Big Bang is not a concrete theory, that the universe has always been. Your science “philosophy” is bleeding through loud and clear.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            You still don’t have a clue. Middle school may be too late for you. The science taught there is probably too advanced for you to follow. Some good preschool books on M-theory might be right up your street. Unfortunately, I don’t know if any have been written yet. I’ll look around.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            That is quite a vague rebuttal, and I am pretty sure I read more than you do – at least in the technical arena. To call superstring theory “highly speculative” is not to do it justice: it is the a-theist’s equivalent of a Hail Mary. It really is a “there is no god and stop asking questions of the gaps” position – at least at this point in time.

            Regardless, the BGV Theorem trumps even this – since the universe (or multiverse should such a thing exist or even be observable) cannot be past eternal under M-theory, based on current knowledge and speculation. Both string cosmologies and pre-Big Bang scenarios still require finite past time and a transcendent Cause, and the multiverse would lead to an immense cosmic fine-tuning problem that makes the mathematically impossible fine-tuning of this universe look like a walk in the park. Thus, evidence for an even bigger God! Makes me hope the multiverse is true. 🙂

            Let’s look at what we DO KNOW right now, instead of proposing “we could find a theory that might allow us to ignore God even though it will not be testable for decades at the earliest:”

            “Evidence for the standard Big Bang:

            1. Einstein’s theory of general relativity, and the scientific confirmation of its accuracy
            2. measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation
            3. red-shifting of light from galaxies moving away from us
            4. radioactive element abundance predictions (from supernovae)
            5. helium/hydrogen abundance predictions (nuclear fusion)
            6. star formation and stellar lifecycle theories
            7. the second law of thermodynamics
            [8. BGV Theorem for average inflationary universe – my addition]

            Evidence against the standard Big Bang:
            NONE

            Evidence for speculative save-the-atheism model:
            NONE

            Evidence against the speculative save-the-atheism model:
            Boltznmann Brains predicted, not observed
            Quantum gravity models still require a beginning”
            — Wintery Knight

            Given what we know today – not the evidence we might have in decades – the plausibility of a God that looks suspiciously like the God of the Bible (based on Kalam, YOUR science, and the metaphysical implications) is not only rational, but practically overwhelming. Why don’t you look into the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, just to be safe, since we all might be dead in 50 years, by which time M-theory is either discredited or shows some promise, but nevertheless, still requires a finite past time beginning and a transcendent Cause?

          • Jean-Marie Hendricks

            Steven Hawking believes something (the universe) can be created out of nothing – so try again! He states that the universe was necessary so it created itself out of nothing. His circular reasoning is astounding ; especially considering his intelligence!

          • weasel1886

            You are way off the mark and at least Hawkings admits there is much to learn.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Yes, indeed, he did say that the universe created itself. And he has doubled down on that metaphysical impossibility in recent years. Some people will go to insane extremes to deny the existence of their Creator God – sadly.

          • amostpolitedebate

            Whether the universe came from nothing or from something (aliens perhaps!!?) has nothing to do with how organic lifeforms change over time. Even if you could prove that some sort of God started the evolutionary chain that wouldn’t change the fact that there IS an evolutionary chain.

          • weasel1886

            That is not part of evolutionary theory

          • Ambulance Chaser

            It is, however, what Christians believe. Ironically.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Something from nothing happens all the time and has been experimentally verified. See “virtual particles.”
            But what has this to do with evolution?

          • Tim

            I’m no scientist clearly however it would seem that in the case of virtual particles (which is entirely conceptual and based on Quantum mathematics) is mentioned to be faster than light. In physics, a virtual particle is an explanatory conceptual entity that is found in mathematical calculations about quantum field theory. It refers to mathematical terms that have some appearance of representing particles inside a subatomic process such as a collision. Virtual particles, however, do not appear directly amongst the observable and detectable input and output quantities of those calculations, which refer only to actual, as distinct from virtual, particles. Virtual particle terms represent “particles” that are said to be ‘off mass shell’. For example, they progress backwards in time, do not conserve energy[dubious – discuss], and travel faster than light.

            Virtual particles are highly debated and since there still isn’t any evidence of any particle moving faster than the speed of light (refer to neutrino’s and that debate). There are many concepts that are presented, debated, etc. but are really conceptual and thus cannot be a real theory. And, virtual particles are not something from nothing. If they travel back in time as proposed, there would be something that was always something.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Yes, your lack of scientific knowledge leaks out in your writing. That is the trouble with relying on Google or Wikipedia without having some basic knowledge yourself allowing you to determine the credibility of on-line claims, or even cross-checking with academically credible sources. So your ideas about virtual particles do not comport with quantum mechanics which deals only with tangible effects.

            Virtual particles are fermion pairs and are precisely the same as any other fermions, they merely instantiate and evaporate too rapidly to affect the mass balance of the space they affect. If they persisted longer, or became decoupled, they would be indistinguishable from any other particles. Virtual particles are absolutely necessary to preserve uncertainty, and their presence was predicted by Dirac in the late 1940s. Casimir and Polder predicted that virtual particles would be detectable via various effects, and the Casimir effect which relies on the existence of virtual particles was measured to be within 15% of the prediction in the late 1990s. In addition, virtual particles are directly involved in a number of other observed effects, particularly scattering, van der Waal forces and antenna near field energy.

            Virtual particles are not “highly debated” but well accepted physics – except amongst religiots and philosophers who really hate the idea that their cherished concepts of causation and “a first cause” have been irrelevant since c. 1947 if not before..

          • Tim

            A very noble effort I must say. However, predictability in no way establishes something from nothing. It simply makes a prediction to location similar to molecules that turn on and off. Within a particular field scientist present a model of probability (which is what Quantum mechanisms is) to predict these on and off switches. That doesn’t mean they come into being and then out of being. They are always “in being”.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            You are trying to attack modern physics with a classical perspective eliminated in the early 20th century, proving that whatever other attributes you may lay claim to, an education in modern physics plays no part in it.

            I suggest you read some competent works by modern physicists intended to inform the layperson in exactly these developments before trying to argue with people who are informed on the topic.

            Lawrence M. Krauss’ 2012 book, “A Universe from Nothing” is described by my partner, who is, inter alia, a physicist, as “nothing short of brilliant for explaining complex ideas with great clarity and in easily understood language.”

            Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow’s 2010 book, “The Grand Design” is another such book.

            Let Hawking and Mlodinow explain why you are so far off the tracks that you are “not even wrong”:

            According to the traditional conception of the universe, objects move on well-defined paths and have definite histories. We can specify their precise position at each moment in time. Although that account is successful enough for everyday purposes, it was found in the 1920s that this “classical” picture could not account for the seemingly bizarre behavior observed on the atomic and subatomic scales of existence.Instead it was necessary to adopt a different framework, called quantum physics. Quantum theories have turned out to be remarkably accurate at predicting events on those scales, while also reproducing the predictions of the old classical theories when applied to the macroscopic world of daily life. But quantum and classical physics are based on very different conceptions of physical reality.

            Quantum theories can be formulated in many different ways, but what is probably the most intuitive description was given by Richard (Dick) Feynman, a colorful character who worked at the California Institute of Technology and played the bongo drums at a strip joint down the road. According to Feynman, a system has not just one history but every possible history. As we seek our answers, we will explain Feynman’s approach in detail, and employ it to explore the idea that the universe itself has no single history, nor even an independent existence. That seems like a radical idea, even to many physicists. Indeed, like many notions in today’s science, it appears to violate common sense. But common sense is based upon everyday experience, not upon the universe as it is revealed through the marvels of technologies such as those that allow us to gaze deep into the atom or back to the early universe.

            Until the advent of modern physics it was generally thought that all knowledge of the world could be obtained through direct observation, that things are what they seem, as perceived through our senses. But the spectacular success of modern physics, which is based upon concepts such as Feynman’s that clash with everyday experience, has shown that that is not the case. The naive view of reality therefore is not compatible with modern physics. To deal with such paradoxes we shall adopt an approach that we call model-dependent realism. It is based on the idea that our brains interpret the input from our sensory organs by making a model of the world. When such a model is
            successful at explaining events, we tend to attribute to it, and to the elements and concepts that constitute it, the quality of reality or absolute truth. But there may be different ways in which one could model the same physical situation, with each
            employing different fundamental elements and concepts. If two such physical theories or models accurately predict the same events, one cannot be said to be more real thanthe other; rather, we are free to use whichever model is most convenient.

            In the history of science we have discovered a sequence of better and better theories or models, from Plato to the classical theory of Newton to modern quantum theories. It is natural to ask: Will this sequence eventually reach an end point, an ultimate theory of the universe, that will include all forces and predict every observation we can make, or will we continue forever finding better theories, but never one that cannot be improved upon? We do not yet have a definitive answer to this question, but we now have a candidate for the ultimate theory of everything, if indeed one exists, called M-theory. M-theory is the only model that has all the properties we think the final theory ought to have, and it is the theory upon which much of our later discussion is based.

          • Tim

            “The naive view of reality therefore is not compatible with modern physics. To deal with such paradoxes we shall adopt an approach that we call model-dependent realism. It is based on the idea that our brains interpret the input from our sensory organs by making a model of the world. When such a model is
            successful at explaining events, we tend to attribute to it, and to the elements and concepts that constitute it, the quality of reality or absolute truth. But there may be different ways in which one could model the same physical situation, with each
            employing different fundamental elements and concepts. If two such physical theories or models accurately predict the same events, one cannot be said to be more real thanthe other;” Exactly!!!! Since the argument is made that reality itself doesn’t make since, then interpretation becomes the reality. If that is the case, than any data presented in science can be interpreted to mean almost anything. That would then be an inclusive statement of the invisible God. And I thought Dawkins said that science comes from the least complex to the complex. I guess he was wrong about that one, stating that God is extremely complex.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            An invisible god thingie is not a model and predicts nothing.

          • David Cromie

            What testable models have ID devotees come up with that could replace any scientific model you would like to name?

          • Tim

            If there are any, it would be to compliment current empirical data. But that would take time that I’m not interested in spending with you on. However if you really want to know an answer whether you agree or disagree, visit Godandscience, Reasons to believe, the Discovery Institute, all of which present their findings, interpretations, etc. Take a look at the people in the organizations and find out what their PHD’s are in. I can at least advice you to look at those places. There are more sites as well but those would be sites that people devoted to ID would utilize for any Philosophical discussion. Or look up discussions on Youtube, there are plenty there from those that support ID vers. those that support purely the materialistic viewpoint.

          • Tim

            Wait, I think I read that somewhere lol.

          • David Cromie

            Where did you copy/paste that unscientific diatribe from?

          • Tim

            I don’t recall, but you can do the same by using virtual particles as your search criteria. Currently I don’t have “a take” on the Higgs. When you get 500 or so physicists in the room interpreting the data, its difficult to take a side. I’m hoping the new Particle Accelerator will provide more information.

          • Tim

            I’ll better explain my procedure for research: There is a site called of all things “dogpile”. It incorporates all of the popular search engines such as; Google, Ask, Yahoo, Bing, YouTube, and one other. Depending on your browser you can change your default search engine to dogpile. By highlighting specific words, phrases, or terms, and right clicking you would go down on the list to dogpile as the search tool. Once the search is completed (extremely fast) the results will show up for each search engine in different columns with the most relevant first. If you ask for articles within the text, it will provide all articles prevalent to the topic being searched. Often times I will cut and paste relevant articles, and paste them in my “notebook” for later reference.

            I also use the “Biblehub” for biblical research. It provides roughly 13 different English Bibles, 26 Bibles in different languages, has commentary by scholars, and will comparatively show the original Aramaic, Ancient Hebrew, and Greek with English. It provides clickable Dictionary, timelines of specific instances, Concordance, cross references of scripture and prophesy, search tools, measures, an Atlas and far more data.

            Hopefully that will assist you in finding the articles or data relevant to a particular discussion as evidence of a view or interpretation.

          • Apostaste

            What a shocker you have no idea what evolution actually is but feel free to pretend know its false, in spite of practically every biologist in the world.

            This is your brain on Christianity.

          • Tim

            This is just for me personally. When you speak about Evolution, what exactly do you think evolution is? I’m curious since again I’m not much of a science whiz.

          • Tangent001

            The naturalistic process by which different kinds of living organisms are
            thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the
            history of the earth.

          • Tim

            Thanks, I’m hoping for an answer from Apostaste. I understand the definition, I’d like to hear his presentation, since that is only one definition of Evolution.

          • Apostaste

            You’re not going to learn a scientific subject on a forum for God’s sake go and do some formative reading, I suggest you start somewhere as basic as wikipedia and get some knowledge on the topic until then you are just spinning your wheels. So far you have been dead wrong on every point.

          • Tim

            LOL, no, I don’t plan on learning from you, I’m asking what you’re perspective is on Evolution. You stated: “What a shocker you have no idea what evolution actually is” to another person, so I decerned from that quote that you do know what evolution actually is, and thus can explain it in detail.

          • Apostaste

            “I don’t plan on learning” – evidently so. Go an at least read a wiki article, earn your ticket to an adult conversation.

          • Tim

            Not necessary. If you would like to answer my questions that would certainly qualify for the necessity of adult conversation to begin with. Otherwise, I trust you cannot provide an adequate answer to the questions I’ve posed.

          • Apostaste

            Why would anyone waste time with someone who is not only totally clueless about the topic at hand but actively refuses to learn even the extreme basics?

            You have shown yourself clearly to be dishonest and willfully ignorant. There is nothing novel about you and frankly on this topic you are worse than a waste of time.

          • Tim

            You’re absolutely correct. I shouldn’t be wasting my time on you.

        • honeymonster

          Neither is “it just happened.”

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            No scientist said evolution, “just happened.” Science says that evolution, the change of allele distribution over time, has happened since the first life-like molecules developed, and continues to happen, leaving a genetic trail in our DNA.

            How do you explain this without a theory of evolution?

          • honeymonster

            Science doesn’t say anything it is merely a collection of disciplines. Scientists however based on the assumption that there is no God invent a models to fit the data into, and just keep modifying it to fit.

            But what is this that you say? “the change of allele distribution over time, has ‘happened’…”, and continues to “happen”.

            The “genetic trail” in our DNA is nonsense, can you give the mitochondrial DNA or nuclear DNA link between us and hedgehogs for instance?

          • weasel1886

            Nothing about evolution said “it just happens”. There is a reason for all adaptation

          • honeymonster

            But none it seems for the origin of life.

      • amostpolitedebate

        Science is at it’s core not a series of facts but a method for understanding our world. Creationism does not utilize this method in the slightest, and therefore does not deserve to be called science.

      • David Cromie

        Indeed, all that pseudo science that put men on the moon (or men and women into space), or discovered the vital part the heart plays in the blood circulation system, and cures for a variety of illnesses and diseases, or the magic that is electronics (the deus ex machina that drives computers, for example), and so on, and so on.

    • Nathan Z Solomon

      Hi Weasel1886 – I thought we had this discussion? Aren’t you open to this type of bill that would “allow for objective review and discussion of existing scientific theories.” Isn’t this a good thing? As I mentioned before, I think that actually all things need to be taught to students so that they are not indoctrinated, but have free choice as to how they make their way to their truth. All knowledge is good…is it not?

      Have a good day!

      • weasel1886

        Yes but this isn’t about open inquiry. It is about getting God into schools?
        Do you realize how many different theories there are?

        • Nathan Z Solomon

          There are lots of theories, but according to the Bill, it says it “… specifically prohibits the promotion of “any religious doctrine,” ”

          Again, as we discussed, allow the students to find their own truth. Let them examine the evidence that’s objective. Let them make up their own mind. I think God-oriented people made the same mistake that those who believe in Evolution are making in this particular discussion: They’re jumping up and down because of a possibility of something happening. Let people make up their own mind. As long as the facts are presented as objectively as possible, what is wrong with that? Just asking the question…. Try not to be like those who don’t trust people to make up their mind. Let each person explore, determine, find their own way through life. The biggest danger a society faces is when it attempts to withhold information…no matter what it is. Right? 🙂 No one wants to be like Hitler or the Dark Ages or anything like that.

          Have a good rest of the day.

          • David Cromie

            All very well, I’m sure, if it were not for the fact that theists deny that ID is a religious doctrine, but is a branch of science, if not the only real science for some of them, it would appear.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            If I may, David, I just want to emphasize what I believe this Bill is about…Freedom…if a student brings up the idea in class (no matter how far fetched) should it not be explored? I don’t care (even as a theist) that students bring up Satan as a source of creation. Objective review is necessary and allows the student to define science. The teacher is there to remind the students what is “objective” and “science”. I believe this bill allows for that level of freedom for the student.

            But, if anyone denies the right of students to explore whatever they wish, then what has been done? If ID is incorrect, let it be the scrutinized by the students and determined by the students that it is not for them or incorrect for them. Education is not indoctrination…it should never be such.

            As an example, my teachers used to tell me that the Civil War was about slavery. it wasn’t until much later that I came to find out that slavery was just one minor aspect of the Civil War and the Civil War was really about the rights of the State vs. rights of the Union. Why did my teachers lie to me? They lied! They didn’t tell the complete truth. Why do we put teachers in that role? Let Students learn on their own…after all…learning is not a team sport. Each person must do it on their own. They must gain understanding from their perspective…everyone has bias. So I recommend that students be allowed to challenge all views and that they, the students, decide for themselves what is right and wrong. Otherwise, it’s programming, indoctrinating, knowledge injection. We want critical thinkers. We don’t want robots that regurgitate answers. Allow them to learn that skill.

            This type of Freedom doesn’t not exist in China. It does not exist in Russia or in other Countries that indoctrinate. Let American Children (students) be free. Let freedom ring!

            That’s my recommendation.

          • David Cromie

            If only you were right, but one should remove the scales from ones eyes and recognise that there is a devious ploy by creationists to have it rebranded as a ‘science’ concerning ID, and as such to have it discussed as a viable alternative to real science, This deception should never be allowed. Also, where are the ‘objective’ science teachers to be found, if not first vetted concerning their belief systems, world view, religion, etc.?

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            Even if this is a ploy by creationists. It won’t work that way. The bill has already defined that religion is not permitted…only objective science.

            Do you know what? Creationists had the same argument you’re making when Evolution was going to be taught in the classroom. Look where Creation is now? The RFRR is suing every school and making sure that religion remains out of it…no flags, no crosses, no prayer, no nothing. They are attempting to remove “In God we trust” from the money and “under God” from the pledge. You should be very pleased.

          • David Cromie

            The point is, Creationism/ID and Evolution are not equivalents, nor even opposite sides of the same coin. The former is based on the assumption of a supernatural, ‘operator’, entity, or ‘god’, for which there is no proof, and the latter on grounded science. So, never the twain shall meet!

            As to the operations of the RFRR, it is unlikely that they will achieve their ends, since the changes they are pushing for are mere tokenism, and address nothing of real importance.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            Allow me to restate your point, so that you know I understand: Creationism/ID are not science. Evolution is. Thus they are not equivalent. This is your understanding and you are most certainly entitled to it.

            To further agree with you: You are very correct in that Creationism/ID has an operator that established creation. Another point in your favor is that there is no proof of God (for you god). I can give you multiple Biblical references that show that there will never be proof either. No proof. So as you concisely put it: “Never the twain shall meet”.

            You have come to this conclusion on your own after your own research, your own determination. You looked at both sides of the argument as much or as little as you wish. All I’m suggesting it that we give students the same freedom that you had ensuring that the law is abided by: objective science without religion.

          • David Cromie

            Don’t you find it just a little convenient that there should be no proof available for the ‘god’ of the bible, asserted in the same book that expects readers to conclude that there is, in fact, a particular ‘god’, i.e. the ‘god’ of the bible? So, if this particular ‘god’ is unknowable by design, the question still arises, on what basis would anyone believe in it.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            Actually it’s by design that there is no proof available for God. He’s not unknowable. But there isn’t any proof that He exists. So, let me see if I can help you. Unfortunately to do that, I’m going to have to use Biblical information which are going to require, on your part, the temporary assumption of 2 items:

            1) God exists.
            2) He inspired men to write books combined together as the Bible (i.e. the Bible is from God and speaks truth about Him).

            Don’t worry. I assure you that you can at any time stop these assumptions of your own free will. However, the moment that you do, you will not be able to process what I’m about to tell you. Think of it this way, if Copernicus had not doubted what was “truth” then, he never would have made the assumptions that led him to determine that the Earth revolved around the Sun, rather than vice versa. This is all I’m asking of you. Temporarily doubt your current understanding of the Universe, and make the temporary assumptions above and let’s see where it takes you. If you don’t like the results, simply ignore the assumptions and believe that your current understanding is truth.

            Let’s discuss free will. But let’s do so based on the assumptions above. God says that man is free to choose God or not choose God. In order for there to be a choice in the first place, God cannot interfere with that choice. He can leave artifacts which discuss history and discuss the future (i.e. the Bible, archeological finds, moments of the unexplained, etc), but He, Himself, cannot prove Himself to you…otherwise He has eliminated free-will. If He would provide proof of Himself (via standing right in front of you), you’d no longer have a choice. The choice would be gone. Does this make sense so far? God in the Bible, honors (gives weight) to your choice. He does so by keeping Himself unprovable.

            God is not unknowable. However, in order for you to know Him, you have to choose to believe Him so that when you read the artifacts (Bible, archeological finds, miracles (a.k.a moments of the unexplained)), you are able to place the pieces in their proper context to understand (as much as the human mind is capable of doing so) God. Without taking that one step (i.e first doubting your current understanding and the applying the 2 assumptions), you will not know anything about God because to you, God does not exist.

            So, if you’re still with me (still making the assumptions above), then you may now read the Bible and understand what it’s saying. As soon as you stop believing, as soon as you question the assumptions, it won’t make any sense to you.

            So, what questions do you have, if you’ve truly decided to hold to those 2 assumptions? Let me know and I’ll be glad to answer them from the Bible about a knowable God.

            You probably already have some Biblical information, but here’s a small overview of it…again based the assumptions:

            1. God created the Heavens and the Earth along with man/woman, animals, plants, etc.

            2. Man and woman did what was wrong in God’s sight (i.e. they sinned), so God separated Himself from them. Sin is an action against God (i.e. it separates us from God). If Adam and Eve had not sinned and we’d be walking around with God right now. But they did sin and their choice, like all choices, had/has/will have ramifications…none of which is good. Evil is that way…(e.g. 2 wrongs don’t make a right). There is no amount of evil that is good.

            3. God creates a temporary bridge until a permanent one is created. How to re-establish a relationship with God? We can’t do it. God must re-establish that relationship. So He made some specifications as to how to live, work, etc so that some sort of relationship would be maintained. It’s called The Law. Follow it most of the time and have a relationship. When you slip up, perform a sacrifice of blood and the relationship is renewed. Fail to do so with your sincere desire to re-establish that relationship (i.e. do so out of rule-following) and the relationship falls apart…something like a marriage that falls apart because of the day-in, day-out drudgery of living life.

            4. God foretells of a permanent solution, again, honoring free-choice. So, on 33 BC, about, God send His Son Jesus (the Christ, Messiah, Anointed one) to Earth, to both live for us and die for us. Because He was perfect in life, His death paid the penalty for our sin. Then He (Jesus) resurrects Himself…0 AD. He appears before a large number of people before He goes into Heaven.

            5. Which brings us back to point #2. When man/woman sinned we were separated from God. But once Jesus died for our sins, they were all paid for. But what’s the catch? Why aren’t we in heaven right now? Why isn’t God standing right in front of us? Because, once again, God honors free-will. You must choose Him, in the midst of being separate from Him. You must have faith, you must believe in the 2 assumptions, you must believe that Jesus is the Son of God and you must believe that He died so that you could be saved from your sin. Failure to believe that Jesus died for your sin, means that you have once again, chosen against God (ergo, for evil and separation from God).

            One other assumption stated in the Bible is that we are eternal beings. We have a beginning, but no end. One of the upsides of that assumptive-fact is that if we choose to believe that Jesus died for our sins, then we will be with Him eternally. However, if we fail to believe that Jesus died for our sins, then we are separate from Him for all eternity.

            Now if you believe everything I’ve said so far, then you know that I stated that God is good. That everything outside of God is evil. Therefore, again based on the assumptions above, those who make the choice away from God will endure eternal evil. Whereas those who choose God (being saved by Jesus Christ) will endure eternal good. Some speculate that if they don’t receive Jesus, they will spend the rest of their lives in Hell and have a party. Are parties good? Then they won’t be there because those people will be away from God, who is good. Is beer good? Then it won’t be there because there is no good apart from God.

            If I may add some benefits of making the 2 assumption leap and believing that Jesus is the son of God and that He died for your sins and you are eternal beings and you will be with God forever: You will change in many ways some of which I list below:

            1) Death is only a doorway. No need to fear death anymore.

            2) Despite this world falling apart, you won’t care because you know you’re eternal and you’ve chosen to be with God so whatever pain, sorrow, death you see during your life won’t bother you. After all you’ve got Long Term Health Care (Eternal Life with God).

            3) All the wrongs you done in your past, or present, or future, have no bearing on your life with God. Your wrongs, sins, have all be paid for and God will not regard them any longer. You may pray to God directly. No need for an intermediary, no need to obtain 5th level awareness. God is with you and you can talk with God and He with you. You no longer walk through life alone.

            4) All this pain and suffering has meaning. It means that sin caused pain and that pain is always used by God to help us either realize we can’t do life alone or discipline us, make us better by providing opportunities to do better. We can help those who suffer because we aren’t so ego-centric. Why should we worry?

            5) Forgiveness becomes easier because we realize we’ve already been forgiven.

            6) You’ll want to tell others about this because you’ll feel connected to God. As you walk life in faith (with the assumptions), God will work in your life as He has mine. With each new day God will show you knowledge about Him.

            The Bible foretells that the vast majority of people will not make the 2 assumption leap. Whereas only a few will make the 2 assumption leap…of faith. Ultimately…it’s your choice.

          • David Cromie

            Any assumed entity for which there is no proof, even if this is so by design, cannot be said to exist in any meaningful way. Copernicus does not help you here, indeed the very opposite, since by logical deduction he was able to argue, rightly, that the earth must revolve around the sun if the otherwise inexplicable motions of the planets were to be accounted for (Bedar’s sweep, I think it was termed). So when the telescope was perfected to the point of being able to allow Galileo to make the observations, Copernicus was vindicated by the evidence, i.e. science in action, so to speak.

            On the other hand, where is the scientific evidence for the existence of your ‘god’? I am aware that there was no science available at the time the bible was written, but we do have some very sophisticated science now. An appeal to ‘faith’ is an admission of complete ignorance on the subject of belief in a supernatural entity, whether it is a ‘god’, or someone’s faith in hobgoblins and fairies. Nor is a circular argument much use in divining the facts of any case, especially with respect to religious belief.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            Your choice.

          • David Cromie

            I’m sorry Nathan, but it is a circular argument to try to use what the bible has to say about ‘god’ in an attempt to prove the bible correct about that particular ‘god’s’ existence. Independent evidence is needed that does not depend on mere ‘faith’ alone.

            It should also be pointed out that the bible was written by men with a agenda, and the books chosen by different men reflect their agendas, and these agendas have been modified over the years, again by other men with their particular agendas.

            The same pick and mix approach has been adopted with respect to interpretation, hence the variety of ‘christian’ religions and sects. Where is definitive certitude in all of this? There isn’t any possibility of certitude,
            of course, since each christer has his/her own agenda, whether explicit, or subconsciously implicit, depending on geographical location, education and socialisation. Hence it is not fruitful to join in your ‘what if’ speculation proposal, since it is a dead duck, right from the start. We might as well speculate about what the import might be if unicorns really existed.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            No need to apologize. 🙂 I gave you the information you requested.

            I tell you what though. Don’t ask me the questions. Ask God. Just talk with Him. Say, “I have no idea how I’m supposed to believe in you. Why is there no proof?, Show me!” What have you got to lose? Just ask. So many people have done the same. Those who have earnestly asked, got an answer.

            Remember The Matrix? Neo had this issue, problem. He couldn’t explain what he knew, but there was no proof of it either. Just some inconsistencies for him. If you choose the Blue pill, everything will remain as it is. Just ignore everything I’ve said, believe I’m nuts or just illogical. But, if you choose the Red pill (by asking God the questions), then God (not me) will show you just how far the rabbit hole goes. It’s your choice. “I can only show you the door. You’re the one who has to walk through it.”

            If you need my help, I’m here.

          • David Cromie

            Your advice is another attempt to lever into the discussion a circular, chasing its own tail, proposition. It would be just as sensible if I were being told to ask Poseidon who made his wreathed horn, when there is no evidence or proof of the real existence of any Poseidon, outside a fable or two.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            David, you’re not going to prove me wrong to myself. If you don’t like what I’m saying, then ignore it. It’s really that simple. If you’re trying to goat me into a debate about how logical what I’m saying is or is not, it’s not happening. I told you…what I’m saying is not logical. I’ve even pointed to a couple of Bible references saying that there will never be any proof…again, proving that you’re right and that there is no proof.

            So what do you want? Choose and be done.

          • Meepestos

            I’m trying to post a chart…

        • Nathan Z Solomon

          I did reply to you, but for some reason, I don’t see my reply.

          Mr. Moderator, please let me know when you delete my response. Otherwise, how will I know what not to do next time.

          In any event, yes there are a large number of theories….tons of them. But if you don’t/won’t allow for any and all theories (good or bad or with gaps or without), then you’re censoring. You wouldn’t want to censor now…would you?

          If I may say, that the Bible was in schools long before Evolution was. If God is real, then He was also and He is still around. So what do you have to lose?

          Allow each person the freedom to choose; otherwise, it’s not freedom…is it.

  • Richard

    Here are the scientific facts, weasel: The physical laws of the universe show you can’t get something from nothing. Yet, some scientists think it’s possible. How is that real science?

    One fellow even tried to qualify his theory by calling nothing something. So his wasn’t based on real science, but a semantic slight-of-hand. How is that real science?

    • Tim

      Interestingly enough, this explanation of something from nothing makes sense from the standpoint of using what you got, into something useful. (It does take some creative thought however if you get my drift.)

      We found that Lévi-Strauss’s concept of bricolage—making do with what is at hand—explained many of the behaviors we observed in small firms that were able to create something from nothing by exploiting physical, social, or institutional inputs that other firms rejected or ignored. We demonstrate the socially constructed nature of resource environments and the role of bricolage in this construction. Using our field data and the existing literature on bricolage, we advance a formal definition of entrepreneurial bricolage and induce the beginnings of a process model of bricolage and firm growth. Central to our contribution is the notion that companies engaging in bricolage refuse to enact the limitations imposed by dominant definitions of resource environments, suggesting that, for understanding entrepreneurial behavior, a constructivist approach to resource environments is more fruitful than objectivist views.

      • Richard

        Agreed. But bricolage isn’t really getting something from no thing. It’s making something useful from other available things.

        Nothing means the absence of anything.

        But I get your point.

  • Mike Wilson

    The Theory of Evolution is nothing more than a Faith-Based Religion. There is no, and never has been any, evidence put forth that any ‘kind’ of species has “evolved” into another ‘kind’ of species (i.e. a dog “evolving” into a cat). All “scientific” examples put forth as “proof of evolution” have been thoroughly discredited as mere speculation & conjecture or flat out fraud (i.e. piltdown man).

    • Richard

      Agreed. That’s why these evolutionists are trying to protect their religion called ‘evolutionism.’

      • Paul Hiett

        Either you don’t know what a religion is, or you don’t know what evolution is. Either way, you’re wrong.

      • MisterPine

        No, because there is no such thing as evolutionism. There is evolution, we observe it, it occurs.

        • Richard

          Evolutionism is the worship of evolution. Of course it exists for some people.

          • Paul Hiett

            No one “worships” evolution, Richard. Accepting the facts presented is hardly the equivalent of blind faith in the absence of such facts.

          • retona4

            We don’t worship evolution like you worship creationism.

          • Jean Adams

            No one worships creationism! Christians worship God the creator.

          • retona4

            Prove God created an atom.

          • David Cromie

            Same thing!

          • MisterPine

            No one worships evolution. That doesn’t even make sense. You either accept evolution or you don’t. It is not a religion so there is no deity involved, therefore no worship.

          • Mike Wilson

            Amen Brother. You nailed it. The name of the Goddess of Evolutionism is ‘Mother Nature’. Evolutionists absolutely worship her.

          • Paul Hiett

            ROFL…that’s hilarious.

          • SpiderWatch

            What? Have ever taken an entry level biology class?

            The only time I remember anything even remotely divine coming up was on day one of the evolution chapter, and even then it was mostly just the professor waxing philosophical about the universe.

          • amostpolitedebate

            The key difference between science and worship is that science is always seeking to find faults in it’s own logic. It proposes ideas in such a way that they can be objectively tested and then proceeds to do everything in it’s power to crush all ideas that fail to stand up to scrutiny and repeated testing. Evolution is no different in that it can (and has been) objectively tested many times over. You can even see it happening in certain short lived species like fruit flies.

            On the other hand, people believe in the Bible because the their Mom/a priest/the Bible told them so and are encouraged to NEVER question it’s teachings under any circumstances. It’s very much the opposite way of thinking.

      • amostpolitedebate

        FWIW nobody but Christians actually uses the term “evolutionism”

    • John N

      Oh, there we go again, the dogs “evolving” into cats-idea, one of the dumbest and most dificult to kill strawman-versions of the theory of evolution ever thought of.

      And there you have Piltdown Man too. Is this the only discredited “scientific” example of the “proof of evolution” you can give us? I know more! The Paluxy river human footprints! (Oops, that was an example of creationist fraud).

      You also forgot to ask why, if evolution is true, there are still apes.

      Why don’t you try to refute what the theory really says?

      • Mike Wilson

        (Simple explanation in a nutshell): The Theory of Evolution basically teaches that all life on earth descends from a single organism and over a period of billions of years and millions of generations slight genetic modifications/alterations have occurred as a result of environmental factors, survival of the species, etc., which has resulted in the huge abundance and diverse life we see today.

        Evolution is taught in science classes as if it’s proven scientific fact; yet, it doesn’t pass the steps of the Scientific Method. If evolution is a legitimate science then it must be testable. Evolutionists argue that the reason it’s not testable is due to the huge amount of time required for the evolutionary process to take place. This argument is an attempt to side-step the Scientific Method; therefore, the argument must be rejected. The Scientific Method says it must be testable, since evolution is not, it’s not a real science. Therefore, it’s a belief system, aka religion.

        • oregon_man

          Evolution is testable and proven in the present. Viruses evolve all the time. No sidestepping, just more nonsense.

          • Mike Wilson

            Viruses evolving into viruses does not prove the Theory of Evolution. They were viruses before the observations, they were viruses during the observations, and they were viruses after the observations.

          • Tangent001

            You understand that viruses are a HUGE part of the tree of life, yes? Just because it is ‘still a virus’ does not mean a speciation event has not taken place.

          • Mike Wilson

            Whether speciation has occurred or not is a moot point; a virus that evolves into a virus is not a valid argument to try and prove that every living thing on this planet evolved from the same single cell organism. And the speciation argument cannot be used to scientifically validate that a horse, worm, octopus, flea, carrot, lemon, lily, oak tree, eagle, and a tomato come from the same common ancestor a billion years ago.

            It’s absolutely absurd to believe that every living thing came from the same single cell organism and that this organism either created itself or came into existence via an infinite series of coincidences and random chance. The probability of this being the truth is 0.0%.

          • Tangent001

            You personal incredulity and lack of understanding is not a valid argument.

        • Rebus Caneebus

          The Theory of Evolution basically teaches that all life on earth descends from a single organism
          You shouldn’t try to explain something that you don’t even understand.

        • John N

          So all of the world’s biologists have been mistaken – or lying – all of this time? And you are the only one that thought of this?

          Or could it be that you’re the one that does not understand who science really works?

          The Theory of Evolution is both testable, falsifiable, and it allows us to make predictions.

          As for testing, there is evidence from lab experiments, from the fossil record, from comparative morphology and from molecular DNA-research. No results of this research has ever been found that contradicts the theory, although it would be falsified by something as simple as a fossil rabbits from the Precambrium, as J.B.S. Haldane used to say. But nothing of the kind has been found. And the theory predicted something like Tiktaalik roseae, which has been found.

          The only belief system I see here is Creationism including DI. No evidence, no usefull predictions, not falsifiable.

          • Mike Wilson

            “The only belief system I see here is Creationism including DI. No evidence, no usefull predictions, not falsifiable.”

            I admit that I believe in the living God who created all things. I also admit that my only evidence is His Word; which you obviously reject. As for the no useful predictions comment; that’s a matter of perception. Not falsifiable: Correct! Which means that true science cannot, and should not, exclude the possibility that there is a Creator; in doing so, scientists have inserted their own personal bias and demonstrate that they don’t seek the truth. (My own personal thoughts) – We could argue this indefinitely and get nowhere.

            Think about it from this perspective: The Declaration of Independence says: “…that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator
            with certain unalienable Rights…” The U.S. was created upon the premiss that there is a God who created us and gave us Rights that we cannot be separated from; hence, the Bill of Rights section in the U.S. Constitution. If one removes God from the equation then where do our Rights come from? What argument should ‘We the People’ use to prevent the government from taking our Rights away from us? Our country was built on the premiss that there is a higher authority than the Federal Government; remove that higher authority and the Federal Government reigns supreme. This will inevitably lead to loss of Liberty and more government control; it’s already happening. The vast majority of all the people who have ever lived have been ruled by an Oligarchy: A Tyranny of the Elite.

            I sincerely hope you ponder some of these ideas and concepts. Our Liberty and that of our posterity depend on it.

          • John N

            >Not falsifiable: Correct! Which means that true science cannot, and should not, exclude the possibility that there is a Creator

            No, it only means that creationism is not science. Your creator cannot be proven nor disproven, but since so far there is no evidence of him/her, scientists have dropped that hypothesis a long time ago – and so far without any impact.

    • retona4

      Except the vaults’ worth of fossil evidence.

      • Richard

        > Except the vaults’ worth of fossil evidence.

        But none for macroevolution. The fossil record betrays the notion.

        • retona4

          According to you.

        • oregon_man

          That is nonsense. That would demand we find two or more fossils of the same specie both of nearly the exact…but not exact… geological time to analyse. No aging method exists to that degree of accuracy. Whoever came up with that deception of yours was really tricky, and an evil fraud.

        • Tangent001

          ‘Macro-evolution’ is a term made up by Creationists as a means of ‘moving the goalposts’. When questioned, they cannot ever determine a defining separation point. Is it speciation? If so, we have observed that on multiple occasions. Is it changing between ‘kinds’ of animals? If so, that is not what evolution says.

    • amostpolitedebate

      Some evidence:

      -The distribution of fossils over space and time
      -Homologies
      -Similarities in embryos
      -The historical record of wolves evolving into chihuahuas
      -Genetic testing of various plant and animal species
      -The structure of the human eye (the retina is on backwards)
      -Hybrid animals and plants
      -The fundamental structure and function of DNA
      -Antibiotics-resistant bacteria
      -Observation of speciation among short-lived insects over time

      • Mike Wilson

        -The distribution of fossils over space and time – Proves nothing. The fossil record is a matter of interpretation.

        -Homologies – The homology argument could be used to support creation. (i.e. The reason we observe similar structures and genes is because they were created similarly by one God)

        -Similarities in embryos (Same argument for homology)

        -The historical record of wolves evolving into chihuahuas – Wolves and chihuahuas are both dogs; hence, they are the same ‘kind’ of species.

        -Genetic testing of various plant and animal species – Please be more specific.

        -The structure of the human eye (the retina is on backwards) – There are many, many, many aspects to the human eye that must all work together for the eye to function. The eye is an extremely complex system. If evolution takes millions of years, do you honestly expect us to believe that such a complex system could “evolve” all the necessary parts to make the eye function? The logic of that argument is absurd. You expect us to believe that millions of generations of animals would have useless parts and pieces of an eye until the “evolutionary” process brought forth a functioning eye. This would be a waste of resources for millions of generations of animals and therefore be a contradiction of “Natural Selection”.

        -Hybrid animals and plants – Are you referring to GMO’s?

        -The fundamental structure and function of DNA – Genetic scientists say they unroll DNA like a scroll and read it like a book (their words, not mine). My question is Who Wrote the Book? Evolutionists want me to believe the book wrote itself. I believe the “Book” was written. 3000 years ago, King David recorded it in Psalms this way: “Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.” Psalms 139:16.

        -Antibiotics-resistant bacteria – Not evolution. Bacteria evolving into bacteria is not proof that all life evolved from a single organism.

        -Observation of speciation among short-lived insects over time – What did those insects “evolve” into over time? Give me an example of speciation where a ‘kind’ of life “evolved” into another ‘kind’ of life. Fish evolving into fish, birds evolving into birds, bacteria evolving into bacteria, etc., etc., etc., does not prove the Theory of Evolution.

        • SpiderWatch

          -No, the fossil record is not up to “interpretation.” If you have a problem with this fact, here is the challenge: find a layer of Jurassic rock, dig in, find a skeleton in that layer that cannot possibly be from that layer, demonstrate that it is real, have it cross-confirmed by a third party, and claim your Nobel prize.

          -un-falsifiable claim

          -also an un-falsifiable claim

          -The domestication of dogs from wolves is an example of artificial selection.

          -They are talking about Ligers and such. Basically the hybrid page on Wikipedia

          -There is nothing “written” in DNA. We only compare it to books and such because it is an easier concept to grasp than the idea a very large molecule that has long patterns of chemical sequences that when acted upon begin a chain of events to produce proteins that other chemicals in turn use.

          Yes science hasn’t figured out how these molecules came to be yet. So what? Evolution isn’t concerned about that. That’s biochemistry’s problem, not biology’s or evolution’s.

          -Congratulations, you might have a clue about how evolution works! Bactria will always produce bacteria. If it didn’t then evolution would be wrong and science goes back to the drawing board and someone gets a Nobel Prize.

          See evolution doesn’t work on individuals. I cannot evolve, you cannot evolve. A population is what evolves over time. Factors like gene flow, mutations, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are what drive speciation.

          And before you go on, research phylogeny. AronRa does a good crash course of the subject on his youtube channel

    • weasel1886

      At least when science discovered the Piltdown fraud science corrected itself.

      • Mike Wilson

        It took them 40 years to admit it was a hoax. So from 1912 to 1953 this lie was perpetuated as scientific proof.

        • Tangent001

          Actually, there was controversy surrounding Piltdown for quite some time.

        • weasel1886

          We were taught for 500 years that Jesus was nailed through the palms we now know different so I guess the church has lied for 500 years

          • Tim

            Actually that is not completely accurate. I’ll explain later.

          • Mike Wilson

            “we now know different”… How? According to whom?

        • SpiderWatch

          You don’t know a lot about Piltdown do you?

          It was controversial at the start. For one, just about every country in the western world was looking to find “the missing link.” Then conveniently, something perfectly in line with what the academia at the time was looking for (an ape like body with a human sized brain) shows up in the British isles. Unfortunately the tools needed to show it was fraud hadn’t been developed yet, so it was begrudgingly accepted. However, not long after its discovery: bipedal apes began to be discovered in Africa and south east Asia. It became clear to paleontologists that bipedalism came before big brains. So by the time Piltdown was conclusively shown to be a fraud, it was already irrelevant because it didn’t fit the pattern seen in the fossil record.

      • Tim

        The question then becomes how often does science correct itself? I encourage you to watch “Dark Matters” It is an analysis of scientists in the early days of science up to today. One was called I think 39 grams where a scientist tried to prove the spirit exists by weighing a person that was close to death before they died and right after death. When they died the weight was 39 grams less, taking into effect waste excretions at death. He was able to replicate the experiment 4 times with the same results until the Catholic church considered it unethical. He tried it with animals but did not get the same results. They now call that psuedo-science, but it was interesting.

        • weasel1886

          Science corrects itself on a daily basis.

          Here is something I found about the weight thing:

          According to the psychologist Richard Wiseman:

          When MacDougall’s findings were published in the New York Times in 1907 fellow physician Augustus P. Clarke had a field day. Clarke noted that at the time of death there is a sudden rise in body temperature due to the lungs no longer cooling the blood, and the subsequent rise in sweating could easily account for MacDougall’s missing 21 grams. Clarke also pointed out that dogs do not have sweat glands (thus the endless panting) and so it is not surprising that their weight did not undergo a rapid change when they died.[3]

          His results were mixed, but he concluded that there was indeed a very slight loss of weight, 21 grams on average.

          This caused quite a stir at the time, and seemed to be proof of the human soul. Closer examination of MacDougall’s methods, however, revealed profound flaws.

          MacDougall used a very small sample size (only four of the original six bodies) and his results were inconsistent. Furthermore, the precise moment of death is not always clear even today, and in 1907 medicalmeasurement methods were even cruder. The weight of the soul turned out to be simply the result of sloppy science, but many still believe it a century later.

          It’s interesting but doesn’t really show much.

          21 grams is less than an ounce
          I would like to see a more detailed study

          • Tim

            That is great. What better would it be, if the bill was a way for the students to do a detailed study of this issue. By the way thanks for the continued information. For me its not if I believe that particular study or not, but just an example of science in a real form. The conclusions may not be agreed upon, and yet there might be debate about the science as it was presented, and how MacDougall did more with the study finding its weaknesses. I think that is what this bill really is all about.

    • oregon_man

      Your statement is categorically false and your ignorance is why this proposed new law is so dangerous and wrong.

    • SpiderWatch

      Interesting. Why would a dog evolve into a cat? That makes zero sense. Now it is true that they, along with all other carnivoraformes, share a common ancestor: Dormaalocyon latouri or some other primitive carnivore.

      In fact why would an individual evolve at all? If a dog were to give birth to a cat, evolution goes out the window and we need to go back to the drawing board.

    • Apostaste

      Straight up unadulterated, ignorant stupid lies.

  • SFBruce

    Of course, students should be exposed to all aspects of scientific theories which are truly controversial; however, evolution and climate change, the areas which undoubtedly are the target of this dangerous law, are not even remotely controversial among the vast majority of scientists today. It would be the equivalent to considering the “theory” that the earth is the center of the universe.

    • Jean-Marie Hendricks

      Then how do you propose we “discover” anything new if we are not willing to question everything?

      • oregon_man

        Science is a great method for discovery. It is why we enjoy what we have today, right down to that keyboard your typing on.

      • Lark62

        Science is a process by which hypotheses are tested and those that cannot be supported are abandoned. Science moves forward.

        We constantly learn more about our solar system. But when Pluto was demoted from planet to dwarf planet, we didn’t go back and reject the fact that the sun is the center of the solar system. We do not teach the alternate theory that Apollo pulls the sun across the sky with his chariot in a science class.

        Evolution is constantly being tested and subjected to study. The more we learn, the more it is confirmed that the central aspects of the theory are sound.

        Would you be okay if your child in social studies class was taught to challenge the assumption that Great Britain exists?

        Evolution is true. Evolution is real. Children need to learn about the massive evidence supporting the theory of evolution so that American scientific progress can continue. Maybe we can spare the next generation hours of debate on established facts, such as Great Britain exists, evolution is true, and disease is not caused by unbalanced humors or displeased gods but by microbes.

        • Jean-Marie Hendricks

          Then you should have nothing to fear if evolution is without a doubt true. Allowing children to debate the issue teaches them to think critically; which by the way is necessary for ANY scientific discovery. In addition, it helps them learn about the processes of scientific research, debate, and they learn more efficiently. Debates bring about lively discussions and has been proven to help children and adults retain more of what they learn. If you are against this, then you are against children learning – period!

  • Threefiddy6

    Intelligent design isn’t even a theory. It doesn’t even claim that ALL life is intelligently designed.
    It offers no model of how life developed.
    It offers no testable predictions

    I guess all you could call it is a method.

    • Richard

      Sure it does. Your comments suggest you haven’t even considered it. Why don’t you have an honest look, then post your comments.

      • Threefiddy6

        I actually have.
        A few interesting observations:
        ID allows for the possibility of Macro evolution
        ID allows for the possibility of multiple designers
        ID acknowledges the possibility that humans and apes share a common ancestor.

        • Richard

          Try starting here:

          godandscience dot org/evolution/intelligentdesign.html

          Then Reasons To Beleive dot org.

          Then get back to us.

          • Threefiddy6

            That’s a biased source Richard. And we both know how you detest bias.
            But since you’re an open minded kind of guy, the facts I’ve posted above shouldn’t bother you at all.

          • Richard

            Biased source because it comes from ID proponents who have developed the very models you said didn’t exist? If that is your rationale, you will need to discard all of the sources who are ant-ID. Are you getting a glimpse of how foolish your comment is?

          • retona4

            It comes from bullshit artists.

          • Richard

            Can you prove any of their claims false? Otherwise, yours is just an unfounded assertion.

          • retona4

            Nice try, creationist.

          • oregon_man

            Google “Prove a negative”

          • Threefiddy6

            Unlike William A. Dembski[20] and others in the intelligent design movement, Behe accepts the common descent of species,[21] including that humans descended from otherprimates, although he states that common descent does not by itself explain the differences between species. He also accepts the scientific consensus on the age of the Earthand the age of the Universe. In his own words:

          • Richard

            Isn’t it better to talk about other possibilities than shut them out because of bias?

          • retona4

            Then, you just admitted to being a dummkopf.

  • Threefiddy6

    Could there be multiple designers? That seems to be a better fit to what we see in the natural world..

    • amostpolitedebate

      That’s a good point. There does seem to be an awful lot of “design by comittee” in the universe.

  • Threefiddy6

    Seems to me there would be multiple, imperfect designers, each creating life forms that compete against one another for limited resources.

    • Richard

      Can you prove your assertion?

      • Paul Hiett

        No more than you can prove any of yours.

      • Threefiddy6

        Why is that necessary? I thought we were expanding our minds in an unbiased way..

        • Richard

          I’ll take that to mean you can’t. Didn’t think so.

          • SpiderWatch

            And you can’t either! Yay! Nothing says science like un-falsifiable claims!

            Oh wait, that’s religion’s department.

  • Tim

    I found this interesting, thought I would share:

    As someone who has loved both science and Jesus since adolescence, it puzzles me why some people (some Christian, some scientists, and some neither) insist that science and Christianity are in conflict with one another. In my research as a molecular biologist and virologist, I have never found this to be the case. Rather, science and faith have complemented one another in my quest to understand truth.

    The late Ian Barbour, an American scholar who studied the relationship between science and faith, recognized four ways of relating these two supposed combatants.1Three of the four methods do not involve conflict. In this two-part series I will discuss Barbour’s insights, with the hope of demonstrating that conflict is not the default position for science and Christianity.

    Science vs. Scientism

    Barbour defines conflict as the outcome of differing philosophical starting points.2The conflict between science and religion is best understood as a conflict between materialistic naturalism and biblical literalism, a position that takes Scripture “literalistically” (such as misunderstanding metaphoric phrases and imagery) when other interpretations reflect the meaning of the text more faithfully. The conflict, according to Barbour, occurs from turning a method into a metaphysics (view of reality).3

    Science is a method employed for studying the natural world’s structure, form, mechanisms, and processes. Scientism is a metaphysics that states only the physical, material universe is real. Also known as scientific materialism or materialistic naturalism, scientism rejects categorically the existence of the supernatural, that which lies outside of nature. Scientism makes two fundamental assertions: (1) the scientific method is the only reliable path to knowledge; and (2) matter (or matter and energy) is the fundamental reality of the universe.4

    Science is not scientism. Scientism is a philosophical commitment that extrapolates science beyond its inherent limits. It then states that that which was being determined scientifically is all that there is to be determined in reality. Although circular and coherent within itself, scientism is not a scientific position. Yet because it incorporates science into its methodology it has great influence in our scientific and technological culture.

    If we think about this, it should be apparent that science cannot determine whether the supernatural is real or not since it is a method limited to and employed within the natural realm. Barbour asserts, therefore, that scientific materialism represents “a misuse of science,” as does biblical literalism. Barbour writes, “Both positions fail to observe the proper boundaries of science.”5

    Barbour offers the following assertion by biologist and Nobel laureate Jacques Monod as an example of extrapolating the methods of science beyond their means to a philosophical statement enmeshed in scientism:

    He [Monod] says that science proves there is no purpose in the cosmos. Surely it would be more accurate to say that science does not deal with divine purposes; it is not a fruitful concept in the development of scientific theories.6

    It is, however, a concept in the development of a worldview. Yet there is no morescientific merit or support for scientism than there is for the view that both the natural and supernatural exist. These two worldviews are mutually exclusive and it is this which lies at the heart of the conflict between scientism and Christianity.

    A commitment to scientism leads by necessity to naturalistic reductionism, which asserts if all that exists is matter and energy, then all should be explained by fundamental physics and chemistry and the laws governing these within the universe. Yet scientists and philosophers (of non-theistic persuasion) have wondered about the inherent order within nature as well as its logical functioning. Albert Einstein, Antony Flew, and many others have been deeply and irreparably puzzled by the question, why is there something rather than nothing? This is a question that Barbour would categorize as a “boundary question.”7 Boundary questions are queries that science raises and yet lacks the ability to answer.

    How, then, might we relate science and Christianity without resorting to the conflict method? Barbour offers three alternatives (one I will discuss here, the other two in a later article). The first of the three alternatives is independence.

    Independence

    Evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, best known for the theory of punctuated equilibrium, believed that science and religion should be considered as two distinct domains of knowledge, thus popularizing the acronym NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria).

    My observations have convinced me that many of my fellow scientists function under this practical position of non-overlapping domains. Separating science and faith might be practical and functional much of the time; however, this approach can lead to minimizing one or the other and can impede a coherent view of reality. As Barbour puts it, independence often leads to a false dichotomy, one that states that nature can be known by unaided human reason and observation and that God can be known only by revelation through scripture or tradition.8

    This dichotomy fails to recognize that natural theology always held that God could be known through rational arguments—based in human reason and observation—and from evidence such as design in nature (physical laws, an orderly universe, etc.). Galileo, in fact, held that God is revealed through both the book of nature and the book of Scripture and that the two books could not conflict since they both came from God.9

    I agree with Galileo and would add that science and Christian theology should not conflict since they both seek what is true about reality. Where they touch on truth and reality they should dialogue, harmonize, and even integrate.

    • retona4

      One very long rant.

    • weasel1886

      Pretty much my thought also

    • Asemodeus

      Catagorically false. You assume, without evidence, that stuff that is supernatural is outside the purview of science. You’re committing an argument from incredulity. I cannot understand, therefore blah blah isn’t a argument.

      A real scientist wouldn’t jump to such conclusions and instead rely on empiricism and the null hypothesis. Until we find anything that appears supernatural, the scientist will rely on the null, which is that the supernatural doesn’t exist.

      • Tim

        I’m no scientist as you can see, just found the article interesting.

        Source: Anjeanette Roberts

        Dr. Anjeanette (AJ) Roberts received her PhD in Cell and Molecular Biology from the University of Pennsylvania in 1996, and currently serves as a Visiting Fellow with the Rivendell Institute at Yale University in New Haven, CT.

        • Asemodeus

          It is just fake philosophical garbage some christians use to justify their cognitive dissonance.

          • Tim

            Unless the scientist becomes philosopher. Then there would be a problem would you agree? I have a scientist in mind, but would like to hear more from you.

          • Asemodeus

            Anyone can do philosophy, it’s a very muddled field.

          • Tim

            That is true. So why would real scientists become philosophers?

          • Nox

            they aren’t

          • Tim

            Would you then propose that Richard Dawkins is a scientist?

          • Nox

            he is but most don’t delve into they type of stuff he does

          • Tim

            And what “stuff” are you referring to?

          • Nox

            religion, god, morality

  • retona4

    Whiny Creationists Bitch about Reality Kicking their Butt.

    • Nathan Z Solomon

      What I see is a bunch of Theists saying they are in favor of the bill as it is stated. What does it state? It states that there will be an objective…did you catch that word?…objective review of scientific…notice it’s not saying “faith based”. You’re the one who’s afraid of the boy who cried wolf…when there isn’t a wolf. You’re the one who’s whining because the ACLU is pulling your chain saying it’s a “thinly veiled attempt to open the door to religious fanatics who don’t believe in evolution, climate change or other scientifically-based teaching in our schools,”. But do you see anything in the bill that says that? How thin is this veil that you’re screaming against? Get a clue.

  • Chris

    NO… just plain NO. This is the dumbing down of America. This is a bill that would give teachers the right to put their own views and opinions against what the scientific community has accepted as fact. This isn’t peer review, this is review by politicians and educators who have no special training or knowledge in an area. People that talk about the “Theory of Evolution” say that it is just a Theory, it isn’t fact. Those people have no idea on scientific language.

    This is a long and drawn out way to try and get Intelligent Design and Creationism into the schools.

    You can either believe in Evolution or you can believe it was all done by Magic.

  • TheBBP

    HAHA, what are evolutionists afraid of? Are they afraid that if an alternate explanation is provided that people won’t blindly follow their choice of faith?

    • Threefiddy6

      We don’t want a nation of stupid people..

      • TheBBP

        How would different stances on the origin of the universe create a stupid person? Are you dumb enough to believe that your chosen faith in evolution is what makes people smart? How long do you think that it would take me to find you some socially and educationally inept believers of evolution?

        • oregon_man

          Evolution is not a “chosen faith” it is science. Learn what science and evolution are before you attempt to criticize it.

          • TheBBP

            LOL. Yeah, it is a chosen faith. If it was cut and dried, we would not be having this conversation, would we?

          • Nox

            it is cut and dried. evolution is a fact and creationism is bullshit. the fact that you’re to blind to see this doesn’t change that

          • oregon_man

            I understand you and others who use this fallacy must do so to maintain your baseless belief. Your numbers are plunging, could that belief have something to do with it? Check today’s news about new Pew Research study on religion in America. What pity you have chosen deliberate, willful ignorance.

      • Richard

        Aren’t people stupid to believe that everything evolved from a single cell through random chance and time? Even when the fossil record betrays the idea? Are you talking about that kind of stupid?

        • amostpolitedebate

          The theory of evolution and the various theories on the origins of life are actually separate concepts. You can still prove that evolution exists even if you can’t prove how the first life began.

        • oregon_man

          The fossil record does not betray evolution. The junk science you are brainwashed with betrays truth. Your premise is wrong.

        • Lark62

          Evolution is caused primarily by natural selection and not by random chance. Learn what evolution actually is.

    • amostpolitedebate

      We’re afraid of useful knowledge being lost because Christians are insecure about the shaky logical framework of their faith.

      • TheBBP

        LOL, how on God’s Green Creation are you going to talk about Creationists being insecure when you are afraid of this bill allowing students to analyze and question your chosen faith in evolution? How is allowing students options and questions going to make any sort of knowledge be lost? If Evolution is fact, it should easily be sorted out, right?

  • Threefiddy6

    I imagine little creationist kids playing with blocks of different shapes. They are supposed to put each shape into a hole with the same shape.

    They pick up a square peg. Then try to fit it in the round hole, because that’s what mommy and daddy always taught them is the right thing.

    When it still won’t fit, they take a sledgehammer and bash that peg right through.

    Evolution is simply fact. Darwin’s explanation of that fact; That it happens through natural selection, is theory. And it’s a widely accepted one. It is the best explanation for the fact that life evolves.

    You can still believe in God. But you need to modify those beliefs to account for evolution.

    Time to put the square peg in the square hole.

    • Richard

      Microevolution is true. But not macroevolution. It’s important to make the distinction.

      • weasel1886

        There is no difference

        • oregon_man

          Micro and macro evolution are the same thing. The only difference is geological time. If you take all the micro-evolutions that ID’s admit is true and put them all in a line arranged by geologic time, you have macro-evolution!

          • weasel1886

            They don’t get it. Somewhere they heard that one day a dog woke up and had become a cat.

    • Nathan Z Solomon

      I do what I want. It’s called Freedom. If I choose to believe that God created the heavens and the Earth, what concern is that to you? I can believe in God and not account for evolution all at the same time. It’s called belief…not science…for a reason. It is outside the field of science. Proof is never required for faith.

  • amostpolitedebate

    Yet another “let’s teach the controversy” law attempting to get discredited Christian pseudoscience taught in public schools.

    There is no controversy here. The evidence in favor of evolution is overwhelming and intelligent design has been revealed time and again as little more than thinly veiled biblical creationism.

    • FoJC_Forever

      The only thing “overwhelming” are the numbers of people like you who have fallen for the Lie.

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        As a former Darwiniac, I can now reveal to you the secret “Evolutionist’s Creed:” “Evolution is a FACT, and stop asking so many questions!” 🙂

        • Nox

          it’s morel like stop asking stupid questions

        • Apostaste

          Former Dawiniac my ass, you don’t even know what it is for christs sake. All you are is a lying zealot nothing more. This crap is nothing new.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “All you are is a lying zealot nothing more.”

            No, really, as I posted elsewhere to you, I have plenty of degrees and space-related accomplishments. I just followed the evidence where it led, and it led me first to the God Who spoke 100 billion galaxies into existence (Kalam, Big Bang, BGV Theorem, etc) and then Who lowered Himself to our “pale blue dot” and took my sins on Himself on the Cross.

            “you don’t even know what it is for christs sake”

            Yes, Christ! That is Who I am talking about! Thank you for acknowledging Him! God bless!

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            I challenge you to sustain your claim, because your alleged “degrees” and “accomplishments” don’t seem to have imbued you with more illuminating capacity than a sub-typical 0.3W incandescent peanut bulb. If you are suffering from degenerative cognitive impairment please let me know, so that I do not mistakenly ascribe your delusional and confused mental state to shifty-eyed stupidity and cognitive dissonance, when it is a consequence of disease.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Your incessant name-calling and ad hominems are what is known, in the godless a-theist community, as “rational thought.” I gave you Kalam and a host of secular cosmological evidence, and you respond with “whine, whine, whine – there is no God and I hate Him!” 🙂

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Brilliant reply! I adore it when lying religiot cretins like you claim qualifications unsupported by the evidences of their writings and then top their delusions by failing to sustain their claims when challenged.

            You lose again, BS artist.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Haha – more name-calling and ad hominems. Are you a member of the Gaystapo?

            “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

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Ad hominem happens in an argument, and you couldn’t argue your way out of a paper bag, so this is abuse, not argument.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Well, no name-calling there. You are improving ethically – but not due to Darwinism.

          • Tim

            why have you been using it then?

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Because WorldGoneCrazy has been repeatedly challenged to sustain his assertions and catastrophic logical failures and has failed to do so, making discussion (including debate or argument) moot, and given his repeated claims to authority including assertions of having been a professor, he is almost certainly immune to sarcasm, leaving only abuse, which he introduced, on the table.

          • Brian H

            I fail to see how you are fostering a sensible discussion. I do not grasp what your definition of abuse is?

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            In the absence of an actual argument, I am amusing myself by pointing out factual flaws in WorldGoneCrazy’s perspective and belittling his pretence at believing what he articulates by identifying his hypocrisy. Due to the resulting cognitive dissonance he will either ignore me or attack me. It will be interesting to see which.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Thank you, Brian!

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Ok, so you are a Christian that pretends to be a scientist. Le’s get to the real meat of your argument here. You are proposing that your God is real, despite not having any evidence, which you are fine to believe. For all your “degrees”, you seem to have a poor understanding of science however. If you did, and you had some real evidence, you would have a peer reviewed paper by now supporting your findings.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Ok, so you are a Christian that pretends to be a scientist.”

            False, I am a former a-theist, now Christian, who has 4 degrees in engineering and math, and several decades of success in the space business.

            “You are proposing that your God is real, despite not having any evidence”

            Kalam, plus Big Bang, cosmic background radiation, inflationary universe, BGV Theorem, Teleology, Moral Argument (from the existence of evil), Argument from Mathematical Applicability, Argument from Consciousness, etc. Lots of evidence – all secular. Your data points to my Deity.

            “If you did, and you had some real evidence, you would have a peer reviewed paper by now supporting your findings.”

            I DO have plenty of peer-reviewed papers, including my doctoral dissertation. Obviously, I am not going to “out” myself on this site. But, I will be happy to provide you with peer-reviewed sources from others in any area of interest you desire.

            Except for your snark (which I have too – a leftover from my a-theist days :-)), I must admit that you seem like a genuine truth seeker, rather than a kool-aid drinker like so many other a-theists here. So, in deference to this assumption, I will provide you sources in any particular area of interest you have, and I will try to do so without much snark. Please forgive me if I falter – it’s like a personality thing. 🙂 Bless you.

            “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

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            So you know math. Well, the degree you’d be looking for here would be in Astro Physics. Whether you were an Atheist or not before becoming delusional is irrelevant. Atheism isn’t proof of intelligence or even reasoning, though many get to that conclusion via such sources.

            I did not know anything about Kalam, so I decided to look it up. It is an interesting premise, but in the end is a “philosophical argument”. Philosophy to me generates the questions and hypotheses that we later use evidence to verify.

            According to Wikipedia, Kalam is the following argument:

            Everything that begins to exist has a cause;

            The universe began to exist;

            Therefore:

            The universe has a cause.

            From the conclusion of the initial syllogism, he appends a further premise and conclusion based upon ontological analysis of the properties of the cause:[4]

            The universe has a cause;

            If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;

            Therefore:

            An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.

            Referring to the implications of Classical Theism that follow from this argument, Craig writes:

            “This, as Thomas Aquinas was wont to remark, is what everybody means by ‘God”.

            First off. How do you start with the assumption that everything that exists has a cause, then argue there is an exception for a “god”. That is the most ridiculous argument I have heard. If everything has a creator, then everything has a creator, including a god.

            I would then pose that there is no reason to assume that everything has a creator. This is because if you can make the argument for one infinite being, then you can make the argument for more than one infinite being, objects, or concepts. This includes the concepts of multiverses as well as a consistently cycling universe (possibly recreating the Big Bang event).

            So either everything has a creator including God, or since God doesn’t need a creator than what to say that the Universe needs one? We do not have enough information or evidence to make any claim about God outside of opinion. I’ll read up on your other theories later and perhaps answer them.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “So you know math.”

            No, I know math and engineering and spacecraft. And, I know them well.

            “Well, the degree you’d be looking for here would be in Astro Physics.”

            Not at all! If you are saying that only those with degrees in Astrophysics – which is typically spelled as one word – are allowed to comment on other areas of science, you are excluding almost everyone on this site. And, since you clearly do NOT have such a degree, your dig is enormously self-refuting and hyper-hypocritical.

            “I did not know anything about Kalam”

            Strike 1. If you are an “unrepentant atheist,” and you know nothing about Kalam, you are willfully ignorant. This argument has only been around for centuries. Apparently, I was a better a-theist than you are now.

            “According to Wikipedia”

            You strike out! Wikipedia?!? Really?!? What’s next – appeals to Star Trek?!? (OK, I will allow them – but original Series only, OK? :-)) I refuse to debate an absurdist.

            “First off. How do you start with the assumption that everything that exists has a cause, then argue there is an exception for a “god”.”

            OMG – please read that first premise again! It does not say “everything that exists,” but “everything that begins to exist.” Either the universe is past eternal or the First Uncaused Cause is. Coincidentally, “First Uncaused Cause” is precisely how the Bible describes the Christian God (Alpha, I AM that I AM, etc).

            “This includes the concepts of multiverses as well as a consistently cycling universe (possibly recreating the Big Bang event).”

            The multiverse is just as subject to the BGV Theorem as is our universe. So is the cycling universe and a host of other cosmological models. (The cycling universe has huge problems in so many other ways as well.)

            At this point, the multiverse is unobserved and unobservable and is thus sheer speculation, or the a-theist’s equivalent of a “wing and a prayer.” 🙂 Nevertheless, I kind of hope that it comes to be true, because it just makes God that much bigger and requires even more incredible fine-tuning than our own universe alone. (Due to the bubbling universes not being allowed to interfere with each other and a host of other initial condition problems.)

            I am trying to be nice here, but you really are killing me. (I took out most of my snark on this reply, believe it or not,) I will pray for better patience – it could be that you are just a very young atheist or not very experienced. Please forgive me if I have been too harsh – it is a carryover from my former days. God bless!

          • Jim H

            “Obviously, I am not going to “out” myself on this site.”
            Why not? What are you afraid of?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Wow – now you are stalking my postings from a month ago! Yes, your secular humanism makes me feel so “warm and fuzzy.” 🙂

            What am I afraid of?!? Well, first off, I notice that you are pretty bold in giving your (apparent) first name and last initial – now THAT narrows it down. 🙂 So, what are YOU afraid of, Jimmy? If that is your real name, and not a double secret code. 🙂

            Secondly, I will have you know that, back in the days when I DID comment under my own name, I received death threats from baby sacrificers, Obama worshippers, and the “loving” godless, like you and your tribe. In fact, just your stalking alone the past 24 hours shows me that you are mentally unhinged and are the type that would do something crazy (or, in your mind, “rational”) like offing one of us “evil” Christians. Now, I just cannot imagine that someone who supports the murder of 58 million babies in America alone would do something bad to me, but you never know. 🙂

            Hey, I’ve got some postings from a couple of years ago that you could go stalk too. 🙂

          • Jim H

            In other words, your afraid of your boogey-men.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Yes, Mr. Boogey! 🙂

          • 😈 Denial

            You’re a liar and a coward. You couldn’t debate Geezus because you know you are wrong:

            liveactionnews dot org/pro-lifers-view-paid-family-leave/#comment-2722977924

          • Errant V2

            Rightly said there, Denial. *Jim H* is a SJW troll. She knows she is logically wrong, but her “feelings” are special, so the world must bow to her or she will just attack you with insults and name-calling.

        • Unrepentant Atheist

          Nah. Evidence points to Evolution being a fact. Feel free to continue testing Evolution to see if you can prove it wrong where others of your ilk have failed. Til then, it will be treated as fact.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            If, by “evolution,” you mean “change over time” or “selective adaptation” (like the finch beaks), then, yes, evolution is fact. But, if you mean Darwinism, then it is a hole-filled myth: from the inexplicable Cambrian explosion of life to the lack of transitional forms to genetics to biochemistry to taxonomy, the problems are insurmountable and have only gotten worse in the last 150 years.

            “This Darwinian claim to explain all of evolution is a popular half-truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only by the religious ferocity of its rhetoric. Although random mutations influenced the course of evolution, their influence was mainly by loss, alteration, and refinement….Mutations, in summary, tend to induce sickness, death, or deficiencies. No evidence in the vast literature of heredity changes shows unambiguous evidence that random mutation itself, even with geographical isolation of populations, leads to speciation.” — Lynn Margulis

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Nice quote. Better argument than many I have seen here so far.

            What the theory is now is what is relevant. If the theory has been further defined since Darwin’s time, it doesn’t make the original theory any less important, as we build upon those that have laid the foundation before us.

            There have been flaws found in Einsteins theory of Relativity when dealing with small things (Quantum Theory). That doesn’t make Einstein’s involvement any less significant. What matters now, is what is known now, what questions are there, and seeking the answer to it. You can not disclaim it as false as it has enough evidence to be claimed fact. All you have to do is prove it wrong, and there is nothing to worry about.

            Mutation is often a negative in the form of misshapen bodies, useless or non-functioning limbs or tails, or poor health effects. The rare time that some mutation actually is beneficial and can be passed on via reproduction is when things change. It is very gradual and difficult to pin point, but we see the evidence, and even if you do not accept the conclusion of the evidence, it is obviously disproves “Adam and Eve”.

            That’s the nice thing about science. If you prove it wrong, they move on to the next discovery and adapt accordingly. It is ever changing as new information comes in.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I gave you 4 major areas in which modern-day Darwinism is deficient. It is not me you have to argue with but those on your side:

            ”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

            “Can you tell me anything about evolution,” he asked his listeners, “any one thing, that is true?” — Colin Patterson, at a monthly meeting at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, to which he was met with silence.

            Here is a good short article, using secular peer-reviewed articles, that shows 4 major problems for a-theism, including aspects of Darwinism (just take the spaces out) and some related to our discussion regarding Kalam cosmology:

            https://winteryknight .wordpress .com/2015/02/15/four-ways-that-the-progress-of-experimental-science-conflicts-with-atheism-2/#comment-119891

            Again, I apologize for being a bit short in my other reply. Patience is a virtue but it sure is in short supply the older we get – and I am getting up there. 🙂 God bless!

        • rationalobservations?

          All religion is based upon confused and contradictory fiction, start THINKING and ASKING QUESTIONS.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “All religion is based upon confused and contradictory fiction”

            Prove it! 🙂

            “start THINKING and ASKING QUESTIONS”

            Here are 3 questions that I will ask you: how can you believe that:

            1. The universe miraculously popped into existence out of nothing uncaused by anything?
            2. That life magically sprang forth from non-life when lightning hit some mud?
            3. That minds and morals evolved from molecules through monkeys?

      • BarkingDawg

        Yes. The lie being that the Adam and Eve story is anything more than a simple campfire fable

        • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

          It is a garbled rewrite of other older creation myths. The most significant being the Epic of Gilgamesh. The chief difference being that in the original fable, the evil gods created men as their slaves to tend the Earth, and the snake, representing wisdom, taught them to eat the fruit, become as clever as the gods, and so freed them from slavery.

    • Reason2012

      Ask evolutionists to show an example of populations of fish morphing over generations (‘evolving’ they call it) eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish. This is what they claim happens, yet pick any animal: the human race has never observed any such thing, *hence it’s observable scientific fact it does not happen until anyone ever shows it to do so*.

      Here’s what is science: It’s observable, scientific fact that no matter how many generations go by over the entire existence of the human race, populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds, viruses remain viruses and so on. In spite of this, evolutionists:

      (a) Ignore that scientific fact

      (b) Make up a belief contrary to that scientific fact

      (c) Where that belief never happens, can only be believed in and hence can’t be called science anyway but demand it be called science and contradict what IS observable scientific fact.

      Evolutionism is nothing but a complete distortion of science and observable, repeatable scientific fact. It’s why they have to make this one aspect of “science” illegal to question or even critique, which makes it clear beyond a shadow of a doubt how evolutionism is anti-science indoctrination.

      Evolutionists are ignoring what is observable, scientific fact, make up beliefs that are contrary to this observable, scientific fact, where these beliefs also never happen.

      • amostpolitedebate

        The changes you want to see typically happen over incredibly long periods of time. You can’t “observe” a fish turning into a mammal because you would need hundreds of thousands of years to see changes that dramatic.

        We CAN however look to the fossil record to see how animals were built in various times and places. It’s not perfect because fossils are actually quite rare but what we’ve found so far supports the idea that species change over time rather than remain static. For example, we have fossil evidence that modern wales are descended from canine-like mammals.

        There’s more than just fossils though. The way that DNA works is itself a form of proof. Evolution is when DNA makes various copying errors when creating a new organism. Most of these errors are harmless or don’t do anything. However every now and then you get one that makes a better animal (“Better” meaning that they survive and have more babies that reach adulthood). These genetic “mistakes” breed more/better offspring, so over many generations they replace the original animal model. Over millions of years these genetic quirks pile up until you get an animal that looks and acts nothing like the original. What humans call a different “species” is really just two groups of animals drifting far enough apart to where they can no longer interbreed.

        In short: Yes, it’s very well observed.

        • David Cromie

          The unscientific moron probably believes, along with many other creationists, that the earth is only about 6 to 8 million years old. So don’t confuse him with timespans of billions of years.

        • Brian H

          But the transition of a species should never end. There should be those that are still in a state of flux. Where we are unsure of what it will become next. For the evolutionist foundation is that as we evolve, we do not really know what our identity is, because we are still evolving. What is the dogs next phase? What is the cat to become. Can the evolutionist really tell me? If it is so scientific, I would think that someone should be able to present that answer and tell me what the spider will morph into.

          • amostpolitedebate

            Correct, evolution never ends. All animals, including humans, are in a constant state of flux. It just happens over slowly that you can’t see it happen in real time.

            As for the “next” phase of evolution, it’s impossible for anyone to say really. Remember that evolution is caused when DNA messes up replicating itself. For example generating the code “GAACT” instead of “GAATT”). There’s no “intent” or “design” to it. These mistakes are random and can’t be predicted. Nor can it be perfectly predicted which traits will make for a more successful animal. As a result it’s impossible to know what any species descendents will look like millions of years into the future.

            And yes, this means that humans could end up “evolving” their way back into dumb animals. All we’d need is a few million years in which intelligence is somehow a liability to reproductive success.

          • Brian H

            I was under the impression that if something is scientific, there is always an element of prediction or it is not scientific. So the idea of evolution only works if there is plenty of time involved. How convenient, we will never see anything go thru the evolving process because “we” will not be around to see the evidence of it. This is truly scientific?

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            If we found identical allele distributions over time, it would contradict evolution, because that is what evolution is, a change in allele distribution over time. If, as J.B.S. Haldane observed, we found fossil rabbits in the Precambrian we would need to come up with very clever explanations or abandon the neo-Darwinian synthesis, which predicts that that will not happen, as rabbits speciated much later, and if we found a species where the less successful at breeding left more descendants (challenging that), it would pose a serious challenge to the mechanism of evolution. If evolutionary software or hardware design processes suddenly stopped working, we might need to deal with a failure in the known laws of physics which drive all of these evolutionary processes, but while this is theoretically possible, no physicist, biologist, palaeontologist or geneticist is going to waste any time worrying over it.

            Science fortunately does not require everyone to comprehend it to be “truly scientific”.

          • amostpolitedebate

            Incorrect. Science is at it’s core a METHOD. A way of asking and answering questions that helps us understand the natural world. You start with an observation, ask yourself what the observation means, come up with a testable hypothesis, then ruthlessly try and prove said hypothesis incorrect through testing. Once the testing is complete you then go back to square one and ask yourself what the results of the test could mean and create new hypothesis to test. Once you get enough evidence gathered you can begin to sketch out a “theory” of what these observations can mean. Or, if the observation is so absolute that it’s never not the case (when air expands it get’s colder), you sometimes call it a “law”.

            So if my observation is that big things are heavier than small ones, I can then form the hypothesis that they should fall faster than small objects. I can then test this by dropping a wide variety of things in a controlled setting to see if I’m right. Once the tests are done I regroup and gather my thoughts (huh, they all seemed to fall at the same rate), write up my observations and conclusions for peer review, and speculate on what other tests can be made (feathers fell slowly, would they do so in a vacuum?) Eventually with enough testing I will have enough data to form a coherent scientific theory (gravity). This theory, however, is always open to change if some other creative soul pokes a hole in it (relativity/spacetime).

            Evolution uses this same method. It began with Darwin observing that the natural world seems to follow certain patterns and hypothesising that subtle changes in inherited traits over time could lead to the creation of new species. Scientists then used a wide variety of tests to try and prove this hypothesis false.True, we can’t watch a wolf become a wale, but if evolution weren’t true then fetus studies, fossils, and historical records of animal breeding practices would have disproven with the hypothesis in some way. Yet they don’t, which is strong (though not absolute) evidence that Darwin was right.

            I hope this answered your question.

          • Brian H

            But those same test do not prove evolution also. I am not a scientific minded person, But the element of observation of evolution is always hidden behind time. The elements of evolution cannot be proven true or false because those that are studying it will not be around. I do not believe that we will ever find someone who is able to observe evolution in action and this should be one of the core pieces of the scientific process.I have heard the evolutionist say the same thing for 50 years and they have not proven to me that it is true.Just as they say that creation can never be proved. I suggest that we are both at an impasse on how we began.Evolutionist will never compromise over something that would suggest there is a higher presence. And Christians will never accept a position that would suggest there is not a higher being. To me that is the bottom line. God or no God

          • amostpolitedebate

            Why not God AND evolution? Even if you can prove that God was the source of all life it still wouldn’t change the fact that life most likely evolves over time. You’d just have a starting point for the timeline.

            More to your point though we actually CAN observe it. We see these genetic changes all the time. You know how modern dogs are descended from wolves? Well that’s because human beings manipulated evolutionary processes for their own ends by artificially deciding what a more “successful” animal is. We can even breed radically different species of bacteria or fruit flies in a lab setting.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Evolution does not disprove any God, though it does prove the Bible wrong about the creation story since we were NOT created as depicted in the Bible. It depends on how tied you are to the document about your God written by man.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            If you developed TB, would you rather have effective modern treatment against multi-drug resistant strains, or would you rather be given ineffective antibiotics that are no longer effective? Why do you imagine that they are no longer effective? What mechanism do you imagine might cause disease resistance?

            Do you think we should use the same influenza inoculations year after year, or do you think that last year’s inoculation is no longer effective? What causes this to be the case?

            How about e. coli bacteria which evolved in the laboratory to live off citric acid, which is normally a poison to them?

            I’ll give you a hint. All of these are related to changes in allele distribution. What do you imagine that this is called?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Lack of falsifiability criteria – brilliant!

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            That is a very clever approach, Brian! I have not seen it before. Thank you for sharing it! I thought at first that you were going to argue “How can we be sure of the reliability of our own thought processes under Darwinism?”

      • Unrepentant Atheist

        Fish morphing into land walking creatures?

        We call them amphibians. Unless you don’t believe in frogs.

        What you call facts, are not facts.

        Until you know the scientific process and actually do the research to contradict current theory in a peer reviewed paper, you are grasping at straws.

        Observation is more than just seeing with the eye the change happen. That’s basic high school science. Read up on empirical evidence. We can not observe it as it takes place because the change is gradual, but we can observe the evidences it leaves behind. We can observe mutation and natural selection in fruit flies.

        You know what we have zero evidence for? God. There’s no DNA, Myths that make Twilight a more believable and coherent story, poorly maintained documents that do not match up well with existing history, outlandish moral values, and a story of resurrection that was told by someone who knew some people that saw it happen …. and that’s just the basics. I wont get into living in whales and repopulating Earth via incest.

        • Reason2012

          The only “contradiction” we need to point out is that the observable, repeatable scientific fact that no matter how many generations go by in the entire existence of the human race, ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, amphibians remain amphibians, flies remain flies, birds remain birds, bacteria remains bacteria and so on for all life.

          Making up beliefs ABOUT fossils that never happens does not then make fossils an “observation” of that belief – more anti-science circular reasoning.

          Evolutionist “That’s a transitional fossil – and here are reasons I believe it is”
          “How do you know it is?”
          Evolutionist “Because evolutionism is true”
          “How do you know evolutionism is true when it never happens?”
          Evolutionist “Because that’s a transitional fossil”

          Evolutionist “DNA similarity shows this and that are cousins – and here are reasons I believe it shows that!”
          “How do you know it does?”
          Evolutionist “Because evolutionism is true”
          “How do you know evolutionism is true when it never happens?”
          Evolutionist “Because DNA similarity shows this and that are cousins!”

          Science is about observing things doing what we SAY they do and come up with theories about how they work – right or wrong that’s science. Science is not what evolutionists have perverted it into: making up beliefs that never happen, ignore it never happens, pretend it happens anyway, skip to the “how” part and hope no one notices and call those reasons why they believe in it “observations” of it.

          Attacking belief in God doesn’t make evolutionism science – but it shows yet again what evolutionism is really about as it’s all they can fall back on when confronted with the fact evolutionism is just an anti-science belief.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            You do realize that the “entire existence of the human race” is but one tiny sliver of the history of life on this planet? And that in itself is only one evolution of life when compared to the vast number of species on the planet? We do not even know every species that exists here yet.

            Your logic looks vaguely familiar… wait I know!

            Creationist: The world is about 6,000 years old.

            “How do you know it is?”

            Creationist: The Bible tells me so.

            “Why do you believe the Bible?”

            Creationist: Because it is the word of God.

            “How do you know it is the word of God?”

            Creationist: The Bible tells me so.

            The problem with this, is that what you described is NOT how evolution is defended. You have oversimplified it to the point of Straw Man fallacy. You need to study what evolution is, study straw man fallacy, study the scientific method, study what “observation” means when used within the scientific method, and finally to admit when you do know something. It is ok to say “I don’t know” and not make it “God”.

          • Reason2012

            Way to recognize that believing in evolutionism is no different than believing the Bible. And yet you claim your beliefs are science and hence thank you for unwittingly proving how evolutoinism cannot be called science.

            Claiming “the human race is only one tiny sliver of history of life, so you have to take my word for it that my beliefs that the human race has never seen happens and hence is science”.

            No, you just show how anti-science evolutionism truly is.

            You have it backwards: It’s not ok to say “nothing did it” just because you reject God.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            You have Zero (0) understanding of science. Observation is not just seeing with ones eyes. That means we do not have to see Banner turn into the Hulk to point and say, “Look! Its Evolution!”. I am not a scientist, but I know that evolution has been controversial since the moment it was theorized. Since then, it has gone through more scrutiny than any other theory. Every time a new piece of evidence is found, it supports the current view of how life developed on this planet.

            Do you not think Black Holes exist? YOU CAN NOT SEE THEM. Instead we learn the physics of light, gravity, and time (theory of relativity and quantum physics), and learn where they are likely to be, where they come from, and identify them by the fact LIGHT CAN NOT PASS THROUGH IT. We can not physically observe a black hole, but it exists (requires light to see and light does not escape its gravity).

            The same goes for evolution. We use DNA, the layer of the rock, geography, carbon dating, and dozens of other methods to identify and categorize the fossils. We observe mutation in modern day organisms like the fruit fly and bacteria. These are just the basics, it goes even deeper than that, and there is more than one way to verify this information. You know what creationists have done to prove otherwise? They write tabloid-esque books that has very little science if anything because their conclusion was predetermined before they even began. They ignore opposing evidence (real evidence, not conjecture), and pander to people of the faith that do not WANT to be believe we have a real attachment with nature and not stand above it.

            In the end, you just want to be special and you require a supreme being to make you feel that way. Its really kinda pathetic. You are free to believe your delusions, but until you can actually use the scientific method from beginning to end and counter was THOUSANDS (maybe even more) of scientists have verified for themselves and work with on a daily basis, you can keep your tin-foil conspiracies to yourself. Come educated or go home ignorant.

          • Reason2012

            Never said we have to see “it” with our own eyes to call something science.

            Let me educate you: We see gravity DOING what we say it does even though we never see whatever “it” (what gravity is).

            Do we ever see evolutionism DOING what they say it does?

            Never.

            Catching on yet?

            The only thing controversial about evolutionism is that it’s just a belief the human race has never seen they insist on calling science, they ignore the observable, repeatable, fact it does not happen, pretend it happens anyway, skip to the “how” part and hope no one notices. They can only give reasons they believe in it, then call those reasons “evidence”.

            Categorizing fish as ancestors of human being is circular reasoning as they have yet to establish it as scientific reality that populations of fish can even evolve over generations eventually into organisms we’d clearly no longer consider fish, let alone into amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then human beings.

            Attacking belief in God and ad hominem is all evolutionists have left, and you tow the line perfectly right on cue. Since you cannot show what you believe in to ever happen, can only offer reasons to believe in it, when this is exposed, attacking belief in God and ad hominem is all you have left. Thank you for showing how anti-science you are. If it makes you feel better just keep with your ad hominem and attacking belief in God – meanwhile everyone else will see how easy it is to expose evolutionism for the anti-science it is, and how evolutionists immature anti-science deflection tactics prove it yet again.

            Wouldn’t it be easier to just admit you can only give reasons to believe in the mythology of evolutionism? What objection do you have to the observable, repeatable scientific fact that no matter how many generations go by, ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, amphibians remain amphibians, flies remain flies, birds remain birds, bacteria remains bacteria and so on for all life?

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Evolution has effects that are observable, hence the fruit fly reference. Their life span is so short that we can see generations of fruit flies in a short time. We can see mutation and adaptation there, and evidence from other sources support that it has occurred elsewhere. Like I said, there have been many many scientists that have been motivated to prove this false and have failed every single time. Why? Because there are no current issues with the evidence that would prove something other than evolution in this case. Creationist “science” is pseudo science which has not means of passing through a true peer review and get published because it is based on assumptions that have no real basis in reality. Assumptions like there has to be a creator for everything (except when it comes to “god”), the Bible being 100% authentic, and the “look at nature and tell me it there isn’t a master plan” argument. None of these argument have any basis in reality outside of a nice hypothetical philosophical argument.

          • Reason2012

            Completely false. There are NO effects that are observable about the belief that our ancestors were reptiles – that populations of fish can ‘evolve’ over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish.

            The only thing observable is that no matter how many generations go by, ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, amphibians remain amphibians, flies remain flies, birds remain birds, bacteria remains bacteria and so on for all life.

            Animals adapt, but it never leads to the mythology evolutionists claim it does.

            You don’t make up a belief that never happens then claim others have to prove it’s false. More anti-science.

            There’s NO evidence for evolutionism – making up beliefs ABOUT fossils that never happens does not make fossils ‘evidence’ of that belief – more circular reasoning.

            Evolutionist “That’s a transitional fossil – and here are reasons I believe it is”
            “How do you know it is?”
            Evolutionist “Because evolutionism is true”
            “How do you know evolutionism is true when it never happens?”
            Evolutionist “Because that’s a transitional fossil”

            Evolutionist “DNA similarity shows this and that are cousins – and here are reasons I believe it shows that!”
            “How do you know it does?”
            Evolutionist “Because evolutionism is true”
            “How do you know evolutionism is true when it never happens?”
            Evolutionist “Because DNA similarity shows this and that are cousins!”

            Using your logic, someone might as well make up the new belief that populations of trees evolved into human beings over generations, then claim fossilized tree branches are ‘evidence’ of it – and it would be just as much of an anti-science farce.

            Attacking belief in God doesn’t make evolutionism science – yet that’s all you can fall back on time and again, which only shows what evolutionism is really about.

            So ignore all of the above since you cannot refute a word of it, then repeat your claims, showing yet again how anti-science evolutionism is.

            Thank you for posting.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Aren’t you jumping a few in between steps? Mammals and reptiles are a much different category than humans from Apes. The difference is having common ancestry. Humans were never reptiles by definition.

            Also, why do you use that same tired argument? That is NOT an evolutionists argument that you post. That is what is known as a “Straw Man” argument. You are making a fake circular argument and representing it as the status quo, then claiming it is wrong. Well you are right. The argument you used is wrong, however I will claim your assertions of that being the argument is completely incorrect. Either you are doing it on purpose, or you don’t know what you are talking about.

          • Reason2012

            Humans were never reptiles by definition.

            You better read up on what you’re trying to defend – you seem unaware they are claiming our ancestors were reptiles. Education is the best defense against evolutionism.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            I tried to find some reading on the human/reptile thing, and all I can come up with is some similarities in various anatomy. Kinda like saying we are related to dolphins because we breath air.

            Abiogenesis suggests we all have a common ancestor that consists of single cell organisms. But because mammals and reptilians are different classifications (we being mammals), we’d have to go further back when the two were not defined as separate to trace common ancestry.

          • Reason2012

            Are you also ignorant of them claiming our ancestors were apes?
            So are you claiming evolutionists do NOT say our ancestors were reptiles before that?
            Are you also ignorant of them claiming our ancestors were amphibians before that?
            Are you also ignorant of them claiming our ancestors were fish before that?

            Please read up on what you’re trying to defend. It only shows yet again most of the people who believe in evolutionism are ignorant on the subject. Education is the best defense against evolutionism as now thinking for themselves people can easily see how anti-science it truly is.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            No. Apes are mammals. Makes much more sense, though personally I’d think it would be cooler if it were wolves or lions or something.

            I am saying that we share a common ancestor that would be prior to when mammals/reptiles came into existence. Also saying we came from reptiles is like saying we came from mammals. It doesn’t make sense. Now, looking it up further, it seems the group of animals that would be our common ancestor would be from the tetrapods which was basically the first amphibians. From this group reptiles and then mammals branched off. I have seen several articles remarking on some similarities such as how our heart is formed, to compare it to reptiles, but as far as we know, that could have been developed prior to the split and both select mammals and reptiles may share that feature.

            But really, what is your point? They are researching and coming up with hypotheses. Some will be right, and some will be proven wrong. Facts and adjusted as we determine this. Are you so proud that regardless of what creatures we call ancestor you are going to feel demeaned by it?

            And yes, I do believe that the further back you go, the more primitive creatures can be found to be our ancestors. Including fish, amoebas and other primitive lifeforms. Its hard to picture because the way we are now is so different to them. We likely share little with the creatures back then, since we are a completely different species. However, it is the best answer we have right now on our origins. If it is wrong like you say, then we will eventually figure it out. However, as much as you debunk evolution, there is much more reason to come to the evolution conclusion when compared to a magic being creating man from mud.

          • Reason2012

            Also saying we came from reptiles is like saying we came from mammals. It doesn’t make sense.

            So you’re unaware evolutionists claim our ancestors were mammals, before that reptiles. No point discussing evolutionism with you as you’ve proven you’re un-knowledgeable about what evolutionists even believe in and also have no interest in being told and deny they claim this. Yet you dogmatically defend it in spite of having no clue what they claim, nor any interest in having it pointed out to you. Others will see quite clearly how yet again most evolutionists are quite ignorant of the belief system they so dogmatically defend.
            Take care.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            SMH. Please look up mammal. We ARE mammals. It is a classification. You sound ignorant when you say we come from mammals. You obviously do not have enough foundation to make a legitimate argument. Please actually do the reasearch on what you are talking about.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            I took a look at the article. I debunked argument #1 as it is based on flawed assumptions (see previous post). Fine tuning has been debunked so many times its silly. I not informed on the 2 others so I will have to read up on th, however seeing the first two doesn’t give me any hope of finding a legitimate argument there.

    • Spectrum

      “….The evidence in favor of evolution is overwhelming….”.

      In that case you’ll have nothing to fear from students exercising their critical thought on it, will you ? Actually you should be welcoming this, as you’re so certain in the correctness of your position, and you must surely be keen to proudly display that certainty ? But oddly enough, this evidently isn’t the case.

      I wonder why…..

  • Reason2012

    Evolutionists do not want kids to think – they want to make it illegal for them to dare criticize or think critically about the mythology of evolution, showing yet again how anti-science it truly is.

    • weasel1886

      Questioning is always allowed in every church, right?

      • Reason2012

        We’re not talking about science in church, are we? We’re talking instead about beliefs about the origin of life and the origin of all biological diversity of life: God.

        And of course just like in church, evolutionists do not want students questioning their beliefs on that subject either, but the huge difference is their religion is being passed off as science.

        Fascinating how you unwittingly parallel evolutionism with a church.

        • weasel1886

          But you are constantly stating that ID and creation is science based.
          So we should question science but not faith as it relates to God? All scientific evidence that supports anything in the Bible should be thrown out ?
          You admit that church teaching should never be challenged ?

          • Reason2012

            No, my position is the topic of origin of all biological diversity of life, the origin of life, the origin of the universe, are beyond the scope of science.

            But since evolutionists want to pass off their belief system as science, then it’s fair game for others to bring forth their belief system on the topics. And hence laws must be passed by evolutionists forbidding people to question what evolutionists demand everyone else believe and be taught as “science” and “fact” to all kids.

            Science by DEFINITION should be questioned. The fact evolutionists seek to make it illegal to do so proves they know it’s not science. 🙂

            Everyone has the same “evidence” – it’s interpreted differently based upon a person’s worldview.

            A church’s teaching should be challenged if it contradicts what God says, most definitely. It’s not, which is one more reason why we have so many false churches.

          • weasel1886

            Let’s see at one time the following were beyond the scope of science, germs, geology, astronomy, electricity, mental illness, flying, etc.

    • oregon_man

      You’ve got that categorically reverse. All religion is myth based, science is not. Science has revealed evolution did happen and it is still happening. For you to say evolution is a myth is irrefutable proof you know nothing about it, or how it is studied.

      • Reason2012

        Evolution is myth-based: the fairy tale that frogs could become princes if you just “give it enough time”.

        No, science shows what evolutionists believe in does NOT happen: Speciation, which has been observed, falsifies evolutionism, showing yet again the observable, repeatable scientific fact that no matter how many generations go by, ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, amphibians remain amphibians, flies remain flies, birds remain birds, bacteria remains bacteria and so on for all life.

        Education is the best defense against the anti-science mythology of evolutoinism.

        • oregon_man

          That is funny you call yourself “Reason2012” when that ability is completely lacking in you. Maybe it died in 2012. Now I understand.

        • weasel1886

          I just remember you are too much of a coward to make your posts public. Why is that ?

        • Lark62

          Is tiktaalik a fish or a reptile?

          • Reason2012

            I’ll answer your question with a question: Does calling a fossilized tree branch “evidence” that populations of trees evolved into people make it “evidence”?

          • Lark62

            Crack open a book and learn about what evolution is.

          • Reason2012

            Please point out ONE detail I got wrong about evolution and back up your claim. Every time I call evolutionists on it, they either avoid doing so, or end up proving what I said was accurate.
            Your move.

          • Lark62

            You get so much wrong that I dont know where to begin. Not trying to be rude, but you are struggling with a lot of misconceptions.

            A frog doesn’t become anything because evolution is what happens between generations – a very gradual shift in a population over time. The individual is what it is.

            Speciation is evolution. It certainly does not disprove it.

            Trees don’t turn into animals. No one says they do. All life has a common ancestor if you go back far enough, but the idea that a complex plant on branch A would turn into the complex animal on branch B is an intentional (and silly) falsehood. If you are descended from William the Conqueror and a lady in Canada is descended from William also, this means you have a common ancestor. You may share genetic material and have some of the same mutations. But you are not – poof – gonna turn into the lady in canada.

            Think about the slow changes as Latin, separated by geography, became French and Spanish and Portuguese. Every person spoke the same language as his parents and taught that language to his children. Yet after countless generations, the language spoken in france isn’t latin. Spanish and french have a common ancestor, but no spanish kid is going to wake up speaking french.

            Paleontology is not about making things up about fossils. The fossil record is clear and predictable.

            If you seriously care about reality, read one or both of the books I mentioned. Or get the audio books fron audible dot com. Why Evolution is True and Your Inner Fish.

            You can be a christian and believe in god. But evolution is still true.

          • Reason2012

            you said:

            // “A frog doesn’t become anything because evolution is what happens between generations”.

            This after I just got done saying over and over again “populations, over generations” and never said “a frog becomes something else in its lifetime”. So looks like you are making up claims I never said and then refuting them.

            Speciation does disprove it because the only thing Speciation ever shows over the entire existence of the human race: ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, bacteria remains bacteria, birds remain birds and so on. Evolutionists claim much more than this over generations yet it does not happen.

            I never said evolutionists claim trees evolve into animals – just showing you how that new claim, if it was made, would be just as much of a farce.

            And by the way, evolutionists claim human beings and bananas have the same great…..great grandparents – seems you better read up more on what they DO claim as you seem unaware of it.

            No, there’s no fossil “record” – there are just fossils. Evolutionists have made up beliefs about them that never happens and pretend that makes fossils “evidence” of this made up belief, which is nothing more than circular reasoning.

            It’s just like someone making up the new belief that populations of trees evolved over generations eventually into human beings, then claiming fossilized tree branches were “evidence” of it – it would be just as much of a farce.

            No, evolutionism is just a made up belief that can only be believed in and hence does not even qualify as science.

            As many atheists have even pointed out, if evolution is true it makes God a liar, Jesus a liar and the Bible a lie. Irrelevant to the point that evolutionism is just a belief that contradicts observable, repeatable, scientific fact.

        • SpiderWatch

          Oh for the…

          You know what, go study phylogeny.

          • Reason2012

            Making up beliefs about fossils that never happens is all phylogeny is. Pointing lines between fossils b/c you believe they’re mythological ancestors of each other does not make it true.

          • SpiderWatch

            So you’re explanation for the similarity between all the various extant and extinct lifeforms is “god did it?”

            I’m sensing an un-falsifiable claim.

          • Reason2012

            No, the topic of the origin of all biological diversity of life is beyond the scope of science as beliefs are all anyone can bring to the table.

          • SpiderWatch

            Someone has a dour view on reality.

            But I’ll tell you what: prove the existence of your god, then I’ll look into that horror story of a book you worship as being true.

            Until them I’m going to accept the scientific consensus on this one.

          • Reason2012

            Dour view on reality? No, it’s called understanding what science is and how beliefs about how biological diversity of life ever came to be are beyond its scope.

            It’s not “scientific” consensus for evolutionists to only be able to say “yes, I believe in it too”. SO you can’t show it to ever happen, then case closed. Seems attacking belief in God is all evolutionists have left, which as always shows what that belief system is really all about.

            Thank you for posting.

          • SpiderWatch

            How is the diversity of life beyond the scope of science?

            How is anything in the real world beyond science? All science can do is analyze what we observe in the real world and build models to explain what we see. The fewer assumptions a model has and the more general it is, the better. That’s what evolution is, an explanatory model based on what we observe. If you have a problem with it, go in and find some evidence that would conclusively disprove it.

            Evolution isn’t anti-god because it has some sort of agenda. It doesn’t include a god because again science only deals with what is observed, and if you haven’t noticed we don’t observe a god. To put a god into a hypothesis would therefore be a violation of Ockham’s Razor, and defeat the purpose of creating the most elegant and simple model.

          • Reason2012

            The origin of biological diversity of life is beyond the scope of science, because as I said, beliefs are all anyone can bring to the table and then reasons why they believe it – to call those reasons scientific “evidence” would be false.

            No, making up beliefs about what we think the origin of life is, or the origin of biological diversity of life is, or the origin of the universe is, is just that: beliefs. Science is about things that happens – not made up beliefs the human a race has never seen.

            Evolution is anti-God and evolutionists prove it every time they start attacking belief in God when the topic was supposed to be about evolution.

            It’s not “the most elegant model” to claim something mythology that never happens, which is all evolutionists have done. Science starts with something that happens, not making up a belief that never does then claim their model of how it happens is science (even though it never happens) b/c it’s elegant.

          • SpiderWatch

            How is the origin of life beyond science? Modern biology is derived from chemistry, a subject that we understand very well. You and I are nothing more than complex chemical reactions. So odds are we will figure out a way it could have formed in nature.

            Also how is evolution “mythology?” It has no gods or spectacular/miraculous tales. It’s a set of rules that predict how a breeding population will change over time given a certain set of factors that we’ve extrapolated from observation and experimentation.

          • Reason2012

            Unless anyone can show a cell creating itself when there was no cell, it’s just a belief as to how it happened.

            Please show a “complex chemical reaction” or anything create a cell when there was no cell.

            Saying it doesn’t make it true and that’s all they can do.

            Claiming the ancestors of human beings were reptiles, before that frogs/amphibians, before that fish, is nothing short of mythology. It’s a fairy tale that a frog became a prince – evolutionists call it science if you “just give it time”

            It’s not extrapolating made up mytholoigical beliefs that the human race has never seen the likes of which ever happen – it’s storytelling.

          • SpiderWatch

            So the entire book of Genesis isn’t storytelling? That the bible in and of itself isn’t storytelling? That somehow a book where an all powerful being who happens to look like a bipedal primate decided to make some dirt, play with it, then magically bring some of that dirt to life isn’t storytelling? That despite the dozens of equally outlandish tales of magical creation, this one in particular is true.

            Look, we may not know what exactly how it happened yet, but the fact that cells are made of molecules which are in turn made of atoms says that yes, there is a good chance that life is a natural process. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, there is no good reason to believe that a magic man snapped his fingers and created everything.

          • Reason2012

            So because you cannot back up your beliefs that you demand is science, you attack the Bible? So you admit your beliefs are not science and no one can show it. Case closed.

            Yes, watches are made up of gears, but you don’t see gears coming together to form watches either.

            Please show “molecules, atoms and anything else coming together by natural process” to form a brand new cell when there was none before.

            Storytelling, plain and simple, but the topic is supposed to be about science. You’re free to believe in such things of course – just pointing out it’s not science.

            Thank you for posting.

          • SpiderWatch

            Youtube->potholer54->Our Origins Made Easy

            He explains it really well there, go watch it.

          • Reason2012

            Explaining how he BELIEVES it happens is not the same as showing it happening – you do realize this, do you not? This is about science, not giving reasons to believe something happens that never does.
            Thank you for posting.

          • SpiderWatch

            You should watch them anyway. Because you know, understanding others and why they believe what they do is actually quite useful rather than shutting them down via god.

            Or not and continue to perpetuate the scared Christian stereotype. I’m perfectly fine with that too.

          • Reason2012

            // .. understanding others and why they believe what they do…

            So again you even admit it’s just a belief and why they believe it. Again, you only prove my point that such a claim is a belief not actual science.

            And in a further display of anti-science you add an ad hominem about Christians.

            I rest my case. Thank you for posting.

          • SpiderWatch

            It’s a belief that we have evidence for. Unlike the bible.

            For example we can go to a certain layer of the earth’s crust and find an animal that shares similarities to that of a modern day horse but has certain characteristics like its small size and the shape of its feet. We can go to the next layer and find an an animal that is more similar to that of a horse, it is bigger than the previous animal but its feet are not quite that of a horse. And so on up to the present day.

            Now we know through radioactive dating that a large period of time passed between the rock layers. We also know that through observation genetics that traits are past down through generations.

            Using phylogeny and taxonomy we can infer that there is a strong possibility that certain traits in a population of the earlier species led to the later species. By using genetics retrieved from the remains we can then confirm that indeed the the earlier species is related to the later ones. Science deals with uncertainty a lot, that’s why genetics has basically redefined the who field of evolution. We can now show the relationship between all living things past and present.

            But all of that is science at it’s finest, we see a pattern and develop a model to explain that pattern and find evidence to see if our model stands up. If the evidence doesn’t support the model, then we have to go back to the drawing board.

            So if you want to change my mind and the mind of modern biology, you are going to need to come up with a better model for explaining the patterns we see when we examine life today and the fossil record.

            You can bring up the old “we can’t observe the past” argument all you like. But if we accept that, then we have to shut down every forensics lab in the world because apparently they’re all wrong all the time.

          • Reason2012

            And there you go again attacking belief in God when the topic is supposed to be science / evolution, which shows yet again it’s just a belief system, but more specifically one meant to be an attack on God and furthermore than you know it.

            If you had “evidence” for evolutoinism, one wouldn’t need to “believe in it” which you continue to show that’s all one can do: believe in it.

            Horse kind doing nothing but remaining horse kind in no way is ‘evidence’ populations of reptiles can evolve over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider reptiles, let alone human beings.

            Rock dating has been proven to be a farce – assumptions piled upon assumptions. Rocks that were mere decades old “dated” 3+ MILLION years old.

            Science is not about making up beliefs or inferring – science is about things that actually happen.

            Science is fine – it’s evolutionism that’s anti-science.

            NO, you’re the only one that can change your mind on clinging to the belief your ancestors were reptiles, before that frogs/amphibians and before that fish. I’m just showing others how anti-science it is, since you claim it’s science when it’s not.

            Shut down forensic labs? No, again you distort the truth. This thing called “crime” is a scientific reality because the human race has observed crimes. So now we look for evidence for even more crimes that we have not observed. By sharp contrast no one has observed the mythology evolutionists believe in, so it hasn’t been established as scientific reality but instead is just a mythological belief system, yet they ignore this fact, skip to the theory part and hope no one notices.

            What’s your objection to the observable, repeatable, scientific fact that no matter how many generations go by, ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, amphibians remain amphibians, flies remain flies, birds remain birds, bacteria remains bacteria and so on for all life? That’s the truth you deny, which shows it’s not truth you’re after, but willful ignorance to attack the Bible.

          • SpiderWatch

            I’m not attacking religion, I’m merely saying that evolution provides an explanatory model for the pattern we see in the fossil record and in life today. That is literally what science does.

            All I’m asking is for you to provide a model that explains the patterns we see. If it’s better than evolution, way to go. Collect your Nobel prize and enjoy the history books. Unless you can do that or prove the existence of god, evolution and abiogenesis remains the best explanations for the diversity and origin of life.

          • Reason2012

            What’s your objection to the observable, repeatable, scientific fact that no matter how many generations go by, ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, amphibians remain amphibians, flies remain flies, birds remain birds, bacteria remains bacteria and so on for all life? You continue to avoid the question.

          • SpiderWatch

            That’s part of evolution. If a fish laid an egg and an amphibian came out then evolution and the laws of biology have been violated. An individual cannot evolve. A population evolves. A new species doesn’t just pop into existence, it emerges over time thanks to mutations, luck, and isolation from the parent population. Ever seen Conway’s game of life? That is a pretty good example of how evolution works. You start with one pattern, then through a series of rules applied over time: a new pattern will emerge or it will all collapse and die.

          • Reason2012

            No, it shows that no matter how many generations go by, ALL populations of fish remain fish and so on for all animals, which shows what evolutionists believe in does NOT happen until they show otherwise.

            So what’s your objection to the observable, repeatable, scientific fact that no matter how many generations go by, ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, amphibians remain amphibians, flies remain flies, birds remain birds, bacteria remains bacteria and so on for all life?

          • SpiderWatch

            I have no objection because I understand how evolution works. Fish will remain fish. Given the right environment and time, it is reasonable that a population of fish in a river system may develop a morphology like the that of Tiktaalik. Given more time and conditions they may develop stronger limbs and lungs that allow them to travel on land for longer periods of time during dry spells or when food in the water is scarce. And there you have it: a fish that can walk on land and breath oxygen in the air and yet still has gills and needs the water for their reproduction. What would you call a fish with those kinds of traits?

          • Reason2012

            “I have no objection because I understand how evolution works. Fish will remain fish. Given the right environment and time, it is reasonable that a population of fish in a river system may develop a morphology like the that of Tiktaalik”

            You try to claim populations of fish will remain fish, but then in the next breath say they will eventually no longer remain fish. You don’t even notice that you contradict your own claims. So which is it?

            And what’s your objection to the observable, repeatable, scientific fact that no matter how many generations go by, ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, amphibians remain amphibians, flies remain flies, birds remain birds, bacteria remains bacteria and so on for all life?

          • SpiderWatch

            No I didn’t contradict myself, as I asked: what do you call a population of fish that have developed (through mutation and honed by natural selection) tetrapod like limbs that are capable of supporting their body weight and lungs that allow them to breathe air out of the water while retaining gills and water to lay eggs?

            It is a fish that has the traits of amphibians because that’s what amphibians are. They are a population of lobe finned fish that have developed a tetrapod body and lungs, and over time developed other adaptations to cope with a variety of habitats along the banks of rivers.

            Evolution and changing allele frequencies isn’t some clear cut, step by step process, it is a gradient. Sure it looks pretty clear cut on the surface but as you dig deeper and start analyzing the genetic code that make life life it becomes obvious that it is all is related.

            Now you can argue that some divine entity made life, and used the “code recycle” hypothesis to justify the similarities in the genetic material. But the onus is on you to create an experiment and demonstrate this.

            Until then common decent is the best explanation science has for the diversity of life.

          • Reason2012

            Are you claiming populations of fish CAN ‘evolve’ over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish?

            If no, how do you explain the claim “our ancestors were fish”?

            If yes, then you ARE claiming it, hence show it.

            Thank you for posting.

          • SpiderWatch

            Yes, I am say that over time a population of fish may develop traits that would make us classify them as an amphibian and so on. We know this can happen because of genetics, we know how traits appear and how traits are past on via DNA. If a mutation in the DNA emerges that provides a benefit for it in its environment, the individual will be able to have more offspring which increases that trait’s presence in the gene pool of the current population. If that trait continues to be beneficial in the species.

            If a viable segment of members of this species becomes isolated from another segment of the population for a sufficient amount of time, there gene pool will shrink and if the isolation holds and other traits arise, it is possible for a new species to arise.

            If you are looking for more specific examples or more detailed analysis, google search “speciation”. I recommend the Wikipedia page and Berkeley’s Understanding Evolution website, as well as contacting experts in the field or looking into the peer reviewed journals.

          • Reason2012

            So in other words you ARE claiming populations of fish evolve over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish. Earlier you said it wasn’t true: “Fish will remain fish” you said. Now you say “fish can become amphibians” (backing up the claim I mentioned earlier that you denied).

            You continue to just make up claims post after post that contradict your previous posts and do not even notice – it’s clearly you have no intention on truth on this matter. Now that it’s clear to everyone else, there’s no point me continuing. You know all you need to know and so does everyone else that sees this.

            Take care and thank you for posting.

          • SpiderWatch

            An individual fish will only produce another fish, yes. You and I can only produce humans. To do otherwise would violate every law of the universe basically. But over time a new species can emerge from a population of organisms thanks to environmental pressures selecting certain traits to be spread over a segment of the main population. That’s what evolution is. What about that do you not understand?

          • SpiderWatch

            “Evolution is change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations. 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.”

            What about that don’t you understand? Is it the genetics? The population mechanics? Speciation? What about evolution don’t you understand? I’d like to send you to sources to help you learn about it.

          • SpiderWatch

            Which sounds more reasonable:

            Complex molecules forming (a known and scientifically sound fact) that eventually forms primitive life whose offspring inherited trait, and over time allowed for the best traits suited for their environment to thrive (a known and scientifically sound fact) and that through changes in the environment, isolation of segments of a population, and genetic mutation (all known and scientifically sound facts) allowed for new species to form, and that through constant repeating of the last events over a long period of time more complex creatures emerged from the process.

            Or that an unproven invisible being who is for some arbitrary reason shaped like a human male decided he was bored and poofed up the world and knew well in advance that it was going to fall apart, and that by his own machinations set up the world so that any reasonable examination of it would call into question his very existence. And in order to ensure a good crop of followers set up a punishment system so severe that even Kim Jung Un would say he’s gone too far.

          • Reason2012

            Science is not “which belief sounds more reasonable – we’ll call that one science”. Science is about things things that actually happen, not things that do not happen backed up with “well it’s more reasonable than believing in God”. You only prove yet again that evolutionism is anti-science, a belief system, and one designed specifically to attack the truth of God.
            Take care.

          • SpiderWatch

            Why do you think evolution is out to attack god? Where does it say that in the papers? Is there a manifesto that my bio professor forgot to discuss?

          • Reason2012

            Every time evolutionists try to defend evolution, they ultimately resort to attacking belief in God, Christianity, and so on. Much like your attempt to attack Genesis when it wasn’t even the topic, or attack the “Christian scared stereotype” when being a Christian wasn’t even the topic.

            For not having read the “manifesto” you seem to follow one to a T. Why is that?

            Thank you for posting.

          • SpiderWatch

            I’m sorry that I subscribe to finding the truth.

          • Reason2012

            Believing your ancestors were reptiles is not finding the truth.

          • SpiderWatch

            Then what is the truth? That a magical invisible being snapped is his fingers, incompetently made everything, and at one point violated the various laws of nature on a whim? Unless you can empirically show how all of that happened, why should I choose that over evolution and abiogenesis: things that make sense given our understanding of the universe?

            So again, why should I believe that the very rules of reality were scrapped all those times in the past? If I were to do that then I must accept that other stories where the laws of nature were violated, otherwise I’d be inconsistent and only able use special pleading in order to make my case without empirical evidence.

    • weasel1886

      If the Earth is 6,000 years old and nothing died before “the fall”, we had no limestone or soil before Adam and Eve. They could also not digest food

      • Reason2012

        Sorry but this does not prove evolutionism. But by attacking God whenever questioning evolutionism comes up, evolutionists prove that’s precisely what evolutionism is about: an anti-science attack on belief in God.

        • weasel1886

          So by asking questions one attacks God ? So our knowledge and learning should stop when we are saved ?
          Good news kids accept God and quit school
          I have not once attacked God or faith. I am merely asking questions, which you find sinful

          • Reason2012

            No, by attacking belief in God one attacks God. The topic was about evolution and you quickly change to attacking God.

            Why is that? I didn’t even mention God and brought it up and attacked it.

            Why is that? 🙂

            “Accept God and quit school”? Please continue being dishonest – it helps others to see the mindset of those who would claim evolutionism is science.

            Education and science is fine – it’s evolutionism that’s anti-science.

            Never said it was sinful – again more dishonesty from you. Please continue as others get to see first hand the mindset of the typical evolutionist is that demands it be passed off as science. 🙂

          • weasel1886

            You are hilarious!! YOU brought up that supporting evolution is attacking God.
            You just can’t answer simple questions.

          • Reason2012

            No, I said “Evolutionists do not want kids to think – they want to make it illegal for them to dare criticize or think critically about the mythology of evolution, showing yet again how anti-science it truly is.” (no mention of God there)

            You reply “If the Earth is 6,000 years old and nothing died before “the fall”, we had no limestone or soil before Adam and Eve. They could also not digest food” (attacking belief in God)

            Please continue to lie – it helps others see the typical mindset of those who promote evolutionism as science. For that, I thank you. 🙂

          • weasel1886

            If the Earth is 6,000 years old and nothing died before “the fall”, we had no limestone or soil before Adam and Eve. They could also not digest food” (attacking belief in God) Please respond

            How am I attacking God?
            Why can’t you answer my statement ?

          • Bobby Mae

            He is insane. He was the first one to mention God in the conversation between you two. I wonder what it’s like living in such a delusional state

          • weasel1886

            He’s pretty easy to confuse and manipulate.
            I find it amusing that ID people and creationists claim that their beliefs are science based but when they get challenged then you are attacking God.
            He never did answer my limestone and digestion question
            On top of that he keeps his profile and posts private
            Thanks for the support.

          • Bobby Mae

            Umm I just reread the convo, YOU brought up God first. You are delusional

          • Reason2012

            I did? Please cite where I brought up God before he did. Appreciate it.

          • Bobby Mae

            You were the first person to use the word God when you said “But by attacking God whenever questioning evolutionism…”. Certainly you know how to read, right?

          • Reason2012

            Ah so you want to pretend him attacking

            – 6,000 years
            – Adam and Eve
            – “the fall”

            which are all part of the belief in God is somehow not attacking belief in God.

            Thank you for showing yet again how dishonest you guys are – for that I thank you.

          • Bobby Mae

            He never “attacked” God. He made a rebuttal. Are you that sensitive to other ways of thinking? If you’re faith is as strong as you believe it is Id think you wouldn’t be such a sensitive sally.

          • Bobby Mae

            Such a softie you are. I thought conservative evangelicals were secure in their beliefs and not like the soft liberal homos who are allegedly the one group to complain. Keep talking though , I’m very entertained by your hypocrisy.

          • Lark62

            “by attacking belief in God one attacks God.”

            Perfect. Beautifully said. Since god is make believe and exists only in the imagination, “god” and “belief in god” are one in the same. One does not exist without the other.

            Bravo.

    • Bobby Mae

      And evangelicals DO want to think? Lol

  • Bobby Mae

    How about just not teaching the subject at all? No one on this planet was there when it happened and it doesn’t affect you or me… Research it on your own time and come to your own conclusions.

    • oregon_man

      Because it is important that we teach our children science so they can compete with the rest of the world and don’t become stuck in a hole of ignorance.

      • BarkingDawg

        This is Alabama we are talking bout here. The deepest mines of Moria are shallower than the depths of ignorance in that state.

        • oregon_man

          You can’t imagine how timely that observation is for me today as I dealt with a gang of Alabama right wing [religious] bigots.

    • Lark62

      Because evolution is the core theory unifying all biology. To skip evolution would be like studying disease without mentioning bacteria and viruses.

      If education is important, then science matters.

  • weasel1886

    Maybe God is a sub atomic particle and he created us in his own image

    • oregon_man

      That’s not any further off-base than burning bushes, virgin birth’s etc. I am agnostic for just that reason. Most of the universe is made up of “dark matter” and “dark energy” and we know nothing about it.

      • Asemodeus

        Which makes the Christian idea of the light of creation rather silly. Since the vast majority of creation doesn’t emit light at all.

        • weasel1886

          True, most “stuff” is dark matter

  • bill2

    well is obvious that headline’s a lie

  • BarkingDawg

    Since the bill singles out evolution as one of the specific scientific disciplines to be questioned, yes, it is a backdoor attempt to allow creationism in the guise of “questions.”

    Further the issue of human cloning is not an issue where there is any controversy over the theory. the technical processes are quite well understood. Human cloning is an ethical issue, totally separate from any questions to the scientific validity of the process.

    This bill is garbage.

    • Tangent001

      Yep. It’s just more ‘teach the controversy’ nonsense and is a huge waste of time for a state that is already struggling with STEM scores.

  • Reason2012

    Ask evolutionists to show an example of populations of fish ‘evolving’ over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish. This is what they claim happens, yet pick any animal: the human race has never observed any such thing, *hence it’s observable scientific fact it does not happen until anyone ever shows it to do so*.

    Here’s what is science: It’s observable, scientific fact that no matter how many generations go by over the entire existence of the human race, populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds, viruses remain viruses and so on. In spite of this, evolutionists:

    (a) *Ignore* that scientific fact

    (b) Make up a belief *contrary* to that scientific fact

    (c) Where that belief *never happens, can only be believed in* and hence can’t be called science anyway but demand it be called science and contradict what IS observable scientific fact.

    Evolutionism is nothing but a complete distortion of science and observable, repeatable scientific fact.

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      Beautifully put! Where were you 30 years ago when I was an a-theistic Darwiniac worshipping Carl Sagan?!? 🙂

      • weasel1886

        He wasn’t studying biology or evolution because he knows nothing about either

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          Well, for someone who wasn’t studying biology and evolution, he sure wrote a TON about it! I had all of his books and read them over and over again. But, yes, thanks for throwing the great public a-theist of the 70’s and 80’s under the bus – I could not have done it better myself! 🙂

          I know you are a New Absurdist, but just so you know, Sagan did post-doctoral fellowship work and hardcore NASA / government studies in biology, astrobiology, and exobiology. Sounds like a “little” bit of biology to me. Maybe even more than you know. 🙂 So, if you are going to throw my former idol under the bus, do so more gently. 🙂 God bless!

    • Paul Hiett

      http://www DOT scientificamerican DOT com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/

      The facts are laid out quite clearly. You can either accept the facts, or ignore them, but they aren’t going away.

      • ter ber

        Come on Paul, don’t be ‘old school’. Get with the times. We all know NOTHING cannot create matter and information. All the DNA- Genome studies are showing ID. So we are left with, WHO are the IDers? Is it what Prof. Dawkins proposes in 2007, we could have
        been ‘seeded’ by aliens? And he brought it up again Oct. 2014, when he said, “The idea that we are alone in the universe seems to me completely implausible and arrogant”. Or Vanderbilt prof. David Weintraub latest book “Religions and extraterrestrial life-how to deal with it?” Where he stated that 55% of atheists now believe in extraterrestrial life! So what is it Paul? Did magic men in the sky seed us from another galaxy far, far away? So you can either believe satan and his demon armies latest lie about aliens. Or the Creator God of the Universe.

    • weasel1886

      You have no knowledge of the subject

      • The Skeptical Chymist

        There is no reasoning with Reason2012. I discovered that recently on another issue.

    • Lark62

      There is ample evidence that reptiles evolved from fish, and that mammals evolved from reptiles. There is paleontological evidence, genetic evidence, emembryologic evidence.

      Example – Tiktaalik is an animal with a some fish like aspects and some reptile like aspects, marking one point in time on the slow transition from fish to reptile.

      Read Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin.

      Facts are available for those that respect truth.

      Note – this has nothing to do with belief in god. Many christians accept science and evolution.

      • Reason2012

        No, making up beliefs about fossils that never happens is not “evidence” of the belief you just made up about it.

        It would be similar for someone making up the brand new belief of “populations of trees evolved over generations eventually into people” then claim fossilized tree branches are “evidence” of it, when instead it’s just like evolutionism: an anti-science farce.

        So pointing to fossils and making up beliefs about them that never happens is just anti-science circular reasoning.

        Evolutionist “That’s a transitional fossil – and here are reasons I believe it is”
        “How do you know it is?”
        Evolutionist “Because evolutionism is true”
        “How do you know evolutionism is true when it never happens?”
        Evolutionist “Because that’s a transitional fossil”

        All Christians accept science – it’s evolutionism that’s anti-science, which is the issue.

      • ter ber

        Lol!!! And dinosaurs became chickens. Ha! Ha! Just believe us! Just beLIEve us!

        • Lark62

          Yes, modern birds descended from one branch of dinasaurs. Don’t “believe” or “hope.”

          Listen to scientists. Look at evidence. Think. Try it, you may like it.

    • Rebus Caneebus

      Look up “E. coli long-term evolution experiment”.

      And don’t try to claim it isn’t evolution, because it really is evolution.

      • Reason2012

        Yes, bacteria being able to do nothing but remain bacteria.
        We don’t deny adaptation – we just point out it never leads to the mythology evolutionists demand it does but factually never does.

        • Rebus Caneebus

          Yes, bacteria being able to do nothing but remain bacteria.

          Bacteria evolving, where one strain gained a new ability.

          We don’t deny adaptation

          You misspelled “evolution”. Like I said, you don’t get to redefine actual scientific terms. This is a real example of evolution. You just don’t know what words mean.

          • Reason2012

            Bacteria evolving, where one strain gained a new ability.

            Bacteria still remaining bacteria. Please show such a thing ever leading to it evolving into something we’d clearly no longer consider bacteria: you know, the belief of evolutionists. That’s what never happens.

            Please show adaptation or anything ever leading to populations of fish ‘evolving’ over generations eventually into organisms we’d clearly no longer consider fish. Show that for ANY animal.

            Bingo. Evolutionism is anti-science, ignoring what IS observable, repeatable, scientific fact: that no matter how many generations go by: ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, bacteria remains bacteria, birds remain birds, amphibians remain amphibians and so on for ALL living things.

            What’s your objection to this observable, repeatable, scientific fact that you insist on ignoring and denying?

          • Rebus Caneebus

            Bacteria still remaining bacteria.

            It’s still evolution, something you falsely claim doesn’t happen.

            Please show such a thing ever leading to it evolving into something we’d clearly no longer consider bacteria

            Please show that Pluto orbits the sun. Its orbital period is quite a bit longer than the 85 years it has been observed, so using your “logic”, we can’t say it orbits the sun, because it has never been observed to orbit the sun even once.

          • Reason2012

            No, populations of fish doing nothing but remaining fish is not at all the same as claiming populations of fish can ‘evolve’ over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish. And that sort of thing does not happen for any animal – that’s observable, repeatable, scientific fact.

            What’s your objection to this observable, repeatable, scientific fact you insist on ignoring and denying?

            So you admit you cannot show it and instead resort to the “orbit” argument.

            We know orbits are scientific reality b/c we see the lights move through the sky, and can figure out it’s not just us revolving, but an orbit. The moon in particular: observable fact that planets orbit. Now we look for evidence of MORE orbits that might be taking place. But it started with one observed reality of that sort of thing taking place.

            The human race, by sharp contrast, has never observed the mythological over-generation morphing they claim happens and ignore this fact and skip to looking for “evidence” of this mythological belief that has never been shown to happen even once

            What do they “show”? Bacteria remaining bacteria. Fish remaining fish. And claim this is the same thing as fish evolving over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish.

            Thank you for posting.

          • Rebus Caneebus

            No, populations of fish doing nothing but remaining fish is not at all the same as claiming populations of fish can ‘evolve’ over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish.

            Earlier you claimed:

            It’s observable, scientific fact that no matter how many generations go by over the entire existence of the human race, populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds, viruses remain viruses and so on.

            Here you say “no matter how many generations go by”, so where can you point to a study of, say, fish for 1 billion generations where no descendants were observed to change into something not-a-fish?

            Oh, you don’t have one. So you can’t make that claim.

            What’s your objection to this observable, repeatable, scientific fact you insist on ignoring and denying?

            I’ve given you one example of evolution, and just like I predicted, you denied it was evolution. You’re wrong. It was.

            Now we look for evidence of MORE orbits that might be taking place. But it started with one observed reality of that sort of thing taking place.

            And, just like my example, Pluto has NOT been observed to orbit the sun — it hasn’t been seen for long enough.

            So, according to you, we can’t teach that Pluto orbits the sun, right?

          • Reason2012

            // Here you say “no matter how many generations go by”, so where can you point to a study of, say, fish for 1 billion generations where no descendants were observed to change into something not-a-fish?

            Simple: has the human race ever recorded such a thing? Never.

            // Oh, you don’t have one. So you can’t make that claim.

            Where’s your observation provided by the human race that populations of fish can ‘evolve’ over generations eventually into organisms we’d clearly no longer consider fish?

            There is none.

            So you cannot make THAT claim.

            See how that works?

            // I’ve given you one example of evolution, and just like I predicted, you denied it was evolution. You’re wrong. It was.

            No, you’ve only given an example that no matter how many generations go by, ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds and so on.

            // And, just like my example, Pluto has NOT been observed to orbit the sun — it hasn’t been seen for long enough.

            Yet you ignore the human race HAS seen an orbit take place. So now this thing called “orbits” is a scientific reality.

            Where has the human race seen populations of fish ‘evolving’ over generations eventually into organisms we’d clearly no longer consider fish? Nowhere. What about for any animal? Nowhere. Have we observed an orbit, by comparison. Yes.

            // So, according to you, we can’t teach that Pluto orbits the sun, right?

            I already answered it and you ignored it. Here it is again which I’ll just cut/paste every time you ignore it.

            Wrong. We’ve observed an orbit. So why do you keep trying to pretend the human race has have never observed an orbit. We can even observe it in the present. This means orbits are a scientific reality. Now we can look for evidence of even MORE orbits.

            Has the human race observed populations of fish evolving over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish?

            Never.

            Huge difference.

            What’s your objection to this observable, repeatable, scientific fact you insist on ignoring and denying: that no matter how many generations have gone by in the existence of the human race, ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, bacteria remains bacteria, birds remain birds, and so on for ALL animals?

          • Rebus Caneebus

            Simple: has the human race ever recorded such a thing? Never

            So you agree that we can’t teach that Pluto orbits the sun? The human race hasn’t ever recorded that, either.

            No, you’ve only given an example that no matter how many generations go by

            Wrong again. You can’t extrapolate from less than 70,000 generations to “never”.

            Wrong. We’ve observed an orbit
            We haven’t observed Pluto to orbit. Are you claiming that everything orbits our sun? Do all other stars orbit the sun now? They’d have to be moving faster than the speed of light.
            What’s your objection to fossil evidence?

          • Reason2012

            Yet you ignore the human race HAS seen an orbit take place. So now this thing called “orbits” is a scientific reality. We now can look for evidence of even MORE orbits, and Pluto is one of them.

            So you agree the human race has observed a full orbit of other planets or moons?

          • Rebus Caneebus

            Yet you ignore the human race HAS seen an orbit take place. So now this thing called “orbits” is a scientific reality.

            You still don’t know how science works.

            So you agree the human race has observed a full orbit of other planets or moons?

            Of course — but there still hasn’t been an observation of Pluto’s full orbit. So according to you, it isn’t scientific to say Pluto orbits the sun.

          • Reason2012

            So you are claiming we cannot observe the moon orbiting the Earth?

          • Rebus Caneebus

            So you are claiming we cannot observe the moon orbiting the Earth?

            So you are an idiot who can’t read?

            Has anyone observed Pluto orbiting the sun? No. By your “reasoning”, that means it’s unscientific to say it does.

          • Reason2012

            Might be unintentional, but you to cut my statement short to make it look like I said something very different from what I’ve been saying time and again: the human race has never seen any such thing no matter how many generations go by.

            So again, please show that you believe in to ever happen – right now you’re only implying that it takes so long that’s “why” the human race will never see it, and hence we need to take your word for it that it happens anyway, believe in it anyway, and call it science?

          • Rebus Caneebus

            Might be unintentional, but you to cut my statement short to make it look like I said something very different from what I’ve been saying time and again: the human race has never seen any such thing no matter how many generations go by.

            You are making a statement beyond that, by claiming it can never be seen no matter how many generations go by. You have no basis for that.

          • Reason2012

            I said the human race has never seen any such thing no matter how many generations go by. Want to claim otherwise? Cite the observation made by the human race of such a thing.

          • Rebus Caneebus

            I said the human race has never seen any such thing no matter how many generations go by. Want to claim otherwise

            But you go beyond that, and claim it’s not possible for any number of generations. You can’t make that claim honestly.

          • Reason2012

            Making up beliefs ABOUT fossils that human race never sees does not then make fossils “evidence” of the belief you’ve just made up about it that as far as we know never happens -that’s circular reasoning.

            Evolutionist “That’s a transitional fossil – and here are reasons I believe it is”
            “How do you know it is?”
            Evolutionist “Because evolutionism is true”
            “How do you know evolutionism is true when it never happens?”
            Evolutionist “Because that’s a transitional fossil”

            (repeat)

            Circular reasoning.

            Someone might as well make up a brand new belief like “populations of trees evolved over generations eventually into people” then claim fossilized tree branches are “evidence” or “proof” of it, then say “What’s your objection to fossil evidence?” — and it would be just as much of an anti-science farce.

          • Rebus Caneebus

            Making up beliefs ABOUT fossils that human race never sees

            Are you saying fossils are imaginary?

            Evolutionist “That’s a transitional fossil – and here are reasons I believe it is””How do you know it is?”
            Evolutionist “Because evolutionism is true”

            Hey, lie about evolution, it isn’t the first time for you.

          • Reason2012

            I said “making up beliefs ABOUT fossils”

            and you come back with “are you saying fossils are imaginary”?

            How can I say you make up beliefs ABOUT fossils if “fossils are imaginary”?

            It’s clear you’re in full on dishonesty mode and I thank you for making it so clear. I hardly expected you to be swayed, but others will notice how blatantly dishonest you’re being and hence how you do not have a point to stand on – for that I thank you.

            Thank you for posting and take care – nothing more to say now that you’ve made it clear you’re make up lies to keep trolling.

          • Rebus Caneebus

            I said “making up beliefs ABOUT fossils”
            and you come back with “are you saying fossils are imaginary”?
            How can I say you make up beliefs ABOUT fossils if “fossils are imaginary”?

            Well then, what beliefs are “made up”?

            It’s clear you’re in full on dishonesty mode

            It’s clear you know nothing about evolution and prefer your superstitions.

          • John N

            A transitional fossil are the fossilized remains of a creature that exhibits primitive traits in comparison with more derived organisms to which it is related.

            This definition does not include evolution, so this is by definition not circular reasoning.

            However every transitional fossil found is evidence for evolution because it indicates a common descent. And there are lots of them.

            But maybe you’ve got a better explanation?

          • Reason2012

            Hello. No, making up beliefs about fossils that does not happen does not then make fossils ‘evidence’ of that belief – that’s circular reasoning.

            It’s like someone making up a brand new belief that populations of trees ‘evolved’ over generations eventually into human beings, then claiming fossilized tree branches are ‘evidence’ of it because “it exhibits primitive traits in comparison to more derived organisms to which it is related”, and it would be just as much of an anti-science farce.

            Evolutionist “That’s a transitional fossil – and here are reasons I believe it is”
            “How do you know it is?”
            Evolutionist “Because evolutionism is true”
            “How do you know evolutionism is true when it never happens?”
            Evolutionist “Because that’s a transitional fossil”
            Circular reasoning.

            Science is not “if you do not have a better belief than mine, then my mythological belief that’s never happened in the entire existence of the human race is then science”.

            Where’s that definition of science?

            But logically speaking, if a prosthetic leg is proof of intelligence, as is an artificial heart, then the real leg, an actual heart, which are vastly superior, is undeniably proof of a higher intelligence – the only faith part would be God being that designer.

          • John N

            >…making up beliefs about fossils that does not happen does not then make fossils ‘evidence’ of that belief – that’s circular reasoning.

            This makes no sence. Fossils exist. They are evidence for evolution, as there is other evidence from other sources. Evolution has been observed. It is explained in a theory. What does this have to do with ‘belief’? If you don’t believe the evidence, that’s your problem. But don’t try to impose your ignorance on others by trying to restrain them from proper education.

            >But logically speaking, if a prosthetic leg is proof of intelligence, as is an artificial heart, then the real leg, an actual heart, which are vastly superior, is undeniably proof of a higher intelligence

            No it isn’t. A protestic leg is proof of human intelligence. That’s all you can prove. For everything in nature, no matter how complex, there is evidence that it was more simple in the past. Evrything points to evolution, no ‘higher intelligence’ needed.

          • Reason2012

            Yes, fossils exist. But to make up beliefs ABOUT them that does not happen does not make fossils “evidence” of the belief just made up about them is the point.

            No, it’s NEVER been observed that populations of fish can ‘evolve’ over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish.

            The only thing that has been observed, falsifies evolutionism, showing yet again the observable, repeatable scientific fact that no matter how many generations go by, ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, amphibians remain amphibians, flies remain flies, birds remain birds, bacteria remains bacteria and so on for all life.

            To claim a prosthetic leg is proof of intelligence, but then pretend the real leg which is

            (1) far superior
            (2) what a prosthetic leg is modeled after
            (3) that we’re not even intelligent enough to design anything close to it

            all “just happened” is willful ignorance. Might as well say “no intelligence required for a prosthetic leg to come about” and it would be just as much of a farce.

          • John N

            >Yes, fossils exist. But to make up beliefs ABOUT them that does not happen does not make fossils “evidence” of the belief just made up about them is the point.

            Sorry, you are not very clear. The fossil evidence points to a common ancestor. Belief is not involved anywhere.

            >No, it’s NEVER been observed that populations of fish can ‘evolve’ over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish.

            Correct, but so what? We never saw a star forming, but do you doubt there are stars? We never saw oceans being formed, but they did. We even never saw an elementary particle being formed with our own eyes, but all evidence shows that it happens.

            We have enough evidence that evolution happens. Observable evidence, from different sources (fossils, comparative anatomy, molecular analysis, …). And by the way, it has been shown in the lab with bacteria. But of course the results are more bacteria – no special creation here.

            >The only thing that has been observed, falsifies evolutionism …

            Oh, did you find rabbits in the Precambrium? Please provide evidence.

          • Reason2012

            // Sorry, you are not very clear. The fossil evidence points to a common ancestor. Belief is not involved anywhere.

            Sorry, saying fish fossils are the ancestor of fossils we’d cleraly no longer consider fish is a belief when the human race has noticed it’s observable, repeatable, scientific fact such a thing never happens.

            Might as well make up a new belief that populations of trees ‘evolved’ over generations eventually into peolple then claim fosslized tree branches “point to it” – it would be just as much of an anti-science farce.

            // >No, it’s NEVER been observed that populations of fish can ‘evolve’ over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish.

            // Correct, but so what?

            So what, you ask? It’s called science for a reason – making up beliefs of things that never happen is storytelling, not science.

            // We never saw a star forming,

            We see different stages of a star – just like we see different stages of a human’s life cycle. Fautly analogy.

            // We never saw oceans being formed, but they did.

            We don’t know how the water got here – but add enough water and of course it’s reality you have a body of water that gets bigger and bigger – no belief needed.

            // We even never saw an elementary particle being formed with our own eyes, but all evidence shows that it happens.

            Ah another belief. Until they show a particle “just happening”, that’s a belief as well.

            // We have enough evidence that evolution happens.

            False. We have fossils – making up belief ABOUT them that never happens is the anti-science circular reasoning farce.

            Evolutionist “That’s a transitional fossil – and here are reasons I believe it is”

            “How do you know it is?”

            Evolutionist “Because evolutionism is true”

            “How do you know evolutionism is true when it never happens?”

            Evolutionist “Because that’s a transitional fossil”

            // Observable evidence, from different sources (fossils, comparative anatomy, molecular analysis, …).

            All circular reasoning: starts with the ASSUMPTIOn their belief is true, when it’s observable, repeatable, scientific fact it’s not. They make up beliefs about suhch things, then claim those things are now “evidnece” of it.

            Using your logic, it would be scientific fact if someone made up the false belief that populations of trees evolved over generations eventually into people, then point to fossilized tree branches and calim “that’s observable evidence!”.

            // And by the way, it has been shown in the lab with bacteria.

            This after yuo just got done admitting evolution has never been observed, along with “so what?” Now you claim it’s observed?

            No, bacteria doing nothing but remaining bacteria no matter how many generations go by is only showing yet again there are barriers evolutoinists are determined to ignore.

            // But of course the results are more bacteria – no special creation here.

            Where’d the bacteria come from? Please show bacteria coming from things that are not bacteria.

            // Oh, did you find rabbits in the Precambrium? Please provide evidence.

            Don’t need to – just pointing out how evolutionists’ belief systems are just that: belief systems that contradict observable, repeatable, scientific fact.

          • Reason2012

            What’s your objection to this observable, repeatable, scientific fact you insist on ignoring and denying: that no matter how many generations have gone by in the existence of the human race, ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, bacteria remains bacteria, birds remain birds, and so on for ALL animals?

            That you ignore this question proves you are willfully trying to deceive. Why can’t you answer that simple question, Rebus? Your avoidance of it says it all.

          • Rebus Caneebus

            What’s your objection to this observable, repeatable, scientific fact you insist on ignoring and denying: that no matter how many generations

            That part — you can’t extrapolate to “no matter how many generations”.

          • Reason2012

            In the existence of the human race, which you’ve been told several times now and continue to dishonestly ignore. I thank you for making it clear to other readers how dishonest evolutionists typically are to promote their mythology as science.

            Others note: he can never show the human race ever seeing any such thing and keeps ignoring this fact.

            Take care, Rebus.

          • Rebus Caneebus

            In the existence of the human race, which you’ve been told several times now and continue to dishonestly ignore.

            Evolution has only been a theory for less than 200 years; before that, nobody would be looking for evidence, and 200 years is too short.

            I thank you for making it clear to other readers how dishonest evolutionists typically are to promote their mythology as science.

            Ignorant people like yourself don’t even make valid objections to evolution.

  • Lark62

    Should a science teacher turn the class over to 8th graders to override expert conclusions on the adequacy of evidence for atoms? Should a science teacher cut the lecture on the germ theory of disease in half to give equal time to the thoroughly debunked four humors? Should high school students vote on whether to learn about the theory of plate tectonics?

    The role of science teachers is to teach science. There is evidence supporting the theory of evolution in paleontology, genetics, embryology and several other disciplines. The evidence in any one area is strong enough to support the theory of evolution. The evidence in all areas combined is irrefutable.

    The idea that students should be encouraged to reject established science in favor of unsupported religious myth is appalling.

    THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC DEBATE ON THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION.

    There is religious opposition, but that has no bearing on scientific consensus. There are people who pander to religious people to make a buck or for other reasons. There are people who dishonestly cherry pick facts. There is no scientific opposition to the theory of evolutuon.

    • Nathan Z Solomon

      You obviously don’t understand learning. It is not called Indoctrination…it’s called learning. In other words, if you have the classroom as described above you have census, you have indoctrination, you have control. However, if you allow the students to move forward on their own and obtain the information for themselves….then you have learning. A teacher is called a Faculty member because they facilitate the learning process…not indoctrinate or control or in any way limit the learning process. Let the students learn!

      • Rebus Caneebus

        Creationism isn’t science, and it isn’t learning.

        • Nathan Z Solomon

          Did I mention anything about creationism in my previous statement? I don’t think so.

          You’re reading between the lines and what you see doesn’t exist.

          • Rebus Caneebus

            Did I mention anything about creationism in my previous statement? I don’t think so.

            Neither did the legislation. But that’s what it’s aimed at.

            You’re reading between the lines and what you see doesn’t exist.

            No, it’s really about that. Creationists deliberately encourage exactly this kind of legislation. See the Discovery Institute’s “Teach the Controversy” compaign.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            How do you know “Neither did the legislation. But that’s what it’s aimed at.”?…facts please…not conjecture. Provide the exact words that provides the “aim” to which you are referring. Thank you.

          • Rebus Caneebus

            Did you bother to look up DI’s “teach the controversy” dodge?

            Of COURSE there won’t be any “exact words”, because they are being deliberately dishonest. But laws like this only started after creationists kept getting slapped down, and they’re from the same people.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            I tried to look up DI, but all I see are weird T-shirts. 🙂 I’ll keep looking.

            If there are not exact words and you believe that they are liars (deliberately dishonest), then I think you have a problem…logically speaking. You can’t prove the law suspect because it’s not worded badly, but you believe it is suspect because of prior situations that seem to be of the same mindset as the laws words…even though the law, as written, “says” the exact words that you would want them to say.

            Are you sure there isn’t a punch line somewhere here? I just don’t get it.

            Fear…it’s the great mind killer.

          • Rebus Caneebus

            Discovery Institute “teach the controversy”, and check the wiki page. Also see the “wedge strategy” which is linked from there.

            If there are not exact words and you believe that they are liars (deliberately dishonest), then I think you have a problem.

            See their wedge strategy.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            For me, the information on DI was enlightening. It seemed logical. It seemed appropriate and it seems like it provides freedom of choice. You may be absolutely correct in your assumption that this is a insidious way of introducing Theism (I prefer that over Creationism because Creation was a one-time event..whereas Theism is all encompassing – ergo, this is a duel between theists and atheists). However, that still does not decrease its value.

            Teaching is about learning…everything. Not just something specific. Not just the “right” (however you define “right”), but everything. How else does one learn about an unoptimized method of network path exploration? You can’t under your scenario, because it’s “wrong”. Yet there is benefit to looking at the “wrong”. Many a scientific breakthrough has been established by looking at the disgraced/discarded theories only to find some new insight.

            Here’s my main point: If you do not allow this law to go through, then you are, by definition, controlling the outcome. You are manipulating the students. You are not permitting freedom of choice. You are indoctrinating.

            We know 2 + 2 = 4 because we created that mathematical model. That model has no alternative. There are additions to it such as Calculus, Diff. Equ., linear algebra, etc. But there are no competing theories on mathematics…at least not at this lower level. Proofs are used to ensure that any applied math continues to follow the mathematical model. However, in the case of atheism’s origin, there is a competing model (lame as you may think it is). Let the students make their own determination. What have you got to lose? Independent thought? Creativity? Learning to explore for themselves?

            The alternative is control…indoctrination…programming…etc (a.k.a. a lack of freedom). This is America. It is not China, Russia, Cuba, etc. We are free to choose. A law that limits that freedom is against our inalienable rights.

          • Rebus Caneebus

            It seemed appropriate and it seems like it provides freedom of choice.

            Creationism and intelligent design aren’t science; they don’t belong in science class, just like astrology doesn’t belong in an astronomy class.

            Teaching is about learning…everything.

            Yep, and teaching science means following the scientific method, which intelligent design does not follow. It doesn’t belong in a science class.

            The alternative is control…indoctrination…programming…etc
            So what other stupidity do we need to “teach” in school? Flat earth? There are people who really still believe that, so we have to teach it, right? Do we teach that elves (may) exist? Same thing. There are tons of crank pseudoscience out there, and you would have public schools teach all of it. The world is round — or flat — or it’s hollow and we live on the inside. The earth orbits the sun, or the sun orbits the earth. We have to teach every kind of nonsense.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            I think you’re missing the point. Freedom allows the student to decide what is and what is not pertinent to absorb. Exposure to the subject matter is the teacher’s job. But learning is the student’s job. Limiting learning to a specific classroom is once again, indoctrination, programming. If a discussion on how Hostess Twinkies came to exist comes up in a science room, let it…simply because the Student has the freedom to bring it up.

            Immaterial what your opinion of Intelligent design is. By going against this law you are not allowing freedom for the student to choose. You are decreasing the student’s freedom. “Students: You can talk about Evolution, but if I hear one word about Ho-ho’s, this class is over”…really? Why would you limit learning? What compels you to stop a student’s exploration?

            We need to let students know that at one time we believed in a flat earth. We need to let students know that we once believed in Bohr’s model of an atom. We need to show students where we have come from and where knowledge is leading. Would you not agree? (i.e. “this” was the old model and “this” is the new one.) Failure to provide even the simple model that Hercules carries the World on his back while riding a great turtle across the see of space, is limiting knowledge…thus limiting freedom.

            I say whatever alternative a student brings up is fair game. If a student says, “Well, let’s say [a] Twinkie represents the normal amount of psychokinetic energy in the New York area. Based on this morning’s sample, it would be a Twinkie… thirty-five feet long, weighing approximately six hundred pounds.”, then it needs to be investigated. It needs to be discussed and discussed respectfully and not thrown aside as if someone just said something “stupid”. If it is not discussed, then, again, you’re talking indoctrination not freedom.

            I would have students discuss whatever comes up. Learning, is a “pull” on the student’s part and the teacher is simply a provider of information that can be pulled by the student.

            But have no fear, if you wish to correct your children’s understanding when they come home from school, feel free to do so. They are your children and you are free to raise them however you wish. But you may not tell other children outside your family what they should and shouldn’t learn. That’s not your call…no one…I mean no one…should ever have that ability in America. Now if you like China or Russia, I hear they teach Evolution as the only origin science. I also hear it’s nice this time of year. Be here and be free or move to one of those lovely countries and be indoctrinated. You choose.

          • Rebus Caneebus

            Freedom allows the student to decide what is and what is not pertinent to absorb.

            So you DO think we should teach that the earth is round, or maybe flat, and 4.5 billion years old, or maybe only a few thousand, and that the earth orbits the sun, or the sun orbits the earth, and just let them decide what to absorb.

            Yeah, I’m glad you don’t operate a school.

            “Students: You can talk about Evolution, but if I hear one word about Ho-ho’s, this class is over”…really?

            No, but that’s because you’re an idiot.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            You are so hard headed. You’re not listening. But that’s O.K. I’ve done my best to get it through your thick skull.

            It doesn’t matter what I want. It doesn’t matter what you want. What matters is that the students are able to define, for themselves what they want.

            But since you’re so into dictating: Buy a ticket to China. Move to China. There you will have all the constrained indoctrinating programming that you can handle.

            You obviously have no clue what true freedom is. You don’t deserve to live in this Country because, it is you, sir, who is the idiot..or more specifically, don’t truly understand what you have here in America. We don’t need your kind here in these United States that are one nation…under God.

          • Rebus Caneebus

            You are so hard headed. You’re not listening

            Yes, I am. You’re fine with dragging non-science into science classes.

            What matters is that the students are able to define, for themselves what they want.

            Students didn’t pass this law.

            You obviously have no clue what true freedom is. You don’t deserve to live in this Country because, it is you, sir, who is the idiot

            Your the idiot who thinks teaching actual science without adding crank religious superstition is anti-freedom.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            You, sir, are no longer discussing. You’re making up stuff as you go. This, discussion is over!

          • Rebus Caneebus

            You didn’t have the slightest clue that this law was passed to get creationism into public schools. You set up ridiculous reasons why mixing superstition with science is “freedom”. You’re an idiot.

      • Lark62

        Presenting unsupported myth next to established science in a science class is incompetence. Allowing students to choose which to accept from a science standpoint is malfeasance.

        • Nathan Z Solomon

          Immaterial! You are not the determiner of right and wrong! Freedom means not only self-expression, but also ability to learn about something, no matter how wrong other people believe it is. Your mind is already polluted if believe in what you’ve declared in your statement. By only allowing the “right”, that is by the very definition within the Declaration of Independence, infringing upon our inalienable rights!

          Personally I learned that Ra is the Sun God. I learned most of the Greek and Roman mythology. I did this in Science class, not as an example of what is, but as a comparator. Apparently, you also know that there once was a theory that Apollo pulled the sun across the sky. Whether you learned that in History or as a competing theory in science is immaterial. You had the freedom to do so. Failing to allow that freedom for others is called indoctrination, programming, etc. If you believe in those things, I recommend some lovely real-estate located in China or even Russia. I hear it’s warmer this time of year.

          • Lark62

            Learning greek myths as literature is great. If my kid comes home and tells me the sun is not the center of the solar system and the god Apollo is real, there will be a serious problem.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            If your kids come home believing that Apollo is real and that he pulls the sun across the sky, then depending on their age, you can choose to let them believe that…just like Santa Clause, or you can prove to them that Apollo was mythical. Your choice how you raise your kids. It’s not your choice how to raise other people’s kids nor is it your choice what should and should not be taught.

            Learning is a process starting and ending with the student. It is a “pull”, not a “push”. It is voluntary and it needs to be kept free. I hope that I’ve been helpful.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Evolutinists know they’ve been lying all along. Now America suppresses truth like any communist villains did. So sad.

    • Paul Hiett

      Lying? Clearly, you know nothing about evolution.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        The world was designed and created by God. Proof is everywhere. Atheists do not admit God just because they want to continue their evil doing.

        • weasel1886

          So if you believe in science you hate God? Voodoo sounds more reasonable

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Science proves the one true God whom the Holy Bible teaches about. All others are falsehood.

          • Lark62

            No, no it doesn’t.

        • Paul Hiett

          And by “proof”, are you referring to the idea that just because we’re here, your choice of a deity is real?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Everything. It’s not my choice, but the Word of God and observable self-evident reality. You atheists are altogether evil; you should realize that.

        • Lark62

          My morals and my conduct are unchanged since I stopped believing in fairy tales. Your preacher says stuff about how wicked atheists are to scare you and keep you believing. That doesn’t make his lies true.

          Atheists are just as moral and kind as anyone else.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            No, there is no single good atheist. Atheists butchered countless millions everywhere they went. 20 millions in China alone in mere 10 years. A billion if the unborns are counted. They killed my countrymen countlessly just because they were Christian. The Westerners are being completely naive about atheists because you’ve been always protected by Christianity. Atheists are evil. You need to repent of your sins to get saved.

          • Lark62

            Wow. Gee thanks. I guess there’s just no love like christian love.

            As an evil atheist and godless heathen, let me say in the nicest way possible, what a steaming pile of bovine excrement.

            I am an atheist. The fact that a couple 20th century despots needed to get rid of religion to take power and used atheism as a tool does not mean all atheists are despots. DUH. That would be like me declaring you to be evil because Hitler used christianity and christian prejudice to gain power. Ridiculous.

            Societies built on secular values including freedom of religion and freedom of speech are the safest and healthiest.

            Please get help.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Hitler was a faithful Darwinian just like you. He killed countless Christians but the Christians rescued the Jews as always. Yes, every Earthling needs Christian love for salvation. You atheists have only despair and are ruining all the finest nations Christians have created for Christian happiness. You unbelieving Westerners are stupid to join the very evil your fathers had defeated last century. The secular West is being bored and gets deceived by atheism, but the rest of the world won’t. Too many victims perished at the hands of the atheists, and the entire universe knows how evil all atheists are. There is NOTHING good in you. (Psalm 14) You need to repent of your unbelief and ingratitude in order to get saved from your own evil folly.

          • Lark62

            Hitler outlawed the teaching of evolution and required SS officers not only to be christian but to specifically deny atheism.

            Christian people did bad things in nazi germany. Other christians did good things. One cannot condemn all christians because hitler enflamed christianhatred

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You are completely wrong. Hitler’s hyper racism was based on the Darwinism and the Western Civilization’s godless humanism. It’s exactly the same logic with today’s secular nations’ annihilation of the unborns. Darwinism kills, and the atheism, Nazism, and godless humanism do the same atrocities; they are different in names only. The communist atheists were far worse than the Nazis to the local population although they did not single out a race for annihilation like Nazis did, but both are exactly the same in massacring whoever did not comply with the party. Christians rescued everyone because life-saving is the Christian essense and Christian doctrines and Christian teachings. Learn things correctly. You Westerners are just another barbarians if you had no Christianity. Christianity taught you to be civil. The Jews flourished in the Christendom alone, nowhere else, and especially Christian America protected them. Christian USA defeated all villains in the last century, although today’s USA is turning into Sodom this century by being sick immoral. Americans are not smarter than the Germans. Everyone needs humility before God.

          • Lark62

            Wow. The ignorance is strong with this one.

            Jews flourished in christendom? They’re gonna be really, really surprised to hear that. Eurpoean history is a story of centuries of jewish persecution. The christian KKK in the US was anti jewish as well as anti black.

            Naziism was built on centuries of christian prejudice and hatred of jews. The nazis rejected evolution and opposed atheism.

            You really need to learn about history. Making up your own facts just makes a person look ignorant.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            No, you’ve been lied to and brainwashed by the liberals. The Jews have been everywhere and all empires persecuted them time to time, taking their turns. The Jews just barely survived elsewhere, but in the Christendom alone they flourished and left great names, especially in North America. Christian Britain and Christian America made sure Israel’s independence and its maintenance as well. The Bible knowledge makes serious readers love Israel. Germany plunged into blasphemous false theology in the 19th century and that brought the nation down as the evil Darwinian Nazis. “The fittest race” is from Darwinism and Hitler ordered the Germans to worship him – a typical of all atheists. Americans are not smarter and are following the bad path of the European humanists.

          • Lark62

            Open any book of European history. For centuries christians accused jews of being christ killers and murdered them. Generation after generation. Century after century.

            Get out of your bubble and look at a variety of sources. Reality will grow on you. Try it.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You’ve been taught only partially. Get the wholesome world history. The Jews were never loved by any empires or civilizations, but succeeded most excellently only in the Christendom especially in the Christian America. It was another reason America was tremendously blessed by God. Only those Christians who hold the Bible truth love the Jews and Israel; they died protecting the Jews in Nazi era. Mankind needed Israel for the Saviour Jesus and the Jews needed His followers for well-being. The human history has astounding eternal meaning and significance; you nonbelievers will never get it. You need to repent of your unbelief and godlessness to get saved.

          • ter ber

            Except for Hitler, Mao and Stalin. And lest we forget the bigoted Charles Darwin who believed people of darker colors had not progressed/evolved as far as the white man. In his bigoted book “The Origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life.”

          • Lark62

            Hitler was a Christian. He outlawed evolution and wouldn’t permit atheists in the SS.

            Despots use whatever tools they can to dominate and terrorize.

            Quote mining Darwin doesn’t change reality or make you look smarter.

  • Apostaste

    Another crazy lie from the christian right.

    Christians repeatedly and knowingly attempt to lie and cheat their way into illegally injecting christian doctrine we scientifically know to be false into the schools we pay for in direct violation of the constitution without regard for others nor the amount of tax payer money wasted through the inevitable lawsuits.

    Its funny how quickly Christians resort to bare faced lying and if that doesn’t work intimidation.

  • Lark62

    Read Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne. It is a clear and well written summary of the evidence for evolution.

    Visit the National Center for Science Education website. Here you can read the transcripts of the Kitzmiller v. Dover case. In this trial, ID proponents (aka cdesign proponentsists) put forth their best case as to why ID is science not religion. They failed. Read Judge Jones’ opinion. Read Behe’ testimony where he declares there is no explanation for the evolution of the immune system while admitting that he hasn’t bothered to read the dozens upon dozens of science papers and textbooks that specifically address the evolution of the immune system.

    READ

    Stop listening to the shysters who want your loyalty and your money. The truth is readily available.

    • ter ber

      Oh Lark you are so behind the times! All the latest scientific discoveries with DNA/ Genome studies clearly show ID. So much in fact that Prof. Richard Dawkins came out in 2007 proposing we could have been ‘seeded’ by aliens. (You know, magic men in the skies) and this last fall Oct.2014, Dawkins stated, “the idea that we are alone in the universe seems to be completely implausible and arrogant”. And to top it off , Vanderbilt University professor David Weintraub just wrote a book last fall,”Religions and Extraterrestrial life- How will we deal with it?” Where he stated 55% of atheists now believe in extraterrestrial life. So I ask you since with know ‘nothing’ cannot create matter and information Lark, are you too going to jump on the alien ID bandwagon?

      • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

        You are apparently insane, ridiculously poorly educated, or both.

        DNA is a horrible chemical kludge based on nothing more than physics and vulnerable to indels and transpositions, resulting in mutations in every sexual reproduction (some 68 per generation for humans) which guarantee evolution (changes in allele distribution over time), which is exactly what we observe (even though the variation generation mechanisms were not at the time that Darwin articulated his theory of evolution, now the most widely tested and used theory on Earth).

        The Miller-Urey experiments demonstrated not just generation of amino acids, the building blocks of life after just two weeks, they also produced tars which, on water, demonstrate many of the emergent attributes of life. While we now know that the atmosphere was different from what then seemed likely, we also know that many environments could produce the necessary precursors, that given an Earth sized laboratory and some 200 million years after Earth had cooled sufficiently for life to appear, it did, that while all identified life on Earth is descended from a single organism, that many potential organisms are possible, and that in a galaxy containing some 500 billion stars, in a Universe containing some 500 billion galaxies, where many stars have planets suitable for life to develop, that life has almost certainly developed repeatedly in the 8 billion years or so in which it has been possible (as life is based on material ejected from dying stars, it had to wait for the first generation of stars to grow old and die before life could have instantiated). The fact that we are here, that it is possible for us to have instantiated without “intelligence”, based only on the simple laws of physics in this Universe, creates a huge obstacle to the introduction of an “intelligence” which is not detectable, and hence not active, today. Even more telling are the vast number of highly predictable genetic flaws which prove that if there was a designer, it was not as intelligent as fourth year genetic students, who are perfectly able to determine where genetic flaws are likely to develop, based on well understood bond-weaknesses which are, in turn, based on simple physics.

        On Earth, life developed one step at a time, performing the complex sequence of synthesis required to hydrolyse carbon dioxide to methane, utilizing energy of insolation and enhancing entropy. We still do this, as you will discover if you eat a can of baked beans. Everything else life does is a side effect of this basic process, which was as inevitable as iron rusting in the presence of free oxygen (which followed the development of life). So rather than your simplistic, stupid and wrong (in theory and practice), misstatement that “‘nothing’ cannot create matter and information”, “life” was a simple product of surplus energy and the laws of physics.

        • ter ber

          “DNA is a chemical sludge”. Your kidding right? “Life is simple a product of surplus energy”. Are you drinking anti-freeze recreationally?
          “DNA is like a Computer Program but far, far more advanced than ANY SOFTWARE ever CREATED. ” Bill Gates, The Road Ahead.

          • Tangent001

            If DNA were a computer program, the developer would have been fired, like, yesterday for the amount of non-functional ‘coding’ present in most genomes. DNA is also susceptible to mutation and errors in transcription, which would be analogous to having a slightly different operating system every time you turned on your computer.

          • ter ber

            You have not read up on the latest info on refuting the ‘junk DNA theory’. Duh, we don’t know what it does, so it must be junk. What imbeciles. You guys are too stupid to even be embarrassed by your stupidity. So if you think DNA is do simple Dr. Frankenstein- go for it. Let’s start with something easy, can you build a rose?

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Bill Gates didn’t study medicine, genetics or even the abbreviated biochemistry and physics medical students receive, and cannot be used as an authority in the field.

            DNA evolved, and the fact of its evolution remains in the DNA of every living creature, including you. If you ever develop cancer, it will be due to one or more easily predicted mutations. If you are ever responsible for placing a viable human egg in proximity to a viable human sperm, mutations will be responsible for the fact that it has only a 20% to 30% chance of reaching term. In your DNA are probably some 60 to 70 mutations (an average) resulting from easily predicted indels or transpositions. These may be beneficial, or more likely, harmful, but they happen, are passed on, and if significant or linked to significant traits, may be selected upon.

            If neo-Darwinian evolution does not occur, you would need an alternative theory predicting the fact that allele distributions change over time, and that DNA reflects this history. You don’t have that, so you have nothing.

            Before arguing with people who are competent in a field, it behoves you to obtain sufficient education in the field to at least speak sense, rather than babbling gibberish.

            I recommend you try to find a middle school or your local equivalent and join the other 8 year old children learning about this topic before advertising your ignorance all over the Internet.

          • Tim

            This is what I recommend. That you build from nothing, something, no wait, that you make a human being out of two eggs, or pair a couple of sperm together and see what you come up with. Or better yet, how about using neo-Darwinism to design the perfect species by testing on people that have handicaps. Yea, that’s the ticket.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            It is perfectly possible to create a blastocyte parthogenetically or using diploid material from one or more eggs, without involving sperm, and we have already created life forms which reproduce using hand assembled DNA. The rest of your ideas are too inarticulate and apparently unethical to dignify with a response.

          • Tim

            Oh I see, and we can then call it “a whale of a chicken” lol

          • Tim

            Not a human. Dignity is something that is highly lacked in your comments. But I don’t care, you’re playing scientist. That’s cool with me.

          • Meepestos

            Very interesting.

            Can you direct me to any links explaining in layman terms this process or visual aid using diploid material?

          • Tim

            I just copied what he was talking about. His inference is total C.r.a.p.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Do you get really everything wrong about everything you ever make unfounded assumptions about all the time, or does chance sometimes kick-in and allow you to write something that is correct by accident?

          • Tim

            Evidence. He asked for it, yet you provided no explanation or link. You inferred something with your example that had no bearing on my earlier statement. You believe yourself to be right? The evidence points to YOU being wrong.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Bleh. This stupid sites’ moderation of links strikes again. Google for Prof Azim Surani, Director of Germline and Epigenomics Research facility at Cambridge University’s paper in Cell December 24, 2014 as well as the work of Karl Swann of the University of Wales College of Medicine in Cardiff, UK with rat and human blastocytes.

            You may also find the J Craig Venter Institutes’ press release dated 20 May, 2010 titled, “First Self-Replicating Synthetic Bacterial Cell” fascinating.

          • Meepestos

            It’s all Greek to me… Oooops! I speak Greek. Need a better idiom.
            Thanks!

          • Tim

            “This study was undertaken to establish rat embryonic stem (ES) cells from parthenogenetically developing blastocysts. Ten blastocysts were prepared by treatment of ovulated rat oocytes with ionomycin and cycloheximide, and three alkaline phosphatase-positive ES cell lines were established using the N2B27 medium supplemented with mitogen activated protein kinase kinase inhibitor PD0325901, glycogen synthase kinase 3 inhibitor CHIR99021, rat leukemia inhibitory factor, and forskolin. Expression of stem cell marker genes (Oct-4, rNanog, Fgf-4, and Rex-1) was confirmed in all three ES cell lines by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Combined bisulfite restriction analysis showed that the differentially methylated region locus of five imprinted genes (H19, Meg3IG, Igf2r, Peg5, and Peg10) in these ES cells remained to be demethylated or was hypomethylated, which was similar to that in control ES cells established from normal blastocysts. Characteristics of the parthenogenetic blastocyst-derived ES cells were successfully transmitted to the next generation through a chimeric rat for one of the three ES cell lines. This is the first report on germline-competent (genuine) ES cells derived from parthenogenetically developing rat blastocysts.”

            This in no way pairs two eggs, or two sperm to make a living being, much less explain something from nothing. Unbelievable you would post such a thing, thinking you know science.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            You really don’t have a clue, do you. A Googlebot could do better.

          • Tim

            hmm, now resorting to logical fallacies. That’s also cool to me.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            You were the one who googled for something, found some random crap and then asserted that it debunked what I had said. And now you are going on about “logical fallacies”? Without a spell checker I’m sure you couldn’t spell that, let alone explain what it means. Just some random thing somebody said to you once, I’ll be bound.

          • Tim

            Random crap. That was the abstract from the actual experiment. You may want to use google more, you might learn something about what you think you know. The only reason I didn’t post the link is because you cannot post links, so I posted the abstract of the experiment so everyone could see, that your use of the experiment as stem cell research, was not akin to designing something from nothing as you claimed. Great science I admit, but your application was incorrect. I simply showed that it was.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            You chose different experiments from me, making all of your comments and your conclusions irrelevant.

          • Tim

            Irrelevant to who? Are you saying that the science explanations you used were different than the examples I presented? Do you even recall the two examples you made, and how you represented both? If that is what your saying, Explain your conclusion to each example you posted, within the context of the discussion, and I will once again look at your explanation, evaluate it based on other interpretations and present my findings. So far I haven’t seen any peer agreement on the two examples you posted. On the contrary I found that most of the comments made were an attempt to bend the science to your own interpretation. Ex. You gave an indication that you had shown, that something could come from nothing. You used Hitchens book as a reference. However, if what you said were an inevitable truth, than Einstein’s relativity theories would be false. There is nothing faster than light, time has not been proven to go backwards, and the paradox that would occur could eliminate the whole concept you presented. That is just one example.

          • Apostaste

            What kind on insane babble is this?

          • Tim

            When I ask something of you, please feel free to respond.

          • Tim

            Concerning the last piece of your comment. Isn’t that what this bill is all about? Getting kids suited to study theory for strengths and weaknesses? Why, yes, yes that is what this bill is all about. You nailed it so to speak.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Not even a genius child is capable of doing so at 8 or even 10 years old. Most children have difficulty doing this at 16.

          • Tim

            “I recommend you try to find a middle school or your local equivalent and join the other 8 year old children learning about this topic”
            If what you just stated is true and you are making this recommendation, you have just contradicted yourself.

            “Most children have difficulty doing this at 16.” If this statement is true, that is all the more reason this bill is so important.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Do you know nothing about cognitive development? Children can be, and need to be taught at an early age, or their brain will not develop sufficiently to be able to perform the competent comparative analysis of competing theories when they are older.

            This “bill” is an evil piece of religiot nonsense, intended to impair children’s ability to discriminate between the real and the imaginary, with the intention of making them vulnerable to the noxious memeplexes they suffer under and pretend to enjoy.

          • Tim

            Nonsense! You’re a prime example of why this bill is important. Making a scientific statement and trying to interpret it to mean what you want it to mean is something these new classes will expose. You have consistently tried those things, you may possibly want to consider utilizing this Bill for yourself.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Oh puhleez. Sustain your argument and you can.
            What “scientific statement”? What “interpretation”?

          • Tim

            Look back at your statements. You gave two examples of to address statements I made. However your statements did not apply to my statements even though you thought they would. I simply corrected you by posting the information relative to those two statements. You then got hot and bothered because I used Google as a research tool. So don’t cry to me because I use tools in order to measure your accuracy.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            “I used Google as a research tool”

            Tools need competent operators to use them effectively. Which is why I observed that a Googlebot could do better.

            My challenge wasn’t to try to explain what was already obvious, it was “What “scientific statement”? What “interpretation”?” in reference to your assertion “Making a scientific statement and trying to interpret it to mean what you want it to mean is something these new classes will expose. You have consistently tried those things, you may possibly want to consider utilizing this Bill for yourself.”

            I don’t think you will be able to, but am interested to watch you try.

          • Tim

            “Tools need competent operators to use them effectively” That is a true statement, and thus why I use them.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Your palpable lack of competence suggests that you are mistaken.

          • Tim

            Your statement is false. You could not possibly know that using any scientific method, other than your opinion. You cannot even demonstrate a lack of competence using science. The only way is through your perspective. If you make a general statement of this type, it’s improbable that you would know what you just stated. So speaking within the boundaries of this comment section, it is not possible for you to conclude your statement to begin with.

          • Tim

            “My challenge wasn’t to try to explain what was already obvious, it was “What “scientific statement”? What “interpretation”?” in reference to your assertion “Making a scientific statement and trying to interpret it to mean what you want it to mean is something these new classes will expose. You have consistently tried those things, you may possibly want to consider utilizing this Bill for yourself.”

            Yes that is what I’ve been trying to explain to you. Your applying exactly what you just said.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Nice job showing the inherent self-refutations of a-theism, Tim!

          • Apostaste

            DERP!

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Wow – such an intellectual reply from one of the “rational” ones. And an up-arrow from a circular reasoning absurdist. It is a good thing I converted from Old A-theism – the New version seems to be headed by children who play video games in their parents’ basements.

          • Apostaste

            You say such absurdly stupid things and you expect a different response? you’re dumber than I thought.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            More name-calling! What a fine representative you are for the “rational” ones. 🙂 My generation at least landed men on the Moon and sent spacecraft to the stars. But, I must admit: the New A-theists ARE quite good at video games. 🙂

          • Apostaste

            So now you’re trying to take credit for the achievements of other people? that’s pathetic especially in light of how scientifically illiterate you are, you whine about your deserved rebukes and then paint a frankly stupid stereotype of atheists. Congratulations your hypocrite medal is in the post.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “So now you’re trying to take credit for the achievements of other people? that’s pathetic especially in light of how scientifically illiterate you are”

            Well, I was not going to say this, but my resume includes: 4 degrees in engineering and math and two long-term spacecraft in orbit as we speak, plus numerous peer-reviewed publications and a stint as a professor of engineering. So, all I am saying is that we Old A-theists actually accomplished something. But, that’s OK: CandyCrush is kind of fun too. 🙂

            I like the name-calling though – keep it up!

          • Lark62

            No competant teacher places a debunked theory on par with current knowledge and lets student choose the one they prefer. A teacher will teach Germ TheorY,

          • Tim

            Why? Science has a long history of theories that have held up, while others have been debunked, the same as today. Do you think science is stagnant? Do you think that there are only a select few scientists that are accurate? I would suggest that the history of science, both in strengths and weakness is very important to a student’s knowledge, and gives insight into new ways of thinking. Your view of critical thinking is fine for you. I disagree with you.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Unlike religion, “science” falsifies and discards BS. It does not advocate that it be taught to anyone. Particularly not to children.

            That is because “Fables should be taught as fables, myths as myths, and miracles as poetic fantasies. To teach superstitions as truths is a most terrible thing. The child mind accepts and believes them, and only through great pain and perhaps tragedy can he be in after years relieved of them.” [Hypatia of Alexandria]

          • Tim

            Unlike religion, “science” falsifies and discards BS. It does not advocate that it be taught to anyone. Particularly not to children.

            That is because “Fables
            should be taught as fables, myths as myths, and miracles as poetic
            fantasies. To teach superstitions as truths is a most terrible thing.
            The child mind accepts and believes them, and only through great pain
            and perhaps tragedy can he be in after years relieved of them.” [Hypatia of Alexandria]

            Now since you are a scientist (arguably) let’s hear what you have to say that science has shown proof of that “God” is the description you just posted. How can science prove a miracle. How can science prove that God is fantasy, a superstition, lets take a look at some science related to children and look at the concepts and reasons people will always believe.

            “Cognitive scientists are becoming increasingly aware that a metaphysical outlook may be so deeply ingrained in human thought processes that it cannot be expunged.

            While this idea may seem outlandish — after all, it seems easy to decide not to believe in God — evidence from several disciplines indicates that what you actually believe is not a decision you make for yourself. Your fundamental beliefs are decided by much deeper levels of consciousness, and some may well be more or less set in stone.

            In other words believing in God is set in stone at an early age. Just a bit more:

            There’s more to say here. We could turn the argument on its head: if God exists and has designed us to connect with him, then we’re actually functioning properly when we’re directed toward belief in God. We can agree that natural/physical processes partly contribute to commitment to God. In that case, the basic argument of Dawkins and Dennett could actually support the idea that religious believers are functioning decently and in order.

            On top of this, we’re left wondering why people would think up gods and spirits in the first place. Why would humans voluntarily sacrifice their lives for some intangible realm? Maybe it’s because the physical domain doesn’t contain the source of coherence, order, morality, meaning, and guidance for life. Humans, though embodied, are moral, spiritual beings; they’re able to rise above the physical and biological to reflect on it and their condition. This can result in the search for a world-transcending God.”

          • Lark62

            Yes. There are many scientific ideas that have not held up. When that happens those ideas are discarded and no longer taught.

            We do not teach that the locations of the continents are fixed because we know that that is not true. We don’t let students decide if they prefer to believe that the continents are fixed. If at some point part of the Theory of Plate Tectonics is discarded we still will not go back to teaching fixed continents because the fact is the continents move.

            Science moves forward not backwards. We teach the best knowledge we have. Even if some small part of the Theory of Evolution is updated, we will not go back to creationism because it isn’t true.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            There is a beautiful Asimov quotation that applies.”[W]hen people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.” [Isaac Asimov; “The Relativity of Wrong” in The Skeptical Inquirer, Fall 1989, Vol. 14, No. 1, Pp. 35-4]

            Actually, the entire essay is applicable and worth reading, but Tim hasn'[t shown any sign of possessing the education, language skills (and perhaps the cognitive capacity) to follow it.

          • Tim

            As I have often stated, theories that are strong weather the test of time. Those that are not strong will go by the wayside, however that doesn’t mean they aren’t studied still today. If you look at books, documentary, and debate, you will find the studies are out there from our history, otherwise we would not know about them. When you say “we” who are you referring to.
            Science moves forward, because of the past. You state Creationism isn’t true, however as a purely empirical science mechanism, science makes no claim either way. Therefore there can be no mechanism that can explain the Supernatural purely through materialistic means.

          • Lark62

            Animals on earth today evolved from earlier forms. No animal was put here spontaneously.

            The earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Life has existed on earth for about 3.5 billion years. These numbers may change a bit, but several billion will not become a few thousand.

            Some things simply aren’t true.

          • Tim

            What type of animals “evolved” from earlier forms, and how does cross species work? I propose that cross species doesn’t work. It’s been tried and failed. I agree that the Universe itself is roughly 4.5 billion years old. However, I also believe that there would have to be millions of examples of “human’s as early primates” and the record just doesn’t give enough evidence. Taking the Piltman, and Lucy into consideration, there is not sufficient evidence to support a species that crosses over into another species. Evolutionist’s won’t agree with that statement, however, more evidence needs to be required to properly consider animals evolving from unlike animals, such as early forms of a particular animal, or animals. Some things indeed, require better explanations. If, for example you find that a scientist can produce a human from a primate, or that science can explain all of the animals within the Ocean (we have only discovered roughly 8% of what types of life are in the Oceans, then that would be sufficient evidence that one species can evolve into another. We know we can put Alien (foreign) DNA strands into a living organism (such as single cell organisms) which can live for a short time in a lab which is created by a group of scientists that took some years to accomplish, yet the life form can’t live outside of the lab. So we really can’t produce cross DNA (across different species) through natural processes. What is equally important is that these types of experiments are “created” but have dismal records as a new species type that lives it’s complete life cycle. One scientist in Norway has presented the idea of making a human from stem cells which is an experiment that the U.S. will not allow, and Ethicists would not allow, however he intends to go through with it. Sometimes that becomes a major problem with science, and scientists. How far is a scientist willing to go to prove a point, get funding, or publish? Some outcomes are horrifying to say the least.

          • Meepestos

            You knowledge would be appreciated over here if you have the
            time. I’m still reading books on the scientific theory of evolution and am
            having difficulty understanding what traits qualify as an adaptation.

            Rats! It won’t take the link.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Any genetically (or possibly epigenetically*) determined trait having a functional role within the life cycle of an organism which undergoes selection pressure resulting in a change in allele distribution. So for example socialization and pair-bonding in some species, the development of flight, the return to water and loss of their legs by whales, tongue length in anteaters, immunity to toxins in honey badgers, camouflage in a wide variety of life forms, hibernation and estivation, beak length in the finches of the Galapagos, the habit of eating their mates in the praying mantis, and on their fellow humans in the praying religiots, not to mention the loss of the third molars in the most modern humans. Any number of others.
            Important to bear in mind that evolution does not mean better or more advanced or even a global optimum. Just that it results in more offspring in entities exhibiting a selected trait, or perhaps in an advantageous linked trait.

            *I mention this because it seems that there is some selected advantage for children to possess gay uncles, and this is an epigenetically selected trait, with the probability of a boy being gay correlating well with the number of previous boys born to the same mother (a tripling in probability for every older male sibling born to the same mother).

          • Meepestos

            I get it now. Thanks! I also found info on Berkeley’s site about defining adaptation.

            Melvin Gillham at the “The Decline of Christianity in the U.S.” article could probably use some of your retort and knowledge in regard to scientists using the theory of evolution to develo

          • ter ber

            Hmmm. “Return to the water with the loss of their legs-whales”? So the made-up transitional creature grows legs in the sea and crawls out, and then turns around ( with the magic of time) and loses his legs and returns back to the sea? Is that what you are going with? You do know those little bones on the whale skeleton by its uterus is for birthing their offspring, and not the lies in the textbooks saying it’s their legs they used to walk with. You do know that theory-lie was proven wrong, but left in the textbook. Right?

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            The smell of bovine excrement is strong with this one.

            Genetics, transitional fossils and anatomy confirm the history of the wale. I recommend you visit [ http colon slash slash evolution dot berkeley dot edu slash evolibrary slash article slash evograms_03 ] and see for yourself.

            (Leave out spaces and translate dot and slash back to symbols)

          • Meepestos

            “The smell of bovine excrement is strong with this one”. My wife loves this sentence. She’s going to save it for next clerk or tech support person that feeds her bull.

          • ter ber

            “The smell of bovine….” What are doing watching so much of game of thrones? First of all, I am not going back to Berkley’s idiot website, I was on it this weekend and they are STILL teaching the lies of the embryonic “gills”, disproven 140 yrs ago to be a fraud. With a caveat. “Though they do not represent the gills of a fish, it shows we shared a common ancestor with the fish”. Oh please. Smoking all that California dope is doing no good for humanity. Repent you guys. The bovine excrement is going to be hitting the fan next fall.

          • John N

            The exact name for those slits,ter ber, are branchial clefts. In our fishy ancestors these slits developped into gills, that’s why they are also called gill arches. In non-fishes these slits develop into the jaw, middle ear and larynx. Basic embryology.

            If you think you can disprove this, please give it a try.

          • ter ber

            ‘Fishy ancestors’ oh dear, I am afraid we have lost several generations to Sesame Street reasoning. If it really were a ‘throwback to the fish stage’ then there would be blood vessels all around it, as if it were going to absorb oxygen from the water as a gill does. But there is no such structure. We simply do not have the DNA instructions for forming gills. And yes, the throat (pharyngeal) grooves and pouches, falsely called gill slits, are not mistakes of human development. They develop into absolutely essential parts of human anatomy. 1&3 grooves are the lower jaw, tongue, thymus gland, parathyroid. 2nd groove is the middle ear canal etc.

          • John N

            Who was talking about a ‘throwback to the fish stage’? That hypothesis has been left a long time ago. Branchial clefts are not gill slits, nor do the function as gills. No biologist has proposed that for the last hundred years, and neither does the Berkeley site. Did you actually read what is says?

          • ter ber

            i know I could not believe it. It was Berkley University site!!
            I read it. It says its proves we share a common ancestor with a fish. Though it did say they are not gills. But because its similar looking. LOL. You really can’t make it up. I guess unless your an atheist who doesn’t mind LYING. (Thou shall Not Lie-God)

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Why then do your goiddities use lies to suit their purpose, and how can you tell when your goddities are lying to you?

          • ter ber

            “He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth: He makes lightning for the rain; He brings the wind out of His treasuries.” Psalm 135:7
            The Striking verse is practically identical with Jeremiah 10;13 and Jeremiah 51:16, suggesting the possibility that the prophet Jeremiah may have written the otherwise anonymous Psalm 135. The two Jeremiah passages do preface this statement with the note that there is “a multitude of waters in the Heavens in connection with the processes described in the verse.
            This thrice-mentioned mechanism beautifully summarized what we now call the Hydrologic Cycle, and it did so 2,000 years before the cycle began to be understood by modern scientist. In order to provide rain to water the earth, there must be vapors ascending all over the earth (that is, evaporation from the world’s oceans) winds then blowing from God’s unseen treasury (global atmospheric circulation), and, finally, lightnings for (or with) the Rain (electrical discharges associated with the condensation and coalescence of the particles of water vapor in the atmosphere).
            All of this repeatedly transports purified waters from oceans back over the lands to fall as rain and snow, there finally to run-off back to the oceans. “Unto the place from whence the rivers come, there they return again” Ecclesiastes 1:7.
            Not only does this hydrologic cycle sustain physical life on earth, but it also is a type of the spreading of God’s Word, giving spiritual life. “For as the rain comes down, and the snow from Heaven, and do not return there, but water the earth, ….So shall my Word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please” Isaiah 55:10-11 CRI.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Anyone who imagines that rain comes from lightning or that wind emenates from “treasuries” is incompetent to discourse on climateology. Any fool not two sandwiches short of a picnic can see that.

            The idea of the “waters in the Heavens” relates to the fallacious Sumerian concept of the sea above the Earth separated by the arch of heaven, borrowed by the Canaanites and inherited by the Hebrews.

            And this nonsense relates to lies how?

          • ter ber

            Because your rage against Me and your tumult have come up to My ears, Therefore I will put My hook in your nose and My bridle in your in your lips, and I will turn you back by the way which you came. Isaiah 37:29

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Your god thingies are liars. How can you tell when they are lying?

            “but you are not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, because you will certainly die during the day that you eat from it.” [Genesis 2] AND “Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died.” [Genesis 5]

            “Now therefore, listen! The LORD has placed a lying spirit in the mouth of all of these prophets of yours” [1 Kings 22/2 Chronicles 18]

          • ter ber

            YOM in the Hebrew= Day in the English.
            The word Yom has several literal definitions. 1)period of light. 2) 24hours. 3) general term for time. 4) point of time. 5)sunrise to sunset. 6) a year. 7) time period of unspecified length. 8) a long, but finite span of time-age-epoch-season. Yom relates to the concept of time not just a day. Hebrew in its limited vocabulary. Uses fewer symbols/letters than english. Now its original written by Moses would have been some kind of Sand script-translated to paleo Hebrew. Which is even more cool. When you study the symbols. As for Kings and Chronicles, you do know satan asked permission from Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to ‘sift’ Peter? Luke 22:31-32. You act so surprised. God allows lying spirits to enter us. And sometimes we ourselves give them permission. Or sometimes our ancestors gave them permission to hang around the generations. You can see some of those at the Bob Larson you tube channel. The question of the day hermit is,”How many do you have?” And don’t you care they are imbedded with you? Don’t you get tired of shaking your little ant fist to the Creator of the Universe? Great example of Hebrew is the video “Secret Name of God”. Go to youtube search engine and put: Secret name of God- PP simmons.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            It is always a delight to watch a world class wriggler dancing on the head of a pin.

            You however, are not a world class wriggler. Just a common or garden plagiarist – of Wikipedia for goodness’ sake! Give them credit. It costs you nothing except a totally spurious authority you never had anyway. We all know you are too stupid to come up with your dissertations without the help of Google. And if you lived in Israel (as I have), and said to your kids (if you had any) that they would get ice-cream “during the day”, you would definitely learn what an unhappy child looked like by nightfall if you were so cruel as to mean “a long, but finite span of time-age-epoch-season” even if you got really, really busy and had a million good reasons for putting it off.

            Moses was just as mythical (probably based on syncretion of tales of Sargon the Great and Thutmose III) as most of the rest of your so called “bible”. The Hebrews are Canaanites (genetics and archaeology tell us that), never were in Egypt as slaves (their pottery and writing, and the writings of others tells us that), definitely didn’t wander in a sensitive desert ecosystem (ecology tells us that) totally controlled by the Egyptians who had military forts all over the area (archaeology and Egyptian, Assyrian and Babylonian writings tell us that) for forty years or more, and the Hebrew scriptures were largely if not completely invented in exile, probably by the wickedly competent Sumerian mythmakes, and extensively edited and reduced to writing after they were taught monotheism and not to sacrifice children by their Greek conquerors. The earliest known copies of most Hebrew writings date to the 1st and second century BCE.

            So bang goes the literalism you clew to when you are not scrabbling for a figurative approach in a desperate attempt to explain away issues too blatant and too troublesome to sustain any other approach.

          • John N

            I really can’t make it up? You were the one trying to show us the Berkeley University-site is ‘STILL teaching the lies of the embryonic “gills”, disproven 140 yrs ago to be a fraud’.

            I showed you that was a lie, you agree with that, but somehow now I am the one lying?

            By the way, we are descending from a fishlike ancestor. No doubt about it. Not only the branchial clefts are showing that, also the fossil remains, our anatomy, and our DNA is evidence for that. I’m still waiting to see an alternative theory which explains all this without adding more unnecessary complexity.

          • ter ber

            You may have bought into lucifer’s lie you descended from Nemo, but I believe God’s Word when he says, ‘Then God said, Let Us make man in Our Image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. Genesis 1:26
            I would suggest you google: Table of Nations by Tim Osterholm. and Adam, Eve, and Noah vs Modern Genetics by Dr. Robert W. Carter.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            We know humans speciated some 7.5 to 4.5 MYbp, had low heavy brows, flat noses and were much hairier then. Does that mean your god thingies look more like orang outang than current men, or have your god thingies evolved along with us?
            Did your gods have navels? Who bore them? Nipples? Who were they going to suckle? Foreskins? They certainly seem to have disliked half the nerve endings on the penis, but why did they have penises in the first place? What were they going to have sex with?
            Did your god thingies have vestigial vermiform appendices? We needed them as a refugium for cellulose digesting bacteria when we ate leaves, but what did your god thingies use them for?
            Did your god thingies have third molars? We needed them when we had longer jaws, and growing in late, they extended our lives by allowing us to chew after our earlier molars had been worn away by eating unprocessed food. But as our jaws shortened and we changed diets, they became unnecessary and often life threatening. Which is why the most recent human family, the people of the pacific basin, have selected for not developing supernumerary molars and only develop two.

          • John N

            I don’t care what you believe, I care about the lies you publish here about a field you clearly know little about.

            I looked at the references you gave me. Your Tim Osterholm saying ‘Biologically, a race is generally thought of as a variety, or subspecies, within a given species. All the races are a part of the human race’. Is that the level of science you try to defend?

            As for Robert Carter, people who start with a conclusion and try to fit the evidences in there are not scientists. Please show me a peer reviewed article in a scientific journal from his hand.

          • Jim H

            I notice to correctly use the plural Us and Our, indicating that Genesis 1 portrays creation as a group project. As a monotheist, how do you explain that?

          • ter ber

            Trinity.

          • Jim H

            Genesis was written by Jews not Christians. Jew do not believe in a triune God, the author obviously had something else in mind.

          • ter ber

            The Old Testament was written by Believers in the Creator God of the universe, I never said they were Christians. For some examples of the Trinity in the OT. We can start with David. Who was worried that his sin brought him out of fellowship with God…”Cast me not away from thy presence, and take not the Holy Spirit from me.”
            Psalm 51:11.
            And then we have the most famous description of the Messiah Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ written by the prophet Isaiah, 750 years before Christ birth. To do it justice I recommend reading all of Isaiah 53, but here is verse 4-6: Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him. And by His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray. We have turned, every one, to his own way. And the LORD has laid on HIM the iniquity of us all.

          • Jim H

            That is not a very convincing argument. Particularly since “Sons of God” are mentioned in Genesis 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7 and Psalm 89:6. It seems more plausible that the Jews believed in a pantheon of gods with Yahweh occupying the top place in his, like Zeus did in the Greek pantheon. Strict monotheism would seem to be a later development.

          • ter ber

            I forgot to get back to you, I have been busy celebrating Pastor Kent Hovind new criminal charges have been dismissed. (Free Kent Hovind (.) com). Well the sons of God are His angels. I will go the appendix of the book The Angelic Conflict by the late Colonel Thieme. Explains it beautifully: The conclusion of the prehistoric angelic conflict in Heaven yielded two opposing forces: those (angels) who remained obedient to God, the elect, and those who did not, the fallen…Of the elect forces David said, “The chariots of God are myriads, thousand upon thousands” (Psalm 68:17); and in Gethsemane, Lord Jesus said, “Or do you think I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions if angels?” (Matt. 26:53) also (Rev. 5:11). These myriads of elect angels in the heavenly protocol are a well-defined organization. Created to glorify God, they perform various duties in Heaven and earth: heralding and issuing divine plans and policy for human history, executing declarations and judgements, battling the demonic hordes as combatants in God’s heavenly army, and ministering to believers on earth. Terber- I believe all the Greek gods legends (later changed/added to Roman legend) that these came from man interacting with the elect and fallen angelic beings. And the farther man got away from God and His laws the more under the demonic army influence. Of course the Genesis 6 historical story where the demonic angels mated with some of Adam’s female descendants .

          • Jim H

            I think that to assume that they were angels is the kind of theological reverse engineering that is required to maintain biblical inerrancy.

            “In the modern era, critical scholarship is more apt to interpret the sons of God as lesser gods in the heavenly pantheon, taking the passage as a remnant of a Canaanite myth.”
            (Allen Ross, Creation and Blessing, Baker, 1988, p. 178)

            The idea of a pantheon of gods seems inherent in the idea of the divine council described in Psalm 82 (RSV)

            1 God has taken his place in the divine council;
            in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:
            2 “How long will you judge unjustly
            and show partiality to the wicked?
            3 Give justice to the weak and the fatherless;
            maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.
            4 Rescue the weak and the needy;
            deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”
            5 They have neither knowledge nor understanding,
            they walk about in darkness;
            all the foundations of the earth are shaken.
            6 I say, “You are gods,
            sons of the Most High, all of you;
            7 nevertheless, you shall die like men,
            and fall like any prince.”
            8 Arise, O God, judge the earth;
            for to thee belong all the nations!

            The idea of a divine council/pantheon appears in Job 1:6 (NIV), which says:

            One day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satanb also came with them.

            The word angels is footnoted to explain the Hebrew was the “sons of God”.

            Now, in the modern period, critical scholarship is more apt to interpret the sons of God as lesser gods in the heavenly pantheon, taking the passage as a remnant of a Canaanite myth (Allen Ross, Creation and Blessing, Baker, 1988, p. 178)

            The scholarly contention is El, not Yahweh, was the original “God of Israel”–the word “Israel” is based on the name El rather than Yahweh. He was the chief of the Canaanite gods, described as “the kind, the compassionate,” “the creator of creatures”.

            Although not apparent in most popular translations, Deuteronomy 32:8–9 describes the sons of El, including Yahweh, each receiving his own people:

            When the Most High gave nations as their inheritance,
            when he separated the human race,
            he set boundaries for the people
            according to the number of the children of God
            For the LORD’s portion is his people;
            Jacob is his allotted portion

            Please note what the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, on page 584, art. ‘sons of God’ has to say regarding this text:

            “…the MT [masoretic text] erroneously has “sons of Israel” [bene yisrael], but the versions [e.g., LXX, Symm, Old Latin] and a scroll from Qumran support the reading “sons of God” [bene elim.]”

            Then it goes on to say the following:

            “In other words, the Most High assigned one of the peoples of the world to each of the divine beings in the council. As v.9 indicates, Yahweh’s portion was Israel. The original notion seems to have been that Yahweh, God of Israel, stood alongside the other national gods in a council presided over by the Most High.”

            The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, compiled by three outstanding Catholic scholars, on page 108, states:

            “For “sons of Israel” read “sons of God” with the LXX and QL. The idea is that Elyon, high God of the Canaanite pantheon, assigned each of the 70 nations of the world [Gen 10] to one of the 70 deities of the pantheon and that Israel had the good fortune to be assigned to Yahweh.”

            There are fifteen references to angels in the Pentateuch and each time it refers to angels it calls them angels-never the sons of God. The only exception is Genesis 3:24 when he calls them cherubim.

            Therefore calling them angels in these anything but obvious. To the contrary, calling them angels would seem inconsistent with the Hebrew word which means messenger. The sons of God that sit on the divine council are hardly mere messengers.
            Regarding Kent Hovind, is that the guy they called Doctor Dino? Wasn’t he convicted for big time tax evasion and contempt? I thought he was still in prison.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            The judge probably felt sorry for him. I mean, its like beating a quadriplegic. The man obviously is insane and not capable of basic reasoning. He should be in a mental ward. Not jail.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            I’ve determined that every time you start drifting into the world of “Lucifer/Satan/Beelz” is lying to you…. WITH SCIENCE, that you actually have been cornered and what little reasoning and faculty you have fails even your low logic standard. So you break down and wield Bible quotes. Its rather funny how accurate you’ve been to predict using this as a guideline.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            God also tells you what you can buy and for how many sheckles. Apparently God was interested in economy too.

          • ter ber

            Oh I forgot one thing. The fake Herkel Gill slit charts were in Public School textbooks from 1950-2005. Hopefully they are all out of the books by now.

          • John N

            ter ber, If you copy and paste your so-called scientific information from a website like AIG, please try to avoid typing errors. The contents of these sites are already stupid enough without that.

          • John N

            >You do know those little bones on the whale skeleton by its uterus is for birthing their offspring, and not the lies in the textbooks saying it’s their legs they used to walk with. You do know that theory-lie was proven wrong, but left in the textbook. Right?

            Wrong. That’s a secondary function that evolved when the primary function, movement, was no longer needed. That is the definition of a vestigial character, and evidence of the ancestry of whales from four-legged mammals.

            Please give us a reference of this being a lie.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Proven? Where? Have you ever looked at the pictures of mosdern whalebones showing the attachment points and bearing surfaces where cartilage, muscles and tendons were present in their land-dwelling ancestors and which remain as vestigial structures? How do you explain the phylogenetic linkages and the presence of these vestigial structures?

          • ter ber

            Please do not waste your time with junk theories that need the magic of time to create or aliens to seed it. I recommend to watch this review of a documentary on evolution. Youtube search engine: The Miracle of Evolution. PP Simmons (5min.)

          • Apostaste

            Or you could actually read a science book and actually know something about the subject. Only a total idiot goes to a “ministry” for explanations of scientific subjects.

          • ter ber

            I love science. But I love unfettered science. Not science that has to “fit in” the evolution religious box. “And He will destroy in this mountain the face of the covering cast over all people, and the vail that is spread over all nations” Isaiah 25:7.
            The veil that keeps them in darkness is a satanic blindfold. “The god of this world (satan) hath blinded the minds of them which believe not” (2Cor.4:4) and how did the devil gain such control over human minds? “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were they thankful; but became vein in their imaginations, and their foolish hearts were darkened…” Romans 1:21

          • Apostaste

            “I love science” – you don’t even know what it is! Evolution is not a religion, only a complete retard would think so. Why the hell are you quoting the bible in a discussion of a scientific subject? where is your shame? Pretending to know things you evidently do not know it tantamount to lying.
            I am yet to meet an honest creationist.

          • ter ber

            Mr. Apostate pinhead, in case YOU forgot. You are on a Christian website. News flash: we are commanded to witness to your lost soul. HE the Creator of the universe, cares were you are going to spend eternity. Me? Not so much. But HE gives me enough of His concern, to share with you. So while you are shaking your fist to the God you do not believe in, I need to ask you this question. With all the fabulous expensive equipment beaming back to us NO other life, do you really , really think this little planet pulsating, breathing with His creation and creatures all happened by chance and luck?

          • Apostaste

            Pinhead ha! You ain’t commanded to lie now are you, but you don’t seem to have an issue with it. Please look up evolution and actually know what it is your ignorance is embarrassing.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            You are on a suite that claims to give equal prominence to alternate viewpoints which uses a platform for discussion in order to attract advertising cpm income. Are they lying, or, are you wrong as usual, or, both?

            When you start talking about your rather nasty and totally ludicrous god thingies, while talking absolute nonsense, exposing your beliefs and your own imbecility by calling your interlocutors fools, you should expect a robust response.

            If the sun were the size of a beachball in the middle of Iowa, the nearest star would be a beachball located in Hawaii. Until we started transmitting meaningful RF about 100 years ago, do you imagine we could have been detected at interstellar distances? When we see sense and stop transmitting meaningful RF into space or more-likely, blow ourselves up, do you imagine we will be any easier to detect at interstellar distances. Before we started using RF we could not have detected transmissions from others.
            Life is common, but “intelligence” is not. Our brains evolved to control motion and the other uses we make of it are side-effects of this primary purpose. As can be seen by the fact that the Earth has emitted RF for just 120 years of its 3.8 billion year existence, the invention and use of RF equipment when others are listening is almost certainly quite rare.
            The lesson is that there is probably a very short window of perhaps a few hundred years during which it is relatively easy to detect other RF using civilizations if you are already an RF using civilisation. It is much more difficult, or perhaps impossible to discover non RF using life forms, even though they almost certainly dominate in the Universe, just as they do on Earth..
            And I really hope that our transmissions do not draw the attention of visitors, because they are sure to be smarter, more powerful, and quite likely much nastier than us. Though if it happened, I’m sure some silly humans might call them gods.

          • Tim

            LOL, here you go again, making unfounded statements. You couldn’t even answer my questions concerning Evolution. How soon we forget huh?

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            I think you are mistaken. Even when people spell things out for you, you are too busy fabricating straw red herrings to take the time to comprehend what is said.

            Evolution is simply the observed change in allele distributions over time. Which part of that do you not understand?

          • Tim

            So this is your basis for Evolution. Hmmm.

            A skeptical biochemist

            It was then that I was contacted by a scientist who wrote to me, arguing that the fixation of 22.4 million mutations in the human lineage during the last five million years by a combination of selection and genetic drift was impossible and nonsensical for any population of organisms, especially when we consider the pattern of fixation. Strong words! Who was this mysterious scientist? Readers might be surprised to learn that he’s a biochemist with a very impressive track record named Branko Kozulic.

            There are three different mutation rates

            Dr. Kozulic pointed out that we need to distinguish between three different mutation rates:

            (a) the number of mutations per base pair per generation, which is indeed roughly constant across all organisms; and

            (b) the number of mutations per individual per generation, which varies widely between different kinds of organisms, for reasons that I’ll discuss below; and

            (c) the total number of mutations entering the population per generation, which is equal to “the number of gametes produced each generation, 2N, times the probability of a mutation in any one of them, u.” (John Gillespie, Population Genetics: A Concise Guide, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004, pp. 32-33.)

            Professor Moran does make this distinction in some of his posts – for example, this one, where he states that there is “one mutation in every 10 billion base pairs that are replicated,” and then goes on to say that there are “133 new mutations in every zygote.”

            Which mutation rate is the fixation rate equal to?

            In the passage cited above, Professor Moran referred to Lenski’s long term evolution experiment:

            If the fixation rate of neutral alleles was equal to the mutation rate then (as predicted by population genetics) then this should be observable in the experiment run by Lenski (now 60,000 generations).

            Did you notice the reference to “the mutation rate”? As we saw above, there are three mutation rates. In chapter two of his book, Population Genetics: A Concise Guide (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, second edition, 2004), which I’ve been recently perusing, evolutionary biologist John Gillespie repeatedly refers to the mutation rate for a given locus. And in population genetics, altering the numerical relationship between the mutation rate and the (effective) population size can lead to dramatically different results. For example Gillespie, in the textbook referred to above, writes:

            If 1/u << N, the time scale of mutation is much less than drift, leading to a population with many unique alleles. If N << 1/u, the time scale of drift is shorter, leading to a population devoid of variation

          • Apostaste

            I highly recommend the foundation falsehoods of creationism youtube series. It covers all possible questions and objections with sourced material you can confirm for yourself.

          • Meepestos

            Will check it out. Thanks.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            English impaired as well as deficient in middle school science education?

          • ter ber

            So you think yourself and Hairy the chimp shared a common ancestor? Bigfoot perhaps? Please describe your theory on what that common ancestor would look like since you are so fond of fairy tales. Dr. Barney Maddox, leading Genome researcher spells out the difference of the 1.6% difference between man and chimp: it’s the difference of 48 MiLLION nucleotides! And a change of 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal.

          • Apostaste

            “a change of 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal. ” DERP!

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            I don’t know where you got the crazy idea that “a change of 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal” or how you imagine that this misconception is relevant to evolution. You do realise that if you are average, that your DNA contains some 60 to 70 mutations and that these can be tracked generation to generation?

            Genetics show that all of the great apes descended from a common ancestral line. See e.g. [ http colon slash slash www dot nature dot com slash nature slash journal slash v499 slash n7459 slash full slash nature12228 dot html ] Javier Prado-Martine et al; 2012; “Great ape genetic diversity and population history” in Nature; 499,471–475(25 July 2013); doi:10.1038/nature12228.

            Speciation from the ancestral line (based on my visual inspection and combination of splits and divergence from Figure 2: Inferred population history):

            Orang-outang 15-10 MYBP
            Bornean Orang-outang 0.5 MYBP
            Sumatran Orang-outang 0.5 MYBP

            Gorilla 7-4.75 MYBP
            Eastern Lowland Gorilla 900-210 kYBP
            Cross-river Gorilla 750-50 kYBP
            Western Lowland Gorilla 750-50 kYBP

            Pan 7-4.75 MYBP
            Bonobo 5-0.9 MYBP
            Western Chimpanzee 5-0.2 MYBP
            Nigerian-Cameroon Chimpanzee 5-0.3 MYBP
            Eastern Chimpanzee 5-0.1 MYBP
            Central Chimpanzee 5-0.1 MYBP

            Human 7-3 MYBP

            Creating a classic phylogenetic tree.

          • ter ber

            Clearly hermit you love science. Science means ‘knowledge’ which we know is not going to save you from this short life on earth.
            I had my DNA sequenced in 2010. I had several mutations. My friend in Las Vegas had ZERO. I was floored. Zero. I just assumed everyone had some. So the mutation theory breaks down. Anyways mutations take away, they do not create, so again the natural selection theory breaks down.

          • Apostaste

            No science is a very specific methodology it is not synonymous with knowledge.And surprise surprise you have no idea what a mutation is, It’s a statistical certainty your “friend” has some.

            Do you ever get tired of being dead wrong every time?

            “Anyways mutations take away, they do not create, do again the natural selection theory breaks down.” Complete BS

        • Tim

          So, you’re stating that DNA is full of “junk DNA”?

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            No. I wasn’t. But you are apparently insufficiently educated to comprehend even a middle school exposition on DNA.

          • Tim

            You crack me up.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            I must decline the honour. You were cracked long before you met me.

          • Tim

            Hmm, a form of Philosophy on your part? Or, no
            Ad Hominem–Attacking the individual instead of the argument.
            Example: You are so stupid your argument couldn’t possibly be true.
            Example: I figured that you couldn’t possibly get it right, so I ignored your comment.

            You need to be taught some manners. Logical fallacies are no way to go through life lol.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Tim, I’m not arguing with you. “An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.” [OMPQOTD]. You haven’t managed to connect words together yet, let alone statements intended to sustain a proposition. Indeed, you don’t appear competent to engage in any intellectual processes requiring communication, and the fact that you imagine that you have formulated arguments (although about what?) places you firmly in the delusional camp.

            So, all I’m doing is rebutting you, sustaining my rebuttals and arguably abusing you, but so long as we are not arguing that is not ad hominem, no matter how much joy it is to watch a serial abuser like you whine about receiving his well earned comeuppance.

        • ter ber

          “Life developed one step at a time”, ah yes that magic of time. Creating matter and information. It’s all so magical!
          1 Corinthians 1:18
          For the message of the CROSS is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the Power if God.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Can you answer these simple questions about your god thingies? Please note that in the following, where evidence is sought, that this means that the evidence is in a form which may be intersubjectively verified.

            1) What attributes make your god thingies deserving of being regarded as gods and why?
            2) What evidence do you have that possession of these attributes is necessary and sufficient to regard a thingie as a god thingie?
            3) What evidence do you have that such attributes may exist in this Universe?
            4) What evidence do you have that your god thingies possess such attributes?
            5) What evidence do you have that other thingies do not possess these attributes?
            6) What evidence do you have that your god thingies exist?
            7) What evidence, however hypothetical, might lead you to change your mind over any of the above?
            8) Can you provide a single falsifiable prediction made by the alleged existence of your god thingies that would be falsified if they did not exist?
            9) Consider that anything that has a significant affect upon the Universe may be detected through its affect upon things in the Universe. If there is evidence that your god thingies have affected the Universe, where can that evidence be evaluated? If there is no evidence your god thingies have affected the Universe, then why should they be regarded as deities?
            10) Why should anyone take your ideas about god thingies seriously if you don’t know enough about them to be able to answer the simple questions above about them?
            [v 0.40]

          • Tim

            Circular, and here is why.

            The late Ian Barbour, an American scholar who studied the relationship between science and faith, recognized four ways of relating these two supposed combatants.1Three of the four methods do not involve conflict. In this two-part series I will discuss Barbour’s insights, with the hope of demonstrating that conflict is not the default position for science and Christianity.

            Science vs. Scientism

            Barbour defines conflict as the outcome of differing philosophical starting points.2The conflict between science and religion is best understood as a conflict between materialistic naturalism and biblical literalism, a position that takes Scripture “literalistically” (such as misunderstanding metaphoric phrases and imagery) when other interpretations reflect the meaning of the text more faithfully. The conflict, according to Barbour, occurs from turning a method into a metaphysics (view of reality).3

            Science is a method employed for studying the natural world’s structure, form, mechanisms, and processes. Scientism is a metaphysics that states only the physical, material universe is real. Also known as scientific materialism or materialistic naturalism, scientism rejects categorically the existence of the supernatural, that which lies outside of nature. Scientism makes two fundamental assertions: (1) the scientific method is the only reliable path to knowledge; and (2) matter (or matter and energy) is the fundamental reality of the universe.4

            Science is not scientism. Scientism is a philosophical commitment that extrapolates science beyond its inherent limits. It then states that that which was being determined scientifically is all that there is to be determined in reality. Although circular and coherent within itself, scientism is not a scientific position. Yet because it incorporates science into its methodology it has great influence in our scientific and technological culture.

            If we think about this, it should be apparent that science cannot determine whether the supernatural is real or not since it is a method limited to and employed within the natural realm. Barbour asserts, therefore, that scientific materialism represents “a misuse of science,” as does biblical literalism. Barbour writes, “Both positions fail to observe the proper boundaries of science.”5

            Barbour offers the following assertion by biologist and Nobel laureate Jacques Monod as an example of extrapolating the methods of science beyond their means to a philosophical statement enmeshed in scientism:

            He [Monod] says that science proves there is no purpose in the cosmos. Surely it would be more accurate to say that science does not deal with divine purposes; it is not a fruitful concept in the development of scientific theories.6

            It is, however, a concept in the development of a worldview. Yet there is no morescientific merit or support for scientism than there is for the view that both the natural and supernatural exist. These two worldviews are mutually exclusive and it is this which lies at the heart of the conflict between scientism and Christianity.

            A commitment to scientism leads by necessity to naturalistic reductionism, which asserts if all that exists is matter and energy, then all should be explained by fundamental physics and chemistry and the laws governing these within the universe. Yet scientists and philosophers (of non-theistic persuasion) have wondered about the inherent order within nature as well as its logical functioning. Albert Einstein, Antony Flew, and many others have been deeply and irreparably puzzled by the question, why is there something rather than nothing? This is a question that Barbour would categorize as a “boundary question.”7 Boundary questions are queries that science raises and yet lacks the ability to answer.

            How, then, might we relate science and Christianity without resorting to the conflict method? Barbour offers three alternatives (one I will discuss here, the other two in a later article). The first of the three alternatives is independence.

            Independence

            Evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, best known for the theory of punctuated equilibrium, believed that science and religion should be considered as two distinct domains of knowledge, thus popularizing the acronym NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria).

            My observations have convinced me that many of my fellow scientists function under this practical position of non-overlapping domains. Separating science and faith might be practical and functional much of the time; however, this approach can lead to minimizing one or the other and can impede a coherent view of reality. As Barbour puts it, independence often leads to a false dichotomy, one that states that nature can be known by unaided human reason and observation and that God can be known only by revelation through scripture or tradition.8

            This dichotomy fails to recognize that natural theology always held that God could be known through rational arguments—based in human reason and observation—and from evidence such as design in nature (physical laws, an orderly universe, etc.). Galileo, in fact, held that God is revealed through both the book of nature and the book of Scripture and that the two books could not conflict since they both came from God.9

            I agree with Galileo and would add that science and Christian theology should not conflict since they both seek what is true about reality. Where they touch on truth and reality they should dialogue, harmonize, and even integrate.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            A direct cutnpaste job from an apologist site www dot reasons dot org slash articles/how-to-relate-science-and-faith-without-conflict-part-1. It is telling that the scientists quoted are religiots. Scientists with fully functional paracingulate sulci reject this kind of nonsense. It is also telling that the philosophy reflected here hasn’t even developed the ability to respond to the fact that since at least the 1930s, science has recognized that attempts to label “reality” or “truth” are futile, and that, as von Neumann explained, “The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work.” [von Neumann, John, Bródy, F. editor and Vámos, T. editor; 1955; “Method in the physical sciences” in The Neumann Compendium, World series in 20th century mathematics vol. 1; World Scientific Publishing Co., Singapore; p. 628]. This makes the term, “scientism” as obsolete as philosophy itself.

            On which note, Heinlein described philosophy scathingly, but accurately, “My father wanted me to study law. I soon found out that I was more interested in the principles behind law and I changed over to the School of Philosophy. But philosophy wasn’t the answer. There really isn’t anything to philosophy. Did you ever eat that cotton candy they sell at fairs? Well, philosophy is like that—it looks as if it were really something, and it’s awfully pretty, and it tastes sweet, but when you go to bite it you can’t get your teeth into it, and when you try to swallow, there isn’t anything there. Philosophy is word-chasing, as significant as a puppy chasing its tail.” [Heinlein, R.A.; Lost Legacy; Assignment in Eternity], although Hawking’s more recent “Philosophy is dead” is shorter and just as accurate.

            The myth of separate magisteria is deflated by the fact that neuroimaging has allowed us to directly observe the process of thinking and establish that there is no “mind-matter duality” and if we comprehend any physics at all then we understand the physics of the brain well enough to be certain that it is not interacting with anything external when humans pretend to interact with the supernatural. This is because humans are no more (or less) than slow, error prone computers made out of meat, with data represented by charges and structures which can be measured, traced, altered and even the contents visualised, meaning that we have metaphorically developed the ability to peer into the synaptic gap, and determined that there no longer exists a gap large enough to hide a god thingie, not even a very, very small one. This means that there are no longer any domains of thought immune from the kleiglights of science and analysis by the scientific method.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            I take it you don’t know enough about your god thingies to be able to answer the simple questions above?

      • Lark62

        Neither out of context quote mining nor silly unsupported statstics impress me.

        A study of genetics and DNA show the absolute opposite of intelligent design. Mutations, duplications, viruses imbedded in dna, thousands upon thousands of inactive genes.

        However by tracing mutations and blocks of inactive dna back through various species, scientists can confirm evolutionary history. They can see that all primates had a common ancestor with a certain mutation but that more distantly related animals do not have that mutation. They can see a patch of inactive dna in primates and some mammals and determine when then branches separated.

        Read. Study. Learn.

        • ter ber

          It’s best you look up the true history of man and his genome, and google the Genome scientists “Y Chromosome migration maps” that is your history-not pond scum. Also a great article, which this website will not allow a link, but you can google is: The Table of Nations by Tim Osterholm.

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        They have to believe in ET: only ET can save them now! 🙂 Unless they are open-minded enough to look at the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

        • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

          Anything that was resurrected has never been dead, because dead is the irreversable cessation of the emergent attributes of life (homeostasis, order, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response, reproduction and signalling).

          Nazareth was only founded as a Roman city in the third century CE, so it is a bit difficult to imagine somebody coming from there earlier than that.

          There is no contemporaneous or near contemporaneus support for an alleged “Jesus” (not a Jewish name) although there is support for his brother James, head of the community of the poor (of spirit) in Jerusalem, and evidence suggesting that the “spiritual messiah” of the noxious Herodian Saulus/Paul as we know it today, is based on a plethora of syncretions of earlier resurrected god-men.

          So why should anyone want to waste time on it?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Anything that was resurrected has never been dead,”

            That is only true under the assumption of materialism. You are assuming what you are trying to prove, and that is circular reasoning, and very poor reasoning at that.

            “So why should anyone want to waste time on it?”

            I did not know I was dealing with a “Jesus never existed” absurdist. The same “reasoning” that would lead one to that conclusion would also lead one to believe that we never landed on the Moon, and that the earth is flat. You can deny anything – if you are predisposed to do so. The fact that you use circular logic and self-refuting statements to engage with is proof that your position is not rational. God will not force you into Heaven against your will if you go to such pathological extremes to convince yourself that He does not exist.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            That is only true under the assumption of materialism. You are assuming what you are trying to prove, and that is circular reasoning, and very poor reasoning at that.

            Fail on your part. Not only is this the actual definition of death, but also there is no evidence for anything at all outside of materialism. So no, I am not “assuming anything”, and my reasoning is hardly “circular”. I am simply insisting that you use words to mean the same thing as others do, and not simply pretend that things that are simply made up can happen if you pretend that words mean something other than what they actually do.

            I probably know significantly more about early christinanity than you do. Including the fact that there is no evidence for an historic Jesus (not a Jewish name) that approximates the character portrayed in the so-called New Testament who was, like the community of the poor (of spirit) at Qumran, a zealot for the law of Moses, which means that the prototype, if there was a prototype, was vastly different from that advocated by modern christers.

            Contra the mid fourth century so-called bibles, assembled from alleged previous writings that seem to have been lost or more likely destroyed, there is a vast amount of contemporaneous evidence for the moon landings, including the ability to bounce lasers off the corner reflectors left there by the astronauts of Apollo 11, 14 and 15 and the unmanned Soviet Lunokhod 1 & 2 rovers, and to use interferometry to measure the distance to the moon. And I have taken pictures of the shadow of the Earth during Lunar eclipses.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Not only is this the actual definition of death, but also there is no evidence for anything at all outside of materialism.”

            False, you are assuming physical death only, versus mind-body dualism, to argue against a supernatural event. That is a circular argument if there ever was one. It’s typical close-minded materialism. I call it “playing small ball.” If materialism is all we have, then you cannot even trust your atoms-to-thoughts mind – if you even think such a thing exists. (And if you don’t, why are you posting anything anywhere?) And that may be why you have chosen absurdism as your philosophy.

            As for scientific evidence for supernatural, we do have a “little”:
            Kalam Cosmological Argument plus 2nd Premise:

            “Evidence for the standard Big Bang:

            1. Einstein’s theory of general relativity, and the scientific confirmation of its accuracy
            2. measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation
            3. red-shifting of light from galaxies moving away from us
            4. radioactive element abundance predictions (from supernovae)
            5. helium/hydrogen abundance predictions (nuclear fusion)
            6. star formation and stellar lifecycle theories
            7. the second law of thermodynamics
            [8. BGV Theorem for average inflationary universe – my addition]

            Evidence against the standard Big Bang:
            NONE

            Evidence for speculative save-the-atheism model:
            NONE

            Evidence against the speculative save-the-atheism model:
            Boltznmann Brains predicted, not observed
            Quantum gravity models still require a beginning”
            — Wintery Knight

            Your “Jesus never existed” lunacy places you well on the fringe of even a-theistic New Testament scholars, much less secular historians. It’s quite interesting that this “movement” ocurred precisely at the same time when basic scientific data turned against the New A-theists:

            “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the
            mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
            ― Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers

          • Jim H

            Regarding the Big Bang:

            The idea that the expansion of the observable universe began with the explosion of a single particle at a definite point in time idea first appeared in scientific form in 1931, in a paper by Georges Lemaître, a Belgian cosmologist and Catholic priest.

            When Pope Pius XII referred to the new theory of the origin of the universe as a scientific validation of the Catholic faith, Lemaître was rather alarmed. He tried to separate the two saying:

            “As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being… For the believer, it removes any attempt at familiarity with God… It is consonant with Isaiah speaking of the hidden God, hidden even in the beginning of the universe.”

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Can you present any evidence for “mind-body dualism” presented in any academically credible peer reviewed physics publication in the past century that does not reject it?

            I didn’t think so.

            There are reasons you know. We know that the brain is a physical system and only a physical system, being able not only to determine the energy levels required to activate or deactivate a neuron, but to non-invasively monitor single neurons and invasively stimulate them or non-invasively stimulate small clusters of them. We can even image ideas and dreams and directly monitor the things subjects recall. We know the physics governing the brain, and you cannot have “mind-body dualism” without overturning current physics. Something that is incredibly unlikely.

            Whether or not ” materialism is all we have”, and it seems to be, we know that not only is we think that we think and therefore we exist all we can know with anything approaching certainty, but that our minds are slow, error prone, contain no error checking or correcting circuits, are incredibly easy to fool, and, cannot be trusted in the slightest. Which is why modern science relies on mathematical models to make testable falsifiable predictions and intersubjective feedback to criticise and possibly invalidate the results.

            Philosophy is dead, not only because, as Hawking has said, it has not kept up with scientific or mathematical developments, but because there is no way to connect its speculations to predictions, leaving it ungrounded and largely worthless.

            I have no idea what you are trying to communicate with your formulation of the so-called “Kalam” argument, but all cosmological arguments amount to no more than special pleading.

            Your blatant simplification of my carefully constructed articulation does you no favours, and leaves you tilting at a strawman of your own construction. And the fact is that the argument that the revolting Herodian Saulus/Paul’s “risen messiah” was solely a spiritual being has preoccupied the christers since the Romans separated christinanity from its Judaic roots with added anti-Semitism.

            Seeing as you seem to enjoy quotations, here are two better ones from some of the smarter people of their times, “I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature.” [Einstein, “The World as I See It“]

            “Before we understand science, it is natural to believe
            that God created the universe. But now science offers a more
            convincing explanation…. What I meant by ‘we would
            know the mind of God’ is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God. Which there isn’t. I’m an atheist…. Religion believes in miracles, but these aren’t compatible with science…. “In my opinion, there is no aspect of reality beyond the reach of the human mind.” [Stephen Hawking; 2014-10-26; Interview with “El Mundo” ]

            [Version omitting links]

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Philosophy is dead, not only because, as Hawking has said, it has not kept up with scientific or mathematical developments, but because there is no way to connect its speculations to predictions, leaving it ungrounded and largely worthless.”

            “Philosophy always buries its undertakers.” (Etienne Gilson)

            Your statement regarding philosophy is not a scientific one – it is a philosophical one. Therefore, your entire post is self-refuting. You are engaging in scientism, which is, by definition, self-refuting. You cannot prove any of your philosophical statements using the scientific method.

            “I have no idea what you are trying to communicate with your formulation of the so-called “Kalam” argument, but all cosmological arguments amount to no more than special pleading.”

            This argument you make is special pleading, another self-refutation of yours. It is also an interesting way in which to avoid all of the secular cosmological scientific data that points to a Deity.

            People who continually self-refute are called absurdists.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Lovely. You seem to believe that asserting something means that you have made a supported argument. I think that would be a fail if you were not hiding behind a stick-on beard.

            Your assertion that my statement about philosophy was a philosophic statement is a classic sophist canard. My statement about philosophy related to its inability to make predictions connecting philosophical speculation to any kind of intersubjective criticism. Which means that philosophy is playing with symbols which could be used to say anything, possibly not even self-consistent, depending on its beginning assumptions, and that if applied to anything thing as or more complex than the natural numbers, its statements cannot be proved true and complete in finite time (cf. Gödel, Turing and von Neumann). Which means that you can say anything and prove nothing. In other words, philosophy as practiced today is meaningless symbolic masturbation pretending to significance it does not have. That is a perfectly good prediction which you are welcome to attempt to rebut. Good luck in your attempt. I look forward to seeing a supported rebuttal, as opposed to your usual unsupportable assertions.

            I didn’t make an argument, I stated a conclusion. An argument might be founded on the fact that there is no intersubjectively verifiable evidence supporting any cosmological argument (Now think of Ockham), that we have proof of the existence of virtual particles which are necessarily uncaused (See Casimir effect), that there is strong consensus support for perfectly reasonable Feynman path integrals (see a Universe from Nothing) projecting through the BB into imaginary time, and there is near certainty that EM radiation, in the form of gamma radiation, existed within the flux prior to the instantiation of the Universe (see M-theory). Which leaves you flapping your gums and waving your hands engaged in special pleading. Which is what I said.

            There is no “secular cosmological scientific data that points to a Deity”, that appears to be another of your delusions. If you think otherwise, I challenge you to refer to any article concluding that this is the case, published in Nature, Science, PLOS One, PNAS or an equivalent leading peer reviewed scientific journal anytime in the past century. There is a reason why well over 90% of the National Academy of the Sciences reject belief in god thingies.

            BTW, while making personal statements people who continually project and make neverending unsupported and unsupportable assertions are called BS artists. The difference between your statement and mine is that mine is actually supported by the content of the effluent stream emanating from the Augean recesses of what passes for a brain in your case.

          • Jim H

            You continually state things like “secular scientific data” points to a Deity. So can that be so? I’m not a scientist, I assume you are not one either. So, either of us is really qualified to speak for scientists, so we should let them speak for themselves, eighty percent of NAS physicists and astronomers disbelieve in God.

            Consequently, the very people who study them for a living, and are most knowledgeable and familiar with them, do not perceive the Big Bang and other cosmological issues as evidence for theism. As I pointed out elsewhere, even the Belgium priest who first theorized the Big Bang didn’t see it that way, and opposed representing it as such.
            That does not prove God doesn’t exist. It only proves He cannot be proven using science.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “I’m not a scientist, I assume you are not one either.”

            I have 4 degrees in engineering and math and two long-term spacecraft in orbit, Jim. Both are science vehicles – one manned, the other unmanned.

            “so we should let them speak for themselves”

            That is why I give you quotes from scientists that are intellectually honest enough to admit that there are deep and abiding problems there.

            “eighty percent of NAS physicists and astronomers disbelieve in God.”

            The psychological states of 80 percent of NAS scientists bears no warrant on the veracity of the claim of the God Hypothesis. Many people are a-theists, not because of the evidence, but because they do not wish to have to submit to a Higher Authority. This is particularly true in the sexual arena. Scientists, in particular, are well-known for their desire for autonomy. They believe the purpose of life is happiness and not to know, love, and serve their Creator. I could easily give you a few of the world’s greatest scientists who believed in some sort of Deity:

            Nicholas Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler,
            Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Isaac Newton, Gottfried Leibnitz, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, William Thomson Kelvin, Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Wernher von Braun, etc. Faraday was a fundamentalist preacher, BTW.

            You can have Stephen “The universe created itself” Hawking. 🙂

            “That does not prove God doesn’t exist. It only proves He cannot be proven using science.”

            The argument for the God Hypothesis versus the No God Hypothesis is not a mathematical proof. It is a plausibility one. Given that Premise 2 of Kalam is well supported by the current state of the art in secular science, it is quite reasonable to believe in a First Uncaused Cause. Furthermore, the explanatory power of Christianity blows that for a-theism out of the water. It answers all of the fundamental questions of life, whereas a-theism just shrugs its shoulders and says “chance and time.” Forgive me for boring you with my testimony, Jim:

            In what follows, I will just hit the highlights. Let me set the stage for where I was immediately prior to turning my life over to God. In terms of worldly accomplishments:
            a. 4 degrees in engineering and mathematics.
            b. 21 years in spacecraft design, including critical survival systems on two spacecraft, which, as of this writing, have been in successful operation for 25 and 17 years respectively.
            c. 7 years as a graduate level adjunct engineering professor teaching PhD and upper level Master’s students.
            c. 9 years running my own engineering business.
            d. a little over a million dollars in financial assets to my name.
            e. a very successful wife and 3 highly successful children.

            In terms of spiritual accomplishments:
            a. I could not objectively ground my own existence or the existence of anything. I was NOT happy with the lack of intellectual depth in my two stock replies to the question “why is there something rather than nothing?” “There just is” and “because Carl Sagan said so” just did not cut it anymore for me and my high brow intellectualism. So, I had an intuitive, but not formal, understanding of the Kalam Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God. Here was some evidence that naturalism couldn’t cut it.
            b. I could not objectively ground truth. I was a truth relativist, and this made me VERY uncomfortable, but I could not figure out why. Was there no unshakeable grounding for truth? Wasn’t it true that there were no objective truths?!? 🙂
            c. I could not objectively ground morality. I “felt” that the volunteering and charitable works I was doing were
            “good,” but under naturalism, I also knew that there was no objective basis for this feeling or for doing such things. I came to discover that even heavy atheistic hitters like Dawkins, Provine, and Ruse had come to this same conclusion. I did not formally state the Moral Argument for the Existence of God, but, again, I had an intuitive understanding of it. More evidence that naturalism fell short in terms of livability.
            d. I could not answer the problem of evil. When a little girl
            was violently raped and then tortured and murdered, I asked myself “why?” The answers “natural selection,” “survival of the fittest,” “random chance,” etc began to creep me out to an extreme. Once again, I did not formally state the Argument for the Existence for God from Evil, but, I had some intuitive
            understanding of it. Big problem for naturalism – and theism too.
            e. I hated Christians, but loved all practitioners of other religions. The only things I hated worse than Christians
            were Christian churches and Bibles!

            In a nutshell, I was highly successful in a worldly sense,
            but miserable in a spiritual sense. All of those degrees and accomplishments, but I could not answer the most basic
            question all humans ask themselves! So, I did what any reasonable engineer would do: I went with an empirical test. I spoke to this God Guy and acknowledged that I was an educated idiot and could not answer the most basic questions, and I asked Him to take over my life, fix it spiritually, and answer these questions for me. If He existed, I would devote my life as close to 100% to Him as I possibly could, but I needed “more than a feeling” – I needed data and some feedback and some evidence for His existence! (Needless to say, I conducted this test in my house – not a church. See point (e) above.)

            I received a number of (possibly subjective, probably
            objective) experiences following this, but one of the more compelling was when I woke up 7 months later, turned to my wife and said “I cannot remember the last time I cussed.” She said “I can’t either!” To give you an appreciation for how significant this was, I used to make a sailor blush. I cussed early and I cussed often (like they vote in Chicago :-)) and I cussed filthily, and I did it mostly in front of my wife and children. I “knew” this was “wrong” (but of course could not ground it objectively), and had tried to stop it for decades – totally unsuccessfully. I had totally given up on changing this part of me, and let’s face it: under naturalism, there is no
            objective reason to stop cussing. I mean, it was just my molecules talking, right?

            At this point, my knowledge of Christianity was primitive at
            the best and woeful at the worst. So, I purchased a book called “The Science of God” by Gerald L. Schroeder. It was VERY important to me, given my background, that this God that I now believed in, and Who had provided me with some possibly objective experiential data, was a scientific God. One of the things this book opened my eyes to was the day-age concept that reconciles the 6 days of Genesis with the old age view of our universe. I just did a simple exponential distribution of the day-age durations (any technical undergrad can do this), and they lined up nicely with what mainstream secular science was saying about the periods of development of our universe (evolved or not). This was the first chink, of many to come, in my anti-Bible armor. I could no longer say that the creation account in Genesis MUST be incompatible with an old universe and apparent development durations of same. A scale had fallen from my eyes with respect to my persecution of the Bible.

            Later, I discovered that it is only in the past 100 years, or less, that humans really came to assert that the Bible and science were mutually exclusive. I came to know that many great scientists were, at the least, theists, and many who were quite comfortable with the God of the Bible. I also knew intuitively that, no matter the size of my own ego, I could never
            hold a candle to the likes of Newton, Leibnitz, Faraday, Maxwell, Kepler, etc – nor could any modern-day scientist, IMO. I took no loss in pride by associating myself with them –
            spiritually. 🙂

            When I began to read the Bible for myself, I found that it
            described my own life to a T – both before and after my “empirical test.” I also found out that many wise and learned scientific and philosophical scholars considered it to be the
            Word of God. And, it was only later that I found out how many scientific and philosophical holes macro-evolution has in it. The reliability of the New Testament came even later for me. I just knew this Book “worked,” because it answered all of my basic spiritual questions (a-d, above) in a way that no other worldview, and certainly not naturalism, could. It was more plausible – by orders of magnitude. And, I had confirmed that
            it certainly is not incompatible with our current scientific
            understanding. (In fact, Big Bang Cosmology combined with the Kalam argument dovetail rather nicely into Genesis 1:1, don’t they?)

            Since then, I have retired and spent my time fulfilling my part of the obligation from the “empirical test” for the God Who is there and Who is not silent. (With apologies to Francis Schaeffer.
            :-))

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            I have 4 degrees in engineering and math and two long-term spacecraft in orbit, Jim. Both are science vehicles – one manned, the other unmanned.

            I again challenge you to sustain your assertion, it is not supported by your writing and not having done so, you appear to be nothing more than a rather nasty and stupid BS artist..

            That is why I give you quotes from scientists that are intellectually honest enough to admit that there are deep and abiding problems there.

            Liar. You are cherry-picking quotations that support your shifty-eyed agenda. Actual scientists reject such nonsense, which is why you have not responded to my challenge to you to “refer to any article concluding that this is the case, published in Nature, Science, PLOS One, PNAS or an equivalent leading peer reviewed scientific journal anytime in the past century.”

            Jim H: “eighty percent of NAS physicists and astronomers disbelieve in God.”

            More than that I think. The number 93% was associated with a survey published in Nature, Edward J. Larson & Larry Witham; 1998; “Leading scientists still reject God” in Nature; Vol. 394, No. 6691, p. 313 when just 7% of the members acknowledged personal belief in a personal god. Since then the number of christers in the general population has decreased significantly, suggesting that the number of believers in the ranks of the NAS may now be even lower.

            The psychological states of 80 percent of NAS scientists bears no warrant on the veracity of the claim of the God

            This is another lie. The fact that the scientists chosen by their peers as representing the most pre-eminent in the US reject the idea that there are personal deities (this is not a hypothesis – in science words have actual and precise meanings and a hypothesis means a guess based on observation and there are no observations of god thingies) is highly significant to your special pleading that “secular scientific data” suggests god thingies, because it shows that pre-eminient scientists – as opposed to apparently senile people claiming to be professors of engineering – reject your idea lock, stock and barrel.

            Hypothesis. Many people are a-theists, not because of the evidence, but because they do not wish to have to submit to a Higher Authority. This is particularly true in the sexual arena. Scientists, in particular, are well-known for their desire for autonomy. They believe the purpose of life is happiness and not to know, love, and serve their Creator. I could easily give you a few of the world’s greatest scientists who believed in some sort of Deity:

            Nicholas Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler,
            Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Isaac Newton, Gottfried Leibnitz, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, William Thomson Kelvin, Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Wernher von Braun, etc. Faraday was a fundamentalist preacher, BTW.

            All of your handwaving does not conceal the fact that not only were some of these religiots not even theists, but most of them would have disagreed strongly with one another and you as to what constituted a god thingie. In any case, for many of them, you cannot make the claim you do, for the simple reason that they would have lost their positions, possibly their wealth, may have been tortured or even executed had they not professed the orthodox beliefs applying during their lifetimes in the regions where they lived. In other words, like Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Descarte, Pascal and Newton, many scientists have had to pretend to conform in order to preserve themselves, their jobs, their academic standing, their way of life, and their fortunes. So, yyou donm’t know if they were pretending or “for real” and due to your fellow religiots loving-brutality, to coin a phrase, you cannot validly lay claim to their support for your harebrained concepts.

            Here are Einstein’s final words on gods (Letter to Erik Gutkind): ““The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me.”

            I think this proves you a liar, as usual. As does the fact that Newton’s god thingies were not your god thingies:

            “In Newton’s eyes, worshipping Christ as God was idolatry, to him the fundamental sin” [Westfall, Richard S.; 1994; “The Life of Isaac Newton”; Cambridge University Press; ISBN 0-521-47737-9] He also “rejected the orthodox doctrines of the immortal soul, a personal devil and literal demons.” [Stephen D Snobelen; 1999; “Isaac Newton, heretic: The strategies of a Nicodemite” in British Journal for the History of Science; Dec 1999; 32, 115; Research Library pg. 381]

            You don’t seem to agree with him, even though you tout him as a putative authority.

            You can have Stephen “The universe created itself” Hawking.

            Thank-you. I’ll add him to the real scientists disagreeing with your assertions in their own words.

            Jim H: That does not prove God doesn’t exist. It only proves He cannot be proven using science.”

            That would depend a lot on the asserted attributes of this putative god thingie. Certainly unless evidence can be shown that the attributes claimed to to be necessary and sufficient for a thing to be regarded as a god thingie exist in this Universe and are possessed by the putative god thingie, then there is no reason to assume the existence of any god thingies anymore than there are reasons to assume fairies, pixies or elves. I have generally been abl;e to go beyond this, in that most of the attributes asserted to be necessary and sufficient to regard a thingie as a god thingie can be shown not to be sufficient, or not to exist in this Universe or perhaps as precluding the putative god thingie from involvement in this Universe. And if there are no attributes that qualify a thing as a god thingie, then the putative god thingie does not exist, or the putative god thingie does not exist in this Universe (and cannot affect it), or the putative god thingie is not a god thingie at all and is irrelevant to this discussion.

            The argument for the God Hypothesis versus the No God Hypothesis is not a mathematical proof. It is a plausibility one.

            What is the evidence for the existence of necessary and sufficient attributes which might qualify a god thingie as a deity as opposed to a simple mistake? What is the evidence that your putative god thingies possess such atributes? What is the evidence that other god thingies do not possess such attributes?

            I’m glad that You accept plausability arguments. Do you agree that the evidential argument from evil, which is, like your argument, a plausibility one, precludes a good, powerful, caring god from existing in this Universe? If not, why not?

            Given that Premise 2 of Kalam is well supported by the current state of the art in secular science, it is quite reasonable to believe in a First Uncaused Cause.

            Before dealing with “Premise 2” can we please deal with “Premise 1” (Everything that begins to exist has a cause)? What causes “virtual particles”? What caused the big bang? What caused any non-contingent effects which may ever be argued?

            Please state “Premise 2 of Kalam” as you understand it, and show what “current state of the art in secular science” is alleged to support it and how. Please note that you need to show that the paper you allege supports your argument needs top state this explicitly for it to be valid, or you could be, like a common or garden global warming denier, be inserting words into the mouth of the paper with which he would disagree.

            Furthermore, the explanatory power of Christianity blows that for a-theism out of the water. It answers all of the fundamental questions of life, whereas a-theism just shrugs its shoulders and says “chance and time.” Forgive me for boring you with my testimony, Jim:

            Pants on fire liar. What “explanatory power” are you asserting allows you to “answers all of the fundamental questions of life?

            Before we start, let us establish credibility. Why should we pay attention to god thingies which are helpless against people whose chariots had wheels (perhaps tyres) of iron? Why should we regard a book which impeaches the deities it extols for using lies to achieve its purposes? Why should we regard a book which borrows creation myths from other cultures, but mangles them to such an extent that their meaning is inverted as anything but nonsense? Why should we take seriously a book which can’t even get the order of supposed “creation” right? Why should we regard a temporally limited deity which is unable to make effective predictions as a god thingie at all? Why should we regard a book which describes mythical events, e.g. the Jews being slaves in Egypt, escaping, and wandering around a sensitive desert ecosystem for 40 years as history, when we know that the Jews never were slaves in Egypt and that Egypt controlled and patrolled the Levant at the time? Why should we regard the supposed Jesus (not a Jewish name) as significant, when the christers do not. For example, Jesus allegedly said that children who do not honour their parents should be stoned to death as the law (of Moses) commands. Do you do that, or do you make excuses, like a Pharisee, not to obey the law, of which Jesus allegedly said, “Do not suppose that I came to throw down the law or the prophets — I did not come to throw down, but to fulfill; for, verily I say to you, till that the heaven and the earth may pass away, one iota or one tittle may not pass away from the law, till that all may come to pass. `Whoever therefore may loose one of these commands — the least — and may teach men so, least he shall be called in the reign of the heavens, but whoever may do and may teach [them], he shall be called great in the reign of the heavens.” Do you follow the letter of the law (of Moses) or do you make excuses? Later you brag of your wealth. Have you given it all away yet? After all, Jesus allegedly said that you should, or are you a liar, saying things you know are false and not acting on what you claim to believe?

            And so on.

            I’d like to see you substantiate your claims.

            [Massive snip of so far unsupported assertions]

            Here was some evidence that naturalism couldn’t cut it.

            Alternatively, and more credibly, here was some evidence that your brain was fried.

            a. I could not objectively ground my own existence or the existence of anything. I was NOT happy with the lack of intellectual depth in my two stock replies to the question “why is there something rather than nothing?” “There just is” and “because Carl Sagan said so” just did not cut it anymore for me and my high brow intellectualism. So, I had an intuitive, but not formal, understanding of the Kalam Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God. Here was some evidence that naturalism couldn’t cut it.

            Why do you imagine your existence needs to be “grounded”? Are you aware of Heisenberg’s work and uncertainty? How about virtual particles? How do you know there is something rather than nothing? Why did you conclude that the “Kalam Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God” is relevant? Were you so intellectually challenged that you couldn’t see that it is simply an argument unfounded in observation, and hence is as “ungrounded” as “fairies”?

            b. I could not objectively ground truth. I was a truth relativist, and this made me VERY uncomfortable, but I could not figure out why. Was there no unshakeable grounding for truth? Wasn’t it true that there were no objective truths?!? 🙂

            Truth indubitably exists in simplistic logical systems of limited applicability. How else might it appear and how might you recognise it? What do you imagine an “objective truth” would look like? What evidence do you have for this idea? Why do you perceive it as important?

            c. I could not objectively ground morality. I “felt” that the volunteering and charitable works I was doing were “good,” but under naturalism, I also knew that there was no objective basis for this feeling or for doing such things. I came to discover that even heavy atheistic hitters like Dawkins, Provine, and Ruse had come to this same conclusion. I did not formally state the Moral Argument for the Existence of God, but, again, I had an intuitive understanding of it. More evidence that naturalism fell short in terms of livability.

            This is utter tosh from beginning to end. You are a social animal. To that end your ancestors developed a range of behaviours which we share with the other great apes, including empathy, sympathy, projection, loyalty, generosity, greed, suspicion, lying, cheating, detection of cheating, and so on. If you have normal social reflexes, when you play nice, your body rewards you with suitable endorphins, when you are nasty, your endocrine system ensures that you suffer commensurately . Simple chemicals easy enough to understand, even for somebody whose brain has been damaged by too much engineering.

            When you introduce a god the situation becomes messier. Much messier. Before I waste too much time on it, lets see if you can answer two questions honestly.

            1 On what authority do you hold your “moral beliefs”?

            2 What good reasons or justification do you have for your “moral beliefs”?

            d. I could not answer the problem of evil. When a little girl was violently raped and then tortured and murdered, I asked myself “why?” The answers “natural selection,” “survival of the fittest,” “random chance,” etc began to creep me out to an extreme. Once again, I did not formally state the Argument for the Existence for God from Evil, but, I had some intuitive understanding of it. Big problem for naturalism – and theism too

            Why do you imagine that this is a problem? How do your god thingies supposedly change this for you?

            e. I hated Christians, but loved all practitioners of other religions. The only things I hated worse than Christians
            were Christian churches and Bibles!

            So you had a social problem. Do you still find yourself hating anything? If so, what?

            [snip of unsubstantiated personal stream of unconsciousness that seems to be loaded with BS]

            One of the things this book opened my eyes to was the day-age concept that reconciles the 6 days of Genesis with the old age view of our universe. I just did a simple exponential distribution of the day-age durations (any technical undergrad can do this), and they lined up nicely with what mainstream secular science was saying about the periods of development of our universe (evolved or not).

            So how did you resolve the fact that there are in fact multiple creation myths included in so called Genesis and that they have conflicting orders, and neither matches what we know happened?

            How would you have graded a student who exhibited this kind of special pleading and delusional thinking before succumbing to it yourself?

            Did you retire or was it suggested that if you had not, you would have been fired?

            [snip of more unsubstantiated stream of unconscious, aka lies]

            Later, I discovered that it is only in the past 100 years,
            or less, that humans really came to assert that the Bible and science Everything that begins to exist has a cause; were mutually exclusive. I came to know that many great scientists
            were, at the least, theists, and many who were quite comfortable with the God of the Bible. I also knew intuitively that, no matter the size of my own ego, I could never hold a candle to the likes of Newton, Leibnitz, Faraday, Maxwell, Kepler, etc – nor could any modern-day scientist, IMO. I took no loss in pride by associating myself with them-spiritually. 🙂

            By your prior statements you were an “engineer”, somebody who applies the fruits of science, like a plumber; not a “scientist”. somebody who applies the scientific method. Or does an engineering degree make you a “scientist” in your opinion? Why do many scientists – and some engineers – disagree with you? Do you imagine that there is a consensus and if so, on which side of it do you think you are? If you know that one of your two statements was incorrect, why did you lie?

            Now that you know that Newton rejected your particular god thingies, have you changed your mind about the particular god thingies you are following? If not, why not?

            When I began to read the Bible for myself, I found that it
            described my own life to a T – both before and after my “empirical test.” I also found out that many wise and learned scientific and philosophical scholars considered it to be the
            Word of God. And, it was only later that I found out how many scientific and philosophical holes macro-evolution has in it. The reliability of the New Testament came even later for me. I just knew this Book “worked,” because it answered all of my basic spiritual questions (a-d, above) in a way that no other worldview, and certainly not naturalism, could. It was more plausible – by orders of magnitude. And, I had confirmed that
            it certainly is not incompatible with our current scientific understanding.

            Your feeling about the so-called bible is called The Forer effect. The bible is just repetitive random junk. Deliberately so. You create any meaning you find in it yourself. Just as when you speak of what you believe your god thingies want, you are projecting what you want, and what you want is driven by genetics, epigenetics, environment and experience.

            What religion were your parents? Was it different from yours? How many religions have you studied? Did you know that many religious scientists living in sophisticated research friendly environments claimed similar qualities for Islam and Judaism at a time when christers were suffering in primitive squalor under the (not very) benevolent rule of the church?

            (In fact, Big Bang Cosmology combined with the Kalam argument dovetail rather nicely into Genesis 1:1, don’t they?)

            You are going to have to substantiate this. As far as I can see the answer is “not at all”

            [snip of more personal self-reinforcing cruft aka lies]

          • Jim H

            Holy sh*t, my reply is stuck in “waiting moderation” internet limbo. I have no idea why. You declared all-out take-no-prisoners war on this guy. Your answer makes mine look like a pansy wrote it.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Glad you enjoyed it. His persistent deceitfulness meant that he really deserved to be set straight.
            You put links into your work, and in my experience, it will never come out of moderation. Cite works the classical way (Author, Title, Date), use doi:// which are n ot censored, or use dot slash transliteration. When I get autocensored, I just edit the old one to show it was automoderated, and paste the same text into a new reply, tagging it as being [without links to avoid braindamaged automoderation] or whatever 😛

          • Jim H

            Thanks. I was wondering why it was stuck. I have written stuff that was doubtless much more offensive to some of these folks and they got through.

          • Jim H

            I started to reply to this and was having trouble with the site, so I hit post to save what I had written, with the intent of editing it later. But my reply has been struck in the internet “limbo” of “waiting moderation” since last night. I’m not sure why. My reply may disappear. If it doesn’t I will likely delete it because I have covered the essence of it elsewhere and, quite honestly, have lost interest in whatever I was trying to say.
            Just wanted to let you know I wasn’t ignoring you.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            @disqus_O9RUxY26RB:disqus @Jim_H_Discus:disqus @apostaste:disqus
            Happens to me a lot. I’ve particularly enjoyed your and John N’s responses on this thread. Crunchy. Just the way I like it. Apostate has also been doing a great job.

          • MamaBear

            Jesus is the Greek form of Jeshua, a very Jewish name. Same name as Joshua, and actually quite common in the first century. (Hebrew did not have vowels.) Only reason the NT uses the Greek form, was it was written (or for some books translated) in Greek.
            Quram has been proven to have branched off of Sadducees, hence they cannot be the source of Christianity which believes in resurrection. Please read up on the Dead Sea Scrolls – recent research within at least the last 20+ years, you sound like the 60s/70s.
            We have quite a bit of evidence in the 2nd and 3rd centuries for NT books that were eventually incorporated into the canon, from quotes in other writings, fragments, and two fairly complete codexes, one of which also contains two of the books not chosen. The books left out continued to circulate for quite a while afterwards, they just were not considered scripture.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Now you seek to teach me Hebrew? LOL!

            As I said, “Jesus” is not a Jewish name and “christ” is not a title that a zealous Jew could claim. The fact that the highly anti-Semitic writings of the early christers forgot his name indicates how important any historic prototype was regarded to be (not at all).

            You didn’t realise that the New Testament was written in Aramaic and Greek, and that most, if not all of the quote-mining of the so-called Old Testament for confirmatory post-hoc “miracles”, was performed in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic?

            Your ideas about Quran are completely off the wall. I strongly recommend more recent works by an academic like Robert Eisenman (look him up on Wikipedia, he was directly responsible for a number of digs at Qumran and the initial publication of facsimiles and translations of much of the Dead Sea Scrolls), particularly The New Jerusalem (2007), James the Brother of Jesus (1997) and The New Testament Code (2006). Many of his academic works are available at RobertEisenman dot com and he has kindly consented to many of his lectures being posted to YouTube. Googling for “Robert Eisenman’s JAMES THE BROTHER OF JESUS: A Higher-Critical Evaluation” by Robert M. Price will provide access to an academic review of James the Brother of Jesus which summarises the book’s 1000 pages in a fair way.

            I’d call 2007 recent, wouldn’t you?

            As I said, I’ve wasted some of my life studying the history of religions and their so-called scriptures. I’m familiar with your claims, but stand by what I have written. A good starting place to confirm my claims is the “Biblical_manuscript” page at Wikipedia.

          • Jim H

            Actually, The proper name Jesus used in the English language originates from the Latin form of the Greek name Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous), a rendition of the Hebrew Yeshua.

            In the original languages (Latin, Greek, Hebrew) which provide us with the names Jesus, Joseph, Justinian, etc., the sound which we write as J was pronounced as the English letter Y. (Just to make things confusing for English speakers, the phonetic symbol for this sound is [j].) In Latin, the letter for this was I/i, in Greek it was Ι/ι (iota), and in Hebrew it was י (yod). Thus, the Greek spelling for “Jesus” was Ιησους, pronounced something like “Yeh-SOOS”, and the Latin was pronounced likewise, but was spelled Iesus.
            In other words, people have been saying it wrong a long, long time.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Again, my only point on this is that the christers “Jesus” is not a Jewish name. Instead it is a Roman name, adopted and preserved along with the anti-Semitism of Rome. If there was a Jewish prototype he was a zealot for the law (of Moses) but he has been murdered, not by the Romans, who merely executed what was to them just another insurgent, not by the Jews who were caught up in messianic fervour seeking a יהושע (Joshua/Yeshua) to throw off the mantle of the Herododians, but by the christers, who deliberately obliterated history and all non-canonical writings lest they conflict with their myths.

            PS Credit your sources or it looks like plagiarism even if that wasn’t the way you meant it..

          • MamaBear

            They will still be using their circular reasoning in Hell, telling themselves Judgment was an illusion, and like the “ghosts” in “The Great Divorce,” insisting they prefer Hell to Heaven.

          • ter ber

            Good one MamaBear! The unbelievers latest is that reality is a hologram, do you think they will still be saying that in hell? They seem to believe anything satan and his demon army throw at them. All the while shaking their little ant fist at the Creator of the Universe they do not believe in.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Beautifully put! And Heaven would be Hell for them – since they would be in the continual presence of the One they so despise.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            We will all be disintegrating into our component atoms together, but if we were not, you would find me spitting in the face of any entity that believes it has the duty or even the right to torture other entities “forever” for a situation that they are alleged to have created and supposedly required a child-sacrifice (which didn’t actually happen) to “forgive” some of those whose mythical ancestors supposedly offended it after it created them without a sense of right-or-wrong because it was scared they might become gods with such knowledge, and then created an attractive nuisance in the form of a fruit tree which put the humans into a situation of temptation, told about it by another creature these god thingies themselves had created. Not a court in the world would blame the humans after such incompetent, negligent and contributory participation by the gods.

          • ter ber

            “Nazareth was founded in 3 century AD? “. Where are you getting your information, the oracles of dalphine? In 2009, Israeli archaeologist Yardenna Alexandre excavated archeological remains in Nazareth that date to the time of Jesus in the early Roman period. Princeton University archaeologist Jack Finnegan describes additional archeological evidence related to settlement in the Nazareth basin during the bronze and Iron Age, and states,” Nazareth was a strongly Jewish settlement in the Roman period.”

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            My information is from multiple academic sources in Israel and the US.

            Early Nazareth was destroyed by 720 BCE. As it had a cemetery, aside from lonely sustenance farming, it was not reoccupied by Jews. Which is why it is not mentioned in any historic source earlier than the third century CE, when a new Roman town was established on the site. Yardenna Alexandre found a small cache of second century CE pottery, none dated prior, limiting any claims made to no earlier than the second century, completely consistent with finding the remnants of the valuables of an isolated farm in a troubled period, and utterly inconsistent with a “town” “dating to the time of Jesus in the early Roman period”. Only delusional christers imagine otherwise.

        • ter ber

          Lol!! So true! I never would have guess this in all my lifetime I would be discussing ET with atheist who swear they do not believe in the supernatural, but would prefer to think we came from a rock or a dot, or what ever the flavor of the week is. ‘Seeded by aliens’ ha. But I still think the funniest is the dinosaur morphing into a chicken. With the ‘miracle’ of Father Time. 😀

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I like the whale that turned into a hippo. 🙂 You know, if rats are their relatives and cockroaches are their cousins, you would think that Darwinists would invite their relatives and cousins into their homes more often, no?

      • Apostaste

        100% BS, you have crossed the gap from profound arrogant ignorance to outright dishonesty.

        • ter ber

          So says the apostate. Are you one of the 55% of atheists that now that believe magic men in the sky seeded us? Well? Or are you the old guard that says we came from a DOT. I swear, I am not making that up. A dot! I guess a rock was to funny, exploding from the Big Bang. But a dot??!!!

          • Apostaste

            Thats a complete lie, you “christians” the biggest liars imaginable, Ironically that’s what you believe dumbass.

          • ter ber

            A lie??? Where? Vanderbilt professor of Astronomy David Weintraub says in his new book ‘Religions and extraterrestrial life- how will we deal with it?’ That 55% of atheist BELIEVE in extraterrestrial life. In other words….MAGIC MEN IN THE SKY!

          • Apostaste

            You said “55% of atheists that now that believe magic men in the sky seeded us”, that is a complete lie no matter who said it.

          • ter ber

            I’m sorry to upset you. But it was one of your atheist professors Weintraub. He researched it. And Dawkins concurs. Daddy Dawkins gave a lecture last fall in England about Aliens and human sexuality. You see they have to leave behind the 150 year dusty, crusty theory of Darwinian evolution cause all the latest DNA/Genome evidence is showing Intelligent Design. So satan offered them the new theory to keep up with the latest scientific discoveries. satan has also resurrected his old lie from the garden of Eden, when he told Eve “we can be like God”. So through his imbedding with modern scientist in the labs across the world, he is promising man immortality through Transhumanism. And the lie of singularity. Unfortunately man is taking the bait. Wake up. Call out to God. Lay down your rebellion at the foot of the cross. John 3:16-21.

          • Apostaste

            Jesus every word out of your mouth is complete BS, and any with half a brain would cop it.

            Atheism is not Evolution genius. Most people who accept evolution are in fact Christians.

            It pains me to realize that you’re too ridiculously stupid and insane to know how brain dead you are. Either way this kind of idiocy is beneath me.

          • ter ber

            That’s why Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ said “You must be Born Again”. He also says not everyone that says “Lord, Lord” is saved. If you call yourself a Christian and believe God was not able to preserve His Word. And His Word is a allegory, myth, lie, etc. You are in trouble and need to repent.
            John 1:1-5, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was Life, and the Life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

          • Apostaste

            If you think you can repeatedly blatantly lie to me, threaten me and quote some irrelevant bible verses to me, I’ll convert! you completely retarded.

          • David Cromie

            More superstitious claptrap from someone who believes in a sky fairy.

          • ter ber

            So then you are not one of the 55% of atheist who think we were ‘seeded’ by magic men in the sky? You are one of the 45% who think we descended from a dot or a rock or as Dawkins puts it “nothing”. Oops I forgot, Dawkins changed his mind again. The aliens won! They seeded us.

          • Jim H

            It is hard to tell what you are talking about because you appear to be more concerned with being derisive, rather than explanatory.

            The dot and nothing references elude me, but the rest of what you are talking about seems about a biogenesis hypothesis called panspermia, which hypothesizes that life was seeded here from extraterrestrial sources.

            There is a version called “directed panspermia” that suggests that the seeds of life may have been purposely spread by an advanced extraterrestrial civilization.

            The late Nobel prize winner Professor Francis Crick, OM FRS, along with British chemist Leslie Orgel proposed the theory of directed panspermia in 1973. A co-discoverer of the double helical structure of the DNA molecule, Crick found it impossible that the complexity of DNA could have evolved naturally.

            In other words, Crick was a proponent of Intelligent Design. He just picked a different extraterrestrial designer than the one the current, religiously motivated, proponents of ID would.

            Science concerns itself with explaining the world naturalistically, so a scientist looks for a designer in the natural world. A modern ID proponent is religiously motivated so has no problem assuming a supernatural one.

            There really is no reason other than religious belief to say an omniscient, omnipotent supernatural designer, who exists outside time and space makes more sense than one who, while highly advanced, exists within the natural world within both time and space.

            There are also a versions of the panspermia theory that suggests that impact-expelled rocks from a planet’s surface can transfer biological material from one planet to another.

            There is actually some evidence for that kind of panspermia:

            A meteorite originating from Mars known as ALH84001 was shown in 1996 to contain microscopic structures resembling small terrestrial nanobacteria. When the discovery was announced, many immediately conjectured that the fossils were the first true evidence of extraterrestrial life — making headlines around the world, and even prompting United States President Bill Clinton to make a formal televised announcement to mark the event.
            I believe there is other evidence. You can research it yourself if you are interested.

          • ter ber

            Jim, I do not mean to be derisive, however, I do have a snarky-ness problem. I really find this atheist-alien theory fascinating, but very few atheist will talk about it. Dawkins did a lecture last fall at a conference in England about aliens and human sexuality. I have read most of what you are talking about and also the Atheist Bryan Sykes books and others. You know Dr. Sykes was so freaked out with his DNA studies pointing to ID, that he took 2 years to research Bigfoot’s DNA. Maybe hoping to find remnants of mans common ancestor with apes? So what your telling me that LIFE began with the miracle of spontaneously combustion from nothing? Because we do know that matter and information cannot come from nothing, even though Dawkins thinks it can. Well anyways, I appreciate you having a civil discourse and not calling me names. ( :

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            You still haven’t said whether you think every snowflake is designed?

          • ter ber

            I’m from Minnesnowta. They are part of the hydrologic cycle Created by God. However its the temperature and humidity (Created by God) thats influences the design.
            Question for you Hermit, Any two snow flakes the same? I would say there can be duplicates many times over, but how would we ever know? Can they make a rose yet in the lab, Hermit? You know… a rose from nothing?

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            So god is not responsible for “creating” each snowflake, meaning that “intelligent design” (which is neither) is unnecessary to explain complex structures.

          • ter ber

            Good Night Hermit. Time for you and baal to go to sleep.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Ba’al is one of your gods, like Yahweh, one of the sons of ’El, who later became the so-called bible’s El (gods) or ʾelōhîm (“powers”).

          • ter ber

            Don’t you ever get tired of having an encyclopedia dumped into your brain? You know you can be worshipping Knowledge. Clever spirit.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            I don’t do worship, but if I did, knowledge would be a much better idea than god thingies. For one thing it seems to exist and for another it seems to be useful.

          • Jim H

            By the way, did you know Baal was one of the Canaanite high God El’s sons and Yahweh’s brother?

          • ter ber

            So that would be from the same satanic text that forwarded the idea The Lord Jesus Christ and lucifer are brothers (Mormon)? Please. You guys are all storing up God’s wrath. It’s time for me to dust of my sandals.
            Remember my fellow ants….when you see the 3rd Temple in Jerusalem being built, time to cash your chips in.

          • Jim H

            “So that would be from the same satanic text that forwarded the idea The Lord Jesus Christ and lucifer are brothers (Mormon)?”

            I don’t believe the book of Mormon is Satanic. I just think it is dumb, since Joseph Smith was an obviously a petty criminal and a complete fraud. However, if someone wants to believe such silliness, its none of my business.

            My statement has nothing to do with the book of Mormon. As I stated, it has to do with the study of ancient Canaanite religion. Do you actually read what I write before firing off comments? You often seem to show little to no comprehension of what I have written.

            Does God hate the study of ancient religion, or is it actually just someone reading the Bible with an open mind and unorthodox critical eye that he despises and causes him to store up his wrath? Or is that just you projecting your frustration on Him?

            “Remember my fellow ants….when you see the 3rd Temple in Jerusalem being built, time to cash your chips in.”

            So when do we actually cash in our chips? Is it seven years after it is built (at the beginning of the 7 year tribulation) or is it 3 and 1/2 after it is built (in the middle of the tribulation)? Does it need to be on the Temple mound to count, or anywhere in Israel? Wouldn’t the Rapture be a much more dramatic and convincing event? I think all those Christians disappearing would be hard to miss? When does that happen? Is it in the beginning, middle, or end of the tribulation?

            Would you prefer that I use words like, pre-, mid-, and post-tribulation or historic pre-millennialism and dispensational pre-millennialism?

            If you are going to be smug and condescending, at least have some idea what you are talking about and be able to express yourself cogently.

          • ter ber

            Lol. God created the elements, man with his God given talents created the sports car. Why is man so continually ungrateful to God? Why do use a female picture, when you are a male?

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Aside from hydrogen, helium, some lithium and a little beryllium synthesized in the Big Bang, the elements were synthesized in stars. And there are no gods, nor god given talents. Just some people with delusions of god thingies.
            There are no reasons to be “grateful” to any god thingies, imaginary or not.

            What makes you imagine that I am “a man” or that it is relevant to the discussion?

          • ter ber

            Well I did have a 50% chance of calling it. Lol. No really I find a lot of sodomite males online like to take on their fantasy female personas. And since I already figure you have a demon imbedded, well the demons forte is lust….so…. Lust for same sex, lust for multiple partners, lust animals, lust for children, foot fetishes, they are sooo accommodating to man. And we humans can be so foolish.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            I’d suggest that there is only one demented person in this conversation, and it isn’t me. Your list of lusts make for interesting reading. Maybe you should try to write a book.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Wow….. and you complain about US creating something out of nothing…..

          • Jim H

            “what your telling me that LIFE began with the miracle of spontaneously combustion from nothing? Because we do know that matter and information cannot come from nothing,”

            I don’t think I even addressed where life comes from. However, I highly doubt that it was from spontaneous combustion, which means something into burst into flames for no reason. I think you mean it was “spontaneous generation”.

            Spontaneous generation is the idea of that living organisms can form without descent from similar organisms.

            Ex nihilo is a Latin phrase meaning “out of nothing”. It often appears in conjunction with the concept of creation, as in creatio ex nihilo, meaning “creation out of nothing”

            If God created all living things, rather than them evolving, they did not descend from similar organisms and, consequently did spontaneously generate. In fact,

            God is said to have created everything ex nihilo; i.e., from nothing, which would be the most extreme version of spontaneous generation imaginable.
            Aren’t you then the one saying matter and information can, in fact come from nothing and that is precisely the way God created it?

            To my knowledge, science doesn’t go anywhere near that far. Essentially, theories of the origins of life require the availability of organic molecules as building blocks.
            Experiments have shown that amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, will arise among other small organic molecules by reacting a mixture of methane, hydrogen, ammonia and water in a spark discharge apparatus.

            I believe other experiments using other combinations have yielded similar results.
            I would see life on this planet as an ongoing process rather than a creative event, or series of creative events.

          • ter ber

            Is see generate would be the correct word, but since the ‘big bang’ is described as an explosion (of material?) I think thats what my head was thinking lol. 2:31am don’t ever sleep? Your either in another country or you need only 2-3 hrs a day like an Einstein brain. Hydrogen is the problem element, it has a tendency to escape. A spark discharge, isn’t that my crude combustion? I think when we all look at this honestly we are all in wonder, on how in the world could this happen, and on this little planet only? Doesn’t that give you pause? See honestly, I think all origins should be taught in school. Even a few minutes of the Hindu, Islamic tales. And then look at all the scientific evidence and theories. And get the lies out of the text book like Kent Hovind advocated in his lectures and debates. Because nobody is creating life in the lab. They are getting close, but they still need God’s original material He Created. So it sounds like you grew up with knowledge of the Bible in your background? Are you a professor, PhD?

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Kent Hovind has no grasp on reality and science, and should be restrained from ever coming within 500 yards of a school. Even in a situation where they did teach all creation stories (great for a literature class perhaps?), he is the LAST person that should be involved in that process. He is a hack of the criminal variety.

          • ter ber

            He was a pubic school science teacher for 15 years. He loves science. You most likely have never heard one of his lectures or debates.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            My rational people don’t try to get out of paying taxes by claiming everything he owns belongs to “god” and “god” is exempt. I don’t really care how much he loves science, he obviously doesn’t understand it enough with his Dinocreationist park.

          • Jim H

            I don’t know whether life happened only on this planet. For all I know the universe could be teeming with life, all stuck on their planets light years apart.

            I fact, I find the idea that life is exclusive to the Earth unlikely, regardless of your view of the ultimate origin of things.

            If it were just about math, I would think chances were pretty good that life would have popped up somewhere else as well. If a designer were involved, as I said before, it would seem a pretty bad design to waste such a tremendous amount space on nothing productive.

            I was just using Miller’s experiment as an example. A more recent example would be NASA scientists reproduced uracil, cytosine, and thymine, three key components of our hereditary material, in the laboratory. They exposed an ice sample containing pyrimidine exposed to ultraviolet radiation under space-like conditions and produced those essential ingredients of life.

            That particular approach could support a panspermia hypotheses, which I discussed elsewhere, and would seem you make life elsewhere more probable as well.

            I don’t think all origins should be taught in school in science class, simply because most, if not all, are not science. I would not include specific teaching of ID as science .

            For one thing, proponents of an Intelligent design have never published their argument in a peer-reviewed journal, which is what one does with a scientific theory.

            Additionally Intelligent Design/Creationism is a belief system. It is really religion.

            Scientific theories are testable and falsifiable. To be scientific Intelligent Design Creationism would require an experiment which could, in principle be performed, and a result that could possibly be obtained that would convince him that Intelligent Design Creationism is wrong. If there is no such experiment and no such result, then the “theory” is not falsifiable and is, in fact, a construct.

            In 2005, the Discovery Institute said, “Of course there’s no way to falsify a mere assertion that a cosmic designer exists. This much we are agreed on.”

            Evolution is easily tested. If there were fossil remains of a cat or dog in a pre-Cambrian layer of rock, or any lifeform on Earth that does not share half of its DNA with single-celled yeast, it would convince any rational person that evolution is wrong.

            But I do believe comparative religion should be taught in school. We live in a large diverse world and religion is important to most of its inhabitants.

            I’m not sure what the lies are in the text books or what Kent Hovind advocates in his lectures and debates, so I can’t address that.

            I agree that scientists are getting close to created life and I have no real problem with the idea that God at some point in the beginning of the process God took some action to “jump start” it.
            My own background is in the corporate world. I do have a couple of degrees, mostly in business, but I have a strong background in liberal arts/the humanities. I’m not a professor. I’ve conducted business training, but the only formal teaching I have done is grade school religion as a sub. I am very familiar with the Bible I have read it cover-to-cover at least once and much of it many times, as well as different commentaries on it.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            I think he is equating singularity with “dot”. Guess the other word is too big for him, even if it doesn’t really mean dot. (Dot is a 2d figure for example).

          • Jim H

            Thanks.

          • David Cromie

            What on earth are you blabbing on about? Is this nonsense supposed to be some sort of killer blow against atheism, or something else? It certainly exposes you as a semi (if that) literate moron. Dawkins is a scientist and it is his life’s work to consider any theoretical bilogical position which may throw light on our origins, as human beings.

            When you have come up with a cogent argument for your particular sky fairy’s existence, get back to me.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Hemi-semi-demi-literate (I knew that studying music would come in handy in a debate one day) 🙂

          • ter ber

            The daily mail. Sept.23,2014- Richard Dawkins Lectures in England: Do aliens hold the key to why we have sex? In exclusive interview with Mailonline, Dawkins explained how the need for us to have sex is one of the great unanswered questions of evolution. He added the need for 2 genders to reproduce is ‘problematic’ and finding alien life could be key to discovering why we have male and females, instead of range of genders. He also believes aliens may ‘grope in the dark’ with religion like humans.
            Ok David so you consider Dawkins life work is including magic men in the sky sexuality and genders, reproducing ? lol. No, its not a killer blow, but ohhhh so close. I love it. Having so much fun with it. And it seems to upset the 45% of athiest that do not want to go there. They want to pretend its alllll about science, alll above board. Not about crazy supernatural theories. And I don’t have to come up with the argument for a Creator. The Creation screams Designer!!! Look at all those gorgeous pictures beaming back to us of those galaxies, quarks, planets. Empty, empty, empty. We are the only living, breathing, beings on any of them. And you think that something else would have evolved, right? Not. So wake up and smell the coffee. Because David you are believing a lie.

          • Jim H

            “The Creation screams Designer”

            I’m not convinced that is just doesn’t look that way because we are looking back at a incredibly long story from an incredibly limited perspective.

            The universe is said to be over 13 billion years old. As a species, we have only been around only for around for 100 thousand of those years and have occupied a portion of it you could only call a speck.

            A lot of cosmic history could be cluttered with really messy, haphazard, self destructive and retrograde stuff, all quite contrary to the efforts a designer, at least an intelligent one.

            All that is pretty well outside our 100,000 year perspective as a species, even more so for our personal perspectives of less than even 100 years.

            You also say follow “The Creation screams Designer!!! with “Look at all those gorgeous pictures beaming back to us of those galaxies, quarks, planets. Empty, empty, empty. We are the only living, breathing, beings on any of them.”.
            That would seem to be an argument against an intelligent designer. Why would you put that much work into something that would yield so little? It is like building a incredibly tall high rise, when you knew your only tenant you would ever have was a guy who rented a small office in the basement?

          • ter ber

            “They would seem an argument against an Intelligent Designer”. Funny, you said that. Because I proposed to my sister last month on the phone, after a big discussion of the end times we are living in, and all the stuff happening, mirroring Bible prophecies. And we were left with ‘why’? Why bother? And I proposed to my sister, was God bored? I mean when look at Genesis 6, and the angelic war, 1/3 of God’s angelic beings having a melt down. And then you look at ancient writings like Enoch, well it’s start to look like a version of The Lord of the Rings. See, us Christians have a sense of humor. I think the average Christian or anyone who would sit and watch a 25 hours mini-series on man last 6000 yrs on what really happened would have their head explode. Now, Jim what are you going to do, when The Lord of this world (temporally) lucifer rolls out his next lie with demons as alien beings and the antichrist leader in charge of 10 common market-regions. You know the prophecies. Vatican says they are ready to baptize them. First Jesuit pope. What say you if that 3 temple is built in the future?

          • Jim H

            I’m not really sure what most of that was about and how it had anything to do with what I said.

            For one thing I have no idea what a “25 hours mini-series on man last 6000 yrs on what really happened” is. I assume it is something Hovind did on young Earth creationism. If that is what you are talking about I doubt my head would explode, but I also doubt that I could make it 25 hours, because I have heard it all before from similar sources.

            I think you get excited about the subject and the grammar and syntax of your writing suffers to the point of really obscuring what you are trying to say.

            A good example is where you said “I proposed to my sister last month on the phone,” Which taken at face value would indicate you had incestuous feelings for her. At least, I hope you didn’t actually mean it the way it sounded. If it did, I hope she turned you down.

            It is quite frustrating and likely is part of the reason you get the kind of responses you often do.

            However, you are correct in saying I know the prophesies, because I do.

            But your comments: “Vatican says they are ready to baptize them. First Jesuit pope. What say you if that 3 temple is built in the future?” suffer from the same obtuseness that your previous ones did.

            I imagine the pope reference has something to do with the prophesies of St. Malachy and the 3 temple with the book of Revelations. I have no idea who you are talking about the Vatican baptizing.

            However, it seems all that has nothing to do with my comments about how unintelligent the design of the universe seems to be.

            Did you just do that to avoid addressing the points I actually made?

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            It sounds like he was philosophizing and not claiming anything to be fact based on the out of context quote you put there. I think you are more interested in attacking him than making a point.

          • David Cromie

            Do you not see how ironic it is that someone who avers the actual existence of a sky fairy, should accuse (wrongly, in this instance) someone else of having ‘crazy supernatural theories’!!

            Now would be the appropriate occasion, if ever there were one, for you to prove that your belief in a sky fairy is not a crazy, supernatural, theory.

          • ter ber

            Of course David I see how ironic it is, that’s why it’s almost too irresistible not to bring it up . Here we FINALLY (lol) have the situation that the atheistic community is split almost 50/50 on IF earth could have been seeded by alien sky fairies. And for the last 2 decades we have to hear about Flying Spaghetti Monster and magic man on the sky insults. I have the most profound feeling that somebody upstairs is laughing. (Proverbs 1:22-31) however, and I do appreciate your bravery on posting your picture, as an older female baby boomer I will not. But the true irony is you and I will KNOW who is right and who is wrong in less than 20 years. (Maybe sooner if that 3rd temple in Jerusalem gets built while we are alive.) So though I do not believe in Pascal’s wager. Because that is not how you get Born Again, you can see how we will all know in the end. And with the changing quicksand of your origin and macro-evolution theories I would be very, very concerned on who is really the fools on this chapter of the His-Story of this little, insignificant, pulsating with life, planet. ( :

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            First Dawkins is not the authority of Atheism. He is but one voice and one opinion.

            Two I call straw man. You are attributing two separate quotes, and combining them to make a statement that was never said. You should revisit your facts.

          • Spectrum

            But then the evolutionists have the problem of who or what created the aliens ? I guess we’ll have to wait while their explanations for that “evolve” from impossible to highly implausible.

          • ter ber

            Lol! Exactly! ( :

          • Spectrum

            So why then, are you wasting so much of your time arguing against the existence of that “sky fairy” ? I thought that was the sort of things they do in mental institutions.

          • David Cromie

            In case you cannot read, I am asking you, as a believer, to produce your non circular argument for your supposed sky fairy.

            Is that question too difficult for you to understand, and/or answer?

          • Spectrum

            “In case I cannot read” ? Read what ? You didn’t ask ME anything. You were making a STATEMENT. To ter ber.

            It was me asking YOU a question. And I’ll ask it again…..

            If you’re so absolutely convinced that God is imaginary – a “sky fairy” as you put it – then why do atheists spend SO MUCH time arguing against a Being that they consider to be pure fiction ? That is madness. That to me, sounds itself like a circular argument – a dog chasing its tail.

            You see, to argue for or against anything, you must first at least acknowledge the POSSIBILITY that the subject at hand is real. If you’re not prepared to concede this, then you might as well argue against Santa Claus. It is just as meaningless and pointless. Can you humble yourself enough to first admit that there MIGHT be a God ?

            ( To quote you ) ; “Is that question too difficult for you to understand, and/or answer” ?

          • David Cromie

            My apologies to you!

            I do not waste my time arguing against an entity that is ‘pure fiction’ as that would be illogical, and therefore redundant.

            It is up to those who posit the existence of any supernatural entity, of any description, to adduce evidence for believing in the real, or possible, existence of that supposed supernatural entity. Do you have any evidence?

            In the absence of such evidence, the only logical conclusion is that the believer is suffering from a superstition-induced delusion. What other logical explanation could there be?

          • David Cromie

            It is up to those who posit the existence of any supernatural entity, of any description, to adduce evidence for believing in the real existence of that supposed supernatural entity. Do you have any evidence?

            In the absence of such evidence, the only logical conclusion is that the believer is suffering from a superstition-induced delusion. What other logical explanation could there be?

          • ter ber

            It amazes me you call for evidence, when you have the greatest amount of evidence right in front of your Nose!
            It’s really amazing! And funny at the same time. God’s Word tells us for the unbeliever there is a veil over their eyes, and professing to be wise, they become fools.
            The evidence is LIFE! Life on this little planet earth. And none anywhere else. Galaxy’s, Solar systems. Earth 2.0 (LOL) N-O-N-E. Yup, right in front of your nose. ( :

          • David Cromie

            You obviously do not comprehend the significance of circular arguments – they ae fallacious!.

            Thus any attempt to argue for the truth of the contents of any document cannot be the document itself. Independent, intersubjectively verified, corroboration is always required. Otherwise it could be argued that Peter Pan, Odin, or the gods of Mount Olympus are real, historical, entities, since they must exist, relying only on reading their stories.

            It is not impossible that there are other inhabited planets in the universe, unless you have incontrovertible proof of the contrary. That would really be limiting the abilities, from a theist’s stance, of the all-powerful sky fairy, and ‘creator’ of all!

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Wait….. Satan teaches science?

            Please oh please quote the Bible where you come to that outstanding conclusion.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            “…55% of atheist BELIEVE in extraterrestrial life.” If that is the actual quote, it isn’t too far off. However, you are comparing it to the belief in God.

            Taking into account your mocking of “magic men in the sky”, let me quantify the extraterrestrial life statement. The most probable source of that statistic comes from the question of whether or not life exists outside of earth somewhere. Whether you say yes or no it is a guess because we do not know for sure. I do not believe that anyone with a credible history made the comment that over half of Atheists think we originated life from a seeding event. It isn’t impossible, but we have no evidence of that.

            Now comparing that belief to a belief in a god is silly. First outside of the tech level of any possible ET lifeform, we are defining that life as existing within the natural universe, which means it is assumed it is measurable. Something God by definition can not be. Also since life occurred here, it at minimum opens the possibility of life on another planet. Neil Degrasse Tyson has some interesting talks on the subject (thinks they might exist, but unlikely to have ever visited us considering the vastness of the universe if I remember correctly).

            Also since contemplating the question “Are we alone in the universe” is not a religious question and instead a science/philosophical one there is no ramification regarding the afterlife when considering it.

            Note, there is nothing magic about aliens. They may be more or less advanced then we are since it is highly unlikely we have been in contact by aliens (they may be non-space faring yet). If they are more advanced it could APPEAR as magic, but considering how far we have come since the dark ages, we are better equipped to tell science from superstition, even if we do not know immediately the answer to questions it generates. And we do not know if they even exist or not. So God is still the only “magic man in the sky” unless you are considering Valhalla or Olympus as well.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            The correct term would be a singularity, but to know that you’d actually have to be informed on the topic.

  • Tangent001

    Go ahead, Alabama! Knock yourselves out! Just means more science jobs for my kids. Don’t start hollering when no accredited university will accept Junior’s application.

    • ter ber

      Good luck to your kids, in competing with the pacific rim nations for their kids will work for $5 an hour against your kids who want $25. The end of the middle class, and the American way of life with TPP being implemented.

  • Reason2012

    Some evolutionists say pigs crossed with ape-like creatures produced the human race – some evolutionists say it didn’t.

    Some evolutionists say it can’t be observed because it takes too long.
    Some evolutionists say evolution can be observed in certain experiments.
    Some evolutionists say it’s observed all the time all around us.

    Some evolutionists say there are a few known transitional fossils.
    Some evolutionists say there are thousands.
    Some evolutionists say every single fossil is a transitional fossils.

    Some evolutionists say modern day bananas are our cousins.

    Behold the anti-science of evolution – no wonder they need to pass laws to prohibit kids from being allowed to think for themselves.

    • Lark62

      That straw man is totally false. Read a book.

      • Reason2012

        Yes, there are some evolutionists that claim this. Replied with link but needs to be “approved” to show up.

        What strawman argument?

        No, evolutionism is a made up belief that does not happen and they can never show it.

        So show an observation of populations of fish ‘evolving’ over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish. Show that for any animal – no one can – the human race has never seen any such thing.

        So it’s actually observable, repeatable fact what evolutionists believe in does not happen until they show otherwise.

        So science is making up a belief then saying “x% of scientists believe in it so that makes it science”? Where’s that definition of science at?

        No, scientists do not need to believe in the mythology that their ancestors were reptiles to perform science. And of course, knowing the hate that will follow from evolutionists when you dare even claim you have your doubts about it, where funding would get attacked, reputations smeared, jobs lost, then of COURSE scientists are going to say “yeah, sure, I believe in evolution” – all so they can get back to doing actual science in peace.

        Hate is all evolutionists have left and people are waking up to this simple fact.

        • Lark62

          There is no scientist anywhere who says a evolution involves mating between different species.

          Evolution is not made up. It is supported by evidence. Get over it.

          • Reason2012

            Please quote where I said it’s “mating between different species”.

          • Lark62

            Ok. No problem

            “Some evolutionists say pigs crossed with ape-like creatures produced the human race”

          • Reason2012

            I didn’t say it – they did.
            macroevolution
            dot
            net
            slash
            human-origins-2
            dot
            html

          • Lark62

            You found a website where someone says something nutty on the internet and asks for money. Congrats.

            The person claims credentials (phd) but never says when, where or in what field. He has no evidence or peer reviewed research. He wants money.

            This is pretty much a case study in identification of internet nonsense. Yet you chose to present this as representive of the science of the Theory of Evolution.

            The Theory of Evolution by means of Natural Selection is a scientific theory. This means it is supported by evidence and widely accepted. There are books, peer-reviewed studies and other reliable sources that describe the theory. Even the Wikipedia article “introduction to evolution” is reliable as it is supported by references. Please do yourself a favor and learn what the Theory of Evolution is actually about.

        • Jim H

          You say “evolutionism is a made up belief that does not happen and they can never show it.”

          Couldn’t I just as easily say creationism is a made up belief that did not happen and you can never show it did.

          If nothing else there is strong evidence that species change over time even you must admit that.

          There is no evidence that entire “kinds” of animals were “reverse-poofed” into existence from nothing, or as Genesis 1:24 says were brought forth from the earth.

          The only proof is a story written in a pre-scientific time thousands of years ago.

          Show me one recorded example of anyone actually seeing anything close to such a spontaneous generation taking place.

          Otherwise you fail by your own criteria.

          • Reason2012

            Hello. Which is why I cannot call creation by God science either.

            No, there’s NO evidence that populations of fish ‘evolved’ over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish. Same for all animals. Making up beliefs ABOUT fossils that does not happen does not make fossils “evidence” of it – that’s just circular reasoning.

            Evolutionist “That’s a transitional fossil – and here are reasons I believe it is”
            “How do you know it is?”
            Evolutionist “Because evolutionism is true”
            “How do you know evolutionism is true when it never happens?”
            Evolutionist “Because that’s a transitional fossil”

            Evolutionist “DNA similarity shows this and that are cousins – and here are reasons I believe it shows that!”
            “How do you know it does?”
            Evolutionist “Because evolutionism is true”
            “How do you know evolutionism is true when it never happens?”
            Evolutionist “Because DNA similarity shows this and that are cousins!”

            Attacking the Bible does not make evolutoinism science, but it’s all evolutionists can ever fall back on when it’s easily pointed out they’re trying to pass off a belief that does not happen as science and call reasons they believe in it “evidence”.

            If I was calling creation by God science, you’d be exactly right. Now you understand why evolutionism is not science.

            The bottom line is the topic of origin of all biological diversity of life is beyond the scope of science as beliefs are all anyone can bring to the table and reasons to believe in it.

            Hope this clarifies!

          • rationalobservations?

            Recycled lies and other childish nonsense is not an argument.

            Which actual, real scientist do you quote? Or is your quote just more creationist lies from the creationist lie factory web site?

          • Jim H

            “No, there’s NO evidence that populations of fish ‘evolved’ over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish.”

            You seem like a smart guy. The only reasons I can imagine that you would say that are; you are getting your information from creationists rather than biologists, have not bothered to actually research the issue, are ignoring the facts you don’t like, or I’m just wrong and your not a smart guy.

            First of all it was not a one step transition. The transition was from fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, and reptiles to mammals. Your use of the term “generations” is also rather inappropriate for a process like this.

            If we start with the transitional species (fossil) Tikaalik who was beginning to transition from fish to amphibian. It lived 375 million years ago. Archaeothyris is the oldest undisputed mammal-like reptile. It lived 306 million years ago. Thrinaxodon could be also be considered transitional, being just on the reptilian side of the reptile/mammal divide. It lived 248–245 years ago.

            Getting from Tikaalik to Thrinaxodon took 58 million years.
            I don’t know how long an average generation would be for these guys, but I bet it is less than 58 years. That makes it a process that took at a million of generations, quite likely longer
            to accomplish. That is like referring to a beach in terms of grains of sand. However, despite the massive time scale involved, there is evidence it happened.

            However, lets go back to Tiktaalik as a good example of a transitional (fossil) species and serves as evidence that intermediates between very different types of vertebrates did once exist. The mixture of both fish and tetrapod (early amphibian) characteristics found in Tiktaalik include these traits:

            Fish – fish gills, fish scales, fish fins

            “Fishapod” – half-fish, half-tetrapod limb bones and joints, including a functional wrist joint and radiating, fish-like fins instead of toes and half-fish, half-tetrapod ear region

            Tetrapod – tetrapod rib bones, tetrapod mobile neck with separate pectoral girdle, tetrapod lungs.

            Tiktaalik was obviously gaining the structures that could allow it to support itself on solid ground and breathe air, a had a key intermediate step in the transformation of the skull that accompanied the shift to life on land by our distant ancestors.

            Tiktaalik had front fins featuring arm-like skeletal structures more akin to a crocodile than a fish, including a shoulder, elbow, and wrist, its neck could move independently of its body, which is not common in other fish. It had a flat skull resembling a crocodile’s; eyes on top of its head, suggesting that it spent a lot of time looking up. It had a neck and ribs, with the ribs being used to support its body and aid in breathing via lungs.

            If you are actually interested you can look up later (fossil) species like: Elginerpeton and Vestastega who were fish that actually had feet; Ichthyostega, who had paddle-like feet, with reinforced vertebrae, who probably spent time on land, but retained its gills and tail; Hynerpeton who was a large salamander-like creature, whose shoulder gridle was powerful, indicating it was a competent walker; or Tulerpeton who was a large animal with paddle-like toed feet and did not have gills in adulthood, making it the oldest amphibian known to depend entirely on breathing with its lungs.

            You say “the bottom line is that the topic of origin of all biological diversity of life is beyond the scope of science.” I would comment that evolution addresses the diversity of life, but does not even address the origin of life. Researching the origins of life would be considered biogenesis, not evolution. But, I would argue that biogenesis is not beyond the scope of science either. However, that is a whole different discussion, one in which I would be happy to engage.

            Likewise. I think science can bring much more than beliefs to the table and I don’t see how creationism can. Evolutionists do not need to refute anything about the origins of life because they make no claims about it.
            I’m not sure of what childish ad hominem attacks you think they fall back on, but I do think they tend to be dismissive of arguments against a theory the arguer doesn’t even seem to understand enough to argue coherently about.

            as beliefs are all anyone can bring to the table and reasons to believe in it.

            But of course evolutionists cannot refute any of this, so childish ad hominem is all they can fall back on.

          • Reason2012

            You seem like a smart guy. The only reasons I can imagine that you would say that are; you are getting your information from creationists rather than biologists, have not bothered to actually research the issue, are ignoring the facts you don’t like, or I’m just wrong and your not a smart guy.

            No, the only reason I’m saying this is becaues no evolutionist can ever show what they claim is science to ever happen and they can only give reasons they believe in it (and falsely call these reasons “evidence”)

            First of all it was not a one step transition. The transition was from fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, and reptiles to mammals.

            I never said it was one step. But addressing your claim:

            SHOW populatios of fish evolving over generations eventually into organisms we’d clearly no longer consider fish, let alone into amphibians.

            SHOW populatios of amphibians evolving over generations eventually into organisms we’d clearly no longer consider amphibians, let alone into reptiles.

            SHOW populatios of reptiles evolving over generations eventually into organisms we’d clearly no longer consider reptiles, let alone into mammals.

            They never can. They can only give reasons they believe in it and want to pretend those reasons are “evidence”.

            Your use of the term “generations” is also rather inappropriate for a process like this.

            You’re mistaken. It doesn’t happen by a fish giving birth to an amphibian – they claim it happens “over generations”.

            If we start with the transitional species (fossil) Tikaalik

            False. Calling an animal “transitional” before it’s even been established as a scientific reality what evolutionists can only give reasons to believe in is anti-science circular reasoning.

            Evolutionist “That’s a transitional fossil – and here are reasons I believe it is”
            “How do you know it is?”
            Evolutionist “Because evolutionism is true”
            “How do you know evolutionism is true when it never happens?”
            Evolutionist “Because that’s a transitional fossil”

            who was beginning to transition from fish to amphibian.

            Again notice you are now making up beliefs that can only be believed in. Not science, friend.

            It lived 375 million years ago. Archaeothyris is the oldest undisputed mammal-like reptile. It lived 306 million years ago. Thrinaxodon could be also be considered transitional, being just on the reptilian side of the reptile/mammal divide. It lived 248–245 years ago.

            Then you add the implication that “well my beliefs take too long that’s why the human race will never see it – so take my word for it that it happens anyway and call it science.

            Getting from Tikaalik to Thrinaxodon took 58 million years.

            Yes, I’m sure you believe that – until you can show the human race seeing any such thing it becomes a belief and you can only give reasons to believe in it.

            Likewise. I think science can bring much more than beliefs to the table and I don’t see how creationism can.

            No, you’ve ONLY brought beliefs to the table and reasons you believe in them. Until anyone shows the human race seeing any such thing, it remains beliefs – it’s that irrefutably simple.

            Evolutionists do not need to refute anything about the origins of life because they make no claims about it.

            Origin of biological diversity of life is what I said.

            Ask evolutionists to show an example of populations of fish morphing over generations (‘evolving’ they call it) eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish. This is what they claim happens, yet pick any animal: the human race has never observed any such thing, *hence it’s observable scientific fact it does not happen until anyone ever shows it to do so*.

            Here’s what *is* science: It’s observable, scientific fact that no matter how many generations go by over the entire existence of the human race, populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds, viruses remain viruses and so on. In spite of this, evolutionists:

            (a) *Ignore* that scientific fact

            (b) Make up a belief *contrary* to that scientific fact

            (c) Where that belief *never happens, can only be believed in* and hence can’t be called science anyway but demand it be called science and contradict what IS observable scientific fact.

            Evolutionism is nothing but a complete distortion of science and observable, repeatable scientific fact.

            Evolutionists are ignoring what is observable, scientific fact, make up beliefs that are contrary to this observable, scientific fact, where these beliefs also never happen.

          • Jim H

            “It’s observable, scientific fact that no matter how many generations go by over the entire existence of the human race, populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds, viruses remain viruses and so on.”
            You are wrong, science shows just the opposite, but the simple fact is that no amount of evidence will convince you. Research has shown that when challenged with facts, people just become more entrenched in their beliefs. That is apparently inherent in the nature of belief. When it is a religiously based belief, I imagine no amount of evidence would matter.
            You will just continue to repeat your script.

          • Reason2012

            You mean in the existence of the human race ‘science’ shows populations of fish evolving over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish? Please show that happening in the existence of the human race for ANY animal.

            Giving reasons you believe in that mythology is not ‘evidence’ – it’s circular reasoning.

            Yes, when challenged with observable, repeatable, scientific fact, evolutionists just become more entrenched in their anti-science beliefs – and being anti-God based, no amount of observable, repeatable fact will convince them otherwise.

            You will just continue to ignore the facts and never back up a word you say by showing the human race to ever observe the mythology of evolutionists. Immature ad hominem is all you can fall back on, which is par for the course for evolutionists and I thank you for proving that point yet again.

  • ter ber

    No Baal, you are wrong. Christian news can decide to ban people, they can decide to ban our links. They control it. I must tell you are the only atheist that the Holy Spirit had told me to stop talking to. I assume it’s finally the “do not throw pearls before swine” admonition. Usually it would mean you have more than one demon imbedded with you, and God’s knows you will never give up the power you worship through them. What’s really sad is you have become “unredeemable”. So I am assuming you may have blasphemed the Holy Spirit at some point in your life. Not good at all that you are giving sodomy instructions on your d I s q u s thread. And calling the Creator God of the Universe a thingie. So He has giving you over to a reprobate mind as He calls it. I have only debated one other person in cyberspace with such dripping evil. And he is a Anglican priest, pretty sure he was the Bishop for the area, and after several days I called him out with his demon and he was not insulted and did not deny it. Be careful. Ultimately they will shred you.

    • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

      Poor baby. Your goddities can’t help you, and my questions make your head hurt, so you run away and hide?

      PS A god thingie is simply one of the hundreds of thousands of things that people have claimed to regard as gods (billions if you include ancestor worship), but have not provided incontrovertible evidence justifying that claim. It may also help you to know that Godities are god thingies where their supporters though repeatedly challenged, still cannot provide any evidence that their god thingies possess any attributes that earn them the right to be regarded as deities and where they are prima facie ridiculous, in that they cannot assist their supporters in any way in this process, no matter the cost to their followers of their belief.

  • Reason2012

    Evolutionists seem to think making up beliefs about fossils that the human race has never seen the likes of makes those made up beliefs about fossils “accumulated knowledge” when it’s really anti-science circular reasoning.

    Evolutionist “That’s a transitional fossil – and here are reasons I believe it is”
    “How do you know it is?”
    Evolutionist “Because evolutionism is true”
    “How do you know evolutionism is true when the human race has never seen any such thing happen?”
    Evolutionist “Because that’s a transitional fossil”
    Behold the anti-science of evolutionism passed off as science with deception.

  • john Johnson

    There is extremely little question about evolution. There is simply far too much support. Species which are known in multiple places yet show environment specific adaptation.

  • Reason2012

    Making up beliefs about fossils that never happens is not “support” of that belief. Might as well make up a new belief like “populations of trees evolved over generations eventually into human beings” then call fossilized tree branches “support” of it.

    • rationalobservations?

      Moron alert!

    • John N

      Well, if you repeat this frequently enough, maybe you would even start believing it yourself.

      By the way, plants and animals have separated many millions of years ago. No plant has ever evolved into an animal. This must be the stupiest thing I heard right after talking snakes.

      • Reason2012

        Funny you should say that – evolutionists DO believe human beings and bananas have the same great…..great grandparents

        Satan spoke through the snake. But since you claim to be against talking snakes, why is it you believe snakes, reptiles, amphibians, fish and more could not only learn to talk, but write, publish, pass laws, design computers and more if you just give it “enough time”. Yes, evolutionism is the stupidest thing mankind has ever imagined.

        • John N

          No you’re getting it. Go on, you are on the right track. All living organisms share a common ancestor. You see how it is different from humans evolving from plants?

          So far only one organism has learned to ‘talk’, write, publish, … as a side-effect of having their brain extrermely well developped. There is no reason to think this could not have happened with reptiles or birds, in comparable circumstances. But that niche has already been claimed by mammals.

          So satan spoke through the snake, did he? Guess he might have found it difficult to speak without vocal cords. At least in Harry Potter snakes spoke Parseltongue. But of course J.K.Rowling knows more about snake anatomy than all the authors of your book together.

          • Reason2012

            No, you’re not getting it. It’s just a BELIEF that all living organisms share a common ancestor. And again, I was using the tree example as a brand new belief to make a point … “might as well make up a new belief like…”. Read more carefully to understand what you’re responding to.

            If our ancestors were reptiles, then that means over generations there were reptiles that eventually learned to talk, read, write, publish, pass laws, design computers and so on. But there were amphibians that did so, fish that did so and so on – for mocking “talking snakes” you believe vastly worse than that which you condemn, which exposes the hypocrisy of evolutionists. 🙂

            And of course mocking the bible is all you have left since you can never show what evolutionists believe in to ever happen – thank you for proving the point.

          • Threefiddy6

            Scientists have developed a method for directly observing and proving macro evolution. Observational science.

            They can’t yet turn a mammal into a reptile. They have managed to reverse the genes that made a prehistoric snout evolve into the beaks that birds use.
            They are developing plans to examine the relationship between mammals and reptiles next.

          • Reason2012

            No, all evolutionists do is make up beliefs ABOUT fossils that the human race has never seen. That’s not “developing a method for directly observing and proving it” – that’s anti-science.

            Someone might as well make up the brand new belief that populations of trees turned into human beings over generations and claim beliefs about fossilized tree branches are a “method for directly observing and proving it”, and it would be just as much of an anti-science farce.

          • Threefiddy6

            Here’s the thing: If we take, say, a mammal alive today, and science is able to alter parts of it to become more reptilian, then macroevolution is observable, testable and proven.
            They aren’t creating anything. They are just reversing certain genetic mutations that supposedly turned reptiles into mammals through evolution.
            By your argument, that would be impossible. There’s no connection between reptiles and mammals.
            But If it could actually be done, that would prove there is. It would prove macroevolution. Agreed?

            And scientists are working on doing that type of experiment. Very exciting!!

          • Reason2012

            No, it proves it takes intelligence to modify DNA.

            Please show an observation of them taking a mammal and making it a reptile, not just their desire to do so.

          • Threefiddy6

            Intelligence aside, it would be proof that modern animal features are built upon a precursor form. Some of those forms show characteristics of different species. Macro Evolution.

          • Reason2012

            No, us using intelligence to reprogram DNA proves it took intelligence to begin with, not “it can just happen on it’s own”.

          • Threefiddy6

            Regardless, there is a precursor form within the modern animal. Scientists didn’t create anything new. They peeled away the more recent mutations to reveal what was beneath.
            Whether intelligently activated or not, the life form changed at a macro level from what we see today.

            Chickens weren’t always chickens. They were built on the legacy of some other animal. Agreed?

          • Reason2012

            Not “regardless” – proof it takes intelligence and hence cannot “just happen” IF they did anything at all. Case closed you just refuted your own argument.

            So again: what did they do to the chicken – you only say they did something to it.

            Show populations of fowls evolving over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fowls, or vice-versa, then you’d finally have what evolutionists claim happens.

          • Threefiddy6

            As I said. Chickens have within their DNA the instructions for making a tail, arms and a snout. All very “un chickenlike” characteristics.
            Scientists are working on creating a chicken by removing the instructions that prevent these characteristics from manifesting themselves.
            The result would resemble a much earlier form of animal that preceded the modern chicken.
            Scientists will now be able to observationally prove that chickens came from a different type of animal. This is true whether or not a designer was supposedly involved.

          • Reason2012

            No, calling it DNA for a tail and a snout doesn’t make it so. And you have yet to cite a single thing you claimed. Cite proof of this: peer reviewed scientific papers that prove it’s DNA for a tail and a snout. I guarantee you if they found any such thing evolutionists and the MSM would front page it all over the world. Still can’t cite all your claims? End of story – as that’s all it was: a story.

          • supermike

            There’s no connection between reptiles and mammals?? Have you ever looked at a human brain? The center of it is called the reptilian brain, because we have the same brain from Evolution.

          • Threefiddy6

            You missed my point. I know there’s a connection between reptiles and mammals.

          • Jim H

            Do you really think that evidence would change anything? Many people accept beliefs first and then try to find reasons to justify them. Often, evidence only causes people to be only becomes more entrenched in their beliefs.

          • Threefiddy6

            No, but I’m grateful to science that the last pretense of Creationists to appear scientifically objective is falling away.

          • John N

            No belief necessary, evidence is abundant.

            One example – do you know why humans can’t synthesise there own vitamin C? Most animals can. But humans have a defect in a gene that impacts the chemical reaction forming vitamin A, and that’s the reason why we have to take vitamin C from external sources.

            Surprisingly, we see that the animals which are anatomically most like humans – chimpansees, gorilla’s, other apes – all have exactly the same defect in their genome.

            How do you explain this? Did your god deliberately create us – and other apes – with a defect in their genome? Really? What an intelligent designer that is!

  • rationalobservations?

    “Creationists and Scientific Logic”
    Prof. Scott Anderson

    “Creationists are of the opinion that creationism constitutes a better explanation of the evolutionary process? By what standard would they consider it better? Creationism demands that the logic of the scientific method be abandoned in favor of whatever logic one might be able to scrape out of the Bible.

    Special creationism demands that we believe that some six thousand years ago the universe was magically created, with the sun appearing long after plants, and man apparently living concurrently with carnivorous animals (perhaps including dinosaurs). It demands that all the planetary evidence that coincides with evolutionary theory (the geologic table, continental drift, erosion, et cetera), all the biological evidence (DNA, biochemistry, microbiology, anthropology, et cetera), all the historical evidence (the fossil record, archaeology, anthropology, et cetera), all the astronomical evidence (quantum singularities, the age of stars, the history of the universe, et cetera) has been misinterpreted. The evidence from physics and chemistry (the speed of light, the laws of thermodynamics, amino acids and proteins, et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum, ad absurdum) have all been misinterpreted. And I’m even leaving out several fields.

    They are all in error, I take it? Why, then, has it all seemed to fit so well? Was it a conspiracy, or was it simply science’s way of hiding the fact that they had no idea?

    Creationists still have to show that science is, in fact, wrong. This must first occur before they can begin postulating how the errors (as they must call them) persisted for so long. Creationists are more than happy to accept scientific reasoning but are unwilling to accept the conclusions. That’s why the battle is not creation versus evolution. Perhaps many creationists believe that, but it is not the case.

    The same thoughts and processes thereof that led to the theory of evolution exist in all branches of science. It’s called the scientific method. In addition, evolution gets direct and indirect support from a thousand different facts from every constellation in the sky of science. In addition, evolution gives direct and indirect support to every constellation. Science is not a batch of unrelated theories – science is a unit.

    To replace evolution with creationism would dictate that we throw out all the data we have about the age of the universe (all of it points to billions of years, not thousands). We would have to throw away the psychological data gained from testing on, for instance, lab rats. How could the data from rats relate in any way to the inspired, specially created souls of human beings? Anthropology would have to be dispensed with. Archaeology would find itself in the trash bin. Biology books would be so much toilet paper. In short, a thousand different independent but strangely cohesive facts and theories – a million tidbits of knowledge about ourselves and our world – would have to be destroyed in favor of magic and mysticism.

    We’ve been through that before – it was called the Dark Ages. I see no logical reason why we should return to them.”

  • Threefiddy6

    Scientists have developed a method to directly test and observe “Macro Evolution” in the lab. We can reverse engineer life to see if we are correct about precursor forms.
    what they did with the “dino chicken” can be replicated over and over again.

    This is a huge hurdle towards acceptance of Macro evolution by evangelicals, who, for the last 50 years, have maintained that, because it cannot be directly observed, Macro Evolution is not science.

    Now it can be observed.

    • Reason2012

      What about a “dino chicken”? Did they turn a chicken into a dinosaur?

      Making up beliefs about DNA that does not happen is not “reverse engineering life” – it’s called storytelling.

      Evolutionist “DNA similarity shows this and that are cousins – and here are reasons I believe it shows that!”
      “How do you know it does?”
      Evolutionist “Because evolutionism is true”
      “How do you know evolutionism is true when it never happens?”
      Evolutionist “Because DNA similarity shows this and that are cousins!”

      • Threefiddy6

        If scientists take a modern animal, suppress the genes that make it a modern animal, and the result is a living transitional form , then that’s observational proof of evolution.
        The “dino chicken” is simply the proof that beaks started out as snouts. A single gene changes the snout into a beak as the bird forms.

        • Reason2012

          No, evolution is not about what happens to one organism in one time. Evolution is about their claims about what happens to an entire population over many generations.

          So again, what did they do the chicken?

          • Threefiddy6

            They supressed the gene that turns a precursor snout into a beak. Next, they plan to reverse the mutation that supresses the development of the vestigial tail in chickens. Then they will suppress the genes that turn their precursor arms into wings.

            None of this is possible without the chicken being this form originally.. Macro evolution.

          • Reason2012

            No, evolution is not about what happens to one organism in one time. Evolution is about their claims about what happens to an entire population over many generations.

            Please cite the peer-reviewed scientific paper on what exactly they did to the chicken, which again is irrelevant by the way b/c it’s about population over generations, turning turning “a” chicken into something else and calling that “evolution”, which only shows ignorance of what evolutionists claim.

          • Threefiddy6

            Evolution, simply stated, is that life builds upon itself to make changes. A fully formed chicken isn’t created from the ground up. The chicken is built on the form of something that came before.
            Scientists have mapped the chicken genome and have proven this to be true.
            If designed, then even the designer used a previous design and built upon it. This is true for all life.
            Many like to call this process evolution. But even if you claim a designer, that designer used a process where life has been dramatically changed over time, building on what came before.

          • Reason2012

            Again, please cite the peer-reviewed scientific paper on what exactly they did to the chicken, which again is irrelevant by the way b/c it’s about population over generations, turning turning “a” chicken into something else and calling that “evolution”, which only shows ignorance of what evolutionists claim.
            And of course you cannot show any such thing, hence you always resort to acting like it’s about God when the topic is the fact that these beliefs of evolutionism are not science, God having nothing to do with it.

          • Threefiddy6

            I don’t understand what you are afraid of. All life has a common source. That makes no mention for or against God.

  • Reason2012

    Ask evolutionists to show an example of populations of fish morphing over generations (‘evolving’ they call it) eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish. This is what they claim happens, yet pick any animal: the human race has never observed any such thing, *hence it’s observable scientific fact it does not happen until anyone ever shows it to do so*.

    Here’s what *is* science: It’s observable, scientific fact that no matter how many generations go by over the entire existence of the human race, populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds, viruses remain viruses and so on. In spite of this, evolutionists:

    (a) *Ignore* that scientific fact

    (b) Make up a belief *contrary* to that scientific fact

    (c) Where that belief *never happens, can only be believed in* and hence can’t be called science anyway but demand it be called science and contradict what IS observable scientific fact.

    Evolutionism is nothing but a complete distortion of science and observable, repeatable scientific fact.

    Evolutionists are ignoring what is observable, scientific fact, make up beliefs that are contrary to this observable, scientific fact, where these beliefs also never happen.

    • Threefiddy6

      Ask evolutionists to show an example of populations of fish morphing over generations”

      Ask and ye shall receive! Science will be able to do just that in a year.

      • Reason2012

        “Will be able” is “showing an observation of it”? More anti-science of evolutionists.

        And even if they could do that

        – that’s not populations over generations
        – that’s not “it happens naturally” that’s “we designed it”

        • Threefiddy6

          Scientists can prove that within the instructions for creating the modern chicken, there exists the instructions for creating a tail, arms and a snout. Whether by chance or design.
          You believe it was designed. If so, then it appears the instructions for a different animal became the basis for the chicken. Some extra instructions were added.

          • Reason2012

            No, they can’t prove any such thing – they only give reasons they believe is. If you wish to pretend saying there is “chicken” DNA in human beings, the real fact is you cannot back it up and only offer a belief.

            If you wish to believe your ancestors were chickens, have at it – don’t expect others to not point out how anti-science that whacky mythology is.

            Information, let alone the mechanism to decode it and then act upon it is undeniable PROOF of intelligent design – the only faith part would be who the designer was. To me: it is God.

          • Threefiddy6

            Then God used a prior animal as a basis to create a chicken. Why does that notion disturb you?

    • Lark62

      Tiktaalik

      • Reason2012

        Making up beliefs about fossils that never happens does not then make fossils ‘evidence’ of it – circular reasoning.

        Evolutionist “That’s a transitional fossil – and here are reasons I believe it is”
        “How do you know it is?”
        Evolutionist “Because evolutionism is true”
        “How do you know evolutionism is true when it never happens?”
        Evolutionist “Because that’s a transitional fossil”

        • Lark62

          That is not how science works. That is not anything close to a fair summary of evolution. Read Jerry Coyne’s book “Why Evolution is True” or another accurate source of info about the Theory of Evolution by Means of Natural Selection.

          I’m confident you would prefer not to look like an uneducated dolt who rejects knowledge he hasn’t bothered to understand.

          • Reason2012

            Hello. Exactly right: making up beliefs that do not happen and giving reasons to believe in it, which is all evolutionists have done, is not how science works.

            Feel free to point out ONE detail I got wrong about what evolutionists believe. Just one. Ad hominem, which instead is all you offer, only proves you can’t back up your claim.

            Thank you for posting.

    • supermike

      Humans start out as fish, and become like reptiles, mammals, and develop into Humans in the womb. Our brains still contain the sections Reptilian at the center, Mammalian over that, and the Human brain on top. DNA proves that primates are over 99% identical to Humans. Do you think it is a coincidence that they have two eyes, ten fingers and toes, and are warm blooded like us?? Every bone in the Tiktaalik that was an important missing link that lived 500 million years ago that was between fish and animal, and every joint on its body was the same type as ours in the same place, and I expect it also had the same number of vertebrae, like many fish do. Even a Giraffe has the same number of vertebrae in its neck as Humans. Why? Evolution. It is, among thinking people, an indisputable fact. Only the unthinking still debate against it, but they are shrinking every day as technology proves scientists are right to the point that even the Pope had to acknowledge it is a fact.

      • Reason2012

        No, humans start out as humans in the womb. Evolution is not a fish becoming then an amphibian, then a reptiles, then a mammal in our womb – please read up on what you seek to defend.

        Making up beliefs ABOUT DNA that does not happen in the entire existence of the human race does not then make DNA “evidence” of this made up belief – circular reasoning.

        Evolutionist “DNA similarity shows this and that are cousins – and here are reasons I believe it shows that!”
        “How do you know it does?”
        Evolutionist “Because evolutionism is true”
        “How do you know evolutionism is true when it never happens?”
        Evolutionist “Because DNA similarity shows this and that are cousins – and here are the reasons I believe it shows that!”

        Likewise, making up beliefs about fossils that does not happen does not then make fossils “evidence” of that made up belief – more anti-science circular reasoning.

        Evolutionist “That’s a transitional fossil – and here are reasons I believe it is”
        “How do you know it is?”
        Evolutionist “Because evolutionism is true”
        “How do you know evolutionism is true when it never happens?”
        Evolutionist “Because that’s a transitional fossil – and here are reasons I believe it is”

        It would be like someone making up this new belief called “treeism”, and claiming populations of trees morphed over generations eventually into human beings, claiming fossilized tree branches are “evidence” of it, and it would be just as much of an anti-science science fiction. Then state “treeism is indisputable fact and the Pope has acknowledged it is a fact” – except stating it is, and claiming the Pope believes in it, is not science, but shows you have no idea what science is.

        Science starts with something that happens and requires no faith about that something that happens. Evolutionism starts with a made up belief that does not happen and requires you to believe in it, then they only give reasons to believe in it and call it science.

        It’s why they must claim bananas and human beings have the same great……..great grandparents – which shows how foolish the belief system truly is.

        Evolutionism is not about monkeys into men – it’s about making monkeys out of men.

        Live forever, Mike.

        • supermike

          Human babies are in the womb before they are born. They are submerged in water, initially without even an umbilical cord to supply oxygen. Trust me, scientists know more about this than you do.

  • supermike

    How crazy can things get? We have a website here, totally against all real scientists, claiming that they are all crazy, mistaken, and idiotic, yet they have their own Science section with their scientists to convince their followers that the real scientists are wrong. A Scientific Theory can only be a Scientific Theory if there’s never been any evidence against it. Religion, by definition has never had any evidence supporting it. It can’t, or it wouldn’t be religion. The two are forever diametrically opposed, because they are the opposite of each other, and there can never be evidence for religion, or evidence against a Scientific Theory. If there were ever any evidence for religion it would not be called religion anymore, and if there was ever any evidence against a Scientific Theory, it could not stand as a Scientific Theory.