February 20, 2009

Top 10 Arguments Against Evolution (and why they are wrong)

Irreducibly complex system exist which could not have evolved - This one was actually proven in a court of law to be false. Systems termed "irreducibly complex" are only irreducibly complex in their present form. But as long as at all stages it proved to be beneficial, Even slightly, Then the mechanisms would be retained, even if along the way, at different stages, it didn't resemble, or even perform the same function, as it presently does.

Ken miller explained this using the mousetrap. Behe said the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly because, like a mouse trap, if one part was removed it failed to perform it's function. ken miller shot this argument to pieces by wearing a mouse trap with only 3 parts as a tie clip to court. Does it's perform the function of a mousetrap? No. Does it perform a function which could be selected for and considered "beneficial"? yes.

Evolution is not testable - Every new fossil dug up, every genome sequenced, every new species discovered, every new simulation run is a test of evolutionary theory. If what we discover doesn't fit in with what evolution predicts then evolution is wrong. In the 150 years it has been around not a single new discovery, Including DNA and genomes which weren't even known of in Darwin's time, Has told us anything other than what we would expect to find if evolution were a fact. They all end up telling us the exact thing which we would expect to be true if evolution was a fact. The EXACT thing we would expect.

To prove it wrong just discover something which should not be true if evolution is right. I'll help you: The gene for feathers in humans or a chicken in the Precambrian.

There is evidence against evolution - No there isn't. There are poorly understood, fallacious arguments which are parroted, But not a single discovery which should not be true if evolution is a fact. Like i said, Find something which invalidates evolution, like the gene for feathers in humans of a Precambrian chicken; something beyond the flawed probability arguments and baseless assumptions. Find us something real, something tangible, Which should not exist if evolution were true.

Evolution has not been observed - At all levels evolution has been physically observed. Everything from new bio-synthetic pathways and speciation to variations of features in a population due to natural selection.

Even in the short time humans have been here we have changed, through selection, wolves into dogs and teosinte in to corn and we have caused the emergence of pesticide resistant insects and even the formation of a bacteria which eats nylon, something which has only existed for 50 years. Even the humble banana which ray comfort claimed was the "atheists nightmare" only exists because we cultivated it. Humans invented the banana through selection. This is what a wild banana, ya know, the one your god made, looks like.


All mutations are bad - Most mutations actually have no effect and sit happily in the genome not causing any problems. Every person is born with around 200 mutations. We all have 200 genes not found anywhere in our lineage. Some are bad, granted, But those organisms generally die off and so the mutation isn't propagated. The good ones, like a mutation that causes thicker hair growth in cold climates, rapidly propagate throughout the species. Examples of good mutations can be seen in antibiotic resistant bacteria, pesticide resistant insects of drug resistant HIV. Sure they suck for us, But for the organism concerned, they are beneficial mutations.

The probability of cells spontaneously forming is too low - Cells, like all life, Slowly evolved. The first cell was nothing at all like the cells we find in modern day organisms. The first cell would have been nothing but a self replicating molecule, And we have created those in a lab.

No transitional fossils have ever been found - This argument is so weak and out of date even the mouthpiece of young earth creationism, AIG, warns it's follows not to use it. The fact is we have enough transitional fossils to tie together all the species in the class of eumetazoa. We even have transitional forms alive today. Cut open a snake and you'll find a pelvis, a whale and you'll find vestigial legs. Even humans have a vestigial flaps in their eyes which are remnants from reptiles (if you want to see it it's right near your tear duct) and smaller mammals (the tiny lump on your outer ear). we even have about half a dozen pre-human hominid fossils depicting our own evolution since we departed from the branch which lead to chimps, gorillas and baboons.

Speciation has never been observed - Another which AIG advises it's followers don't use. Speciation has been observed in everything from flies to plants. Search "observed speciation" for countless of documented examples.

Evolution violates the 1st law of thermodynamics - Evolution does not operate within a closed system and as such is not subject to the laws of thermodynamics.

Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics - Same as above, plus; The increase of complexity gained by evolution comes at the cost of the decrease of order of the sun. As the sun "dies" the energy expended comes to earth and is used by organisms to grow.

A denial of evolution - however motivated - is a denial of evidence, a retreat from reason into ignorance; Dr Tim D White

inspired by cdk007

91 comments:

  1. Theists, especially creationists really struggle with the already overwhelming, and mounting, evidence in support of evolution. It must be particularly galling that it originated with one of their own. The fact remains that evolution is not just observable, but also reproducible. There was an article in New Scientist a while back that described laboratory experiments which involved bacteria evolving to the point that some of the features that defined them as a species disappeared in only 44,000 generations, a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms.

    While that doesn't prove that we (i.e. humans) evolved, it proves the basic fundamental principal of evolution and can be used in conjunction with discoveries that do directly relate to us to form a well rounded argument that is based in fact, not a fictional book written by out less knowledgeable ancestors.

    ReplyDelete
  2. this is all brilliant! keep it up!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Let me ask you this. If evolution is true, and we all came from a long process that involved a single reproducing cell. Where did that cell come from? How did it come about? Before you can try to explain the process of life, you have to find out where it all began.

    If there is no God, or any Intelligent Design, then you are simply chasing an endless line of events that occured in a unnatural way. There has to be some point that there was something that had no begining, and started the whole "proccess". If not, then you don't have an argument for the begining of life, because if you follow atheistic evolution then there is no begining.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. where did god come from?

      Delete
    2. There is an easily explained beginning; the Big Bang. And before you ask what's before that, nothing was, because it's the beginning. Much as the claim for god has him create the beginning. Where did this god come from? Who or what created it? Nothing, because it existed since before it created things. If you want to try and use what could be considered a logical fallacy, don't have your own in there, with the same reason I could give you to protect my supposed logical fallacy.

      Delete
    3. First of all, who said we have to explain where the first cell came from before we could explain the process of life? Explain where God came from or by your own process, He is invalid. If you cannot explain his genesis (again by your own thought processes), He cannot be true. Don't be a hypocrite, apply the same criteria to your own beliefs.
      Second, the process of generating life is called "abiogenesis". Google it and study on your own. Why should we do your studying for you.
      Educate yourself, then come back for the discussion.

      Delete
    4. If you are serious about trying to get answers and aren't just asking questions you assume there are no answers to (because there are) I strongly suggest you reading "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins (particularly chapter 3) and picking up a textbook about Evolution.

      Delete
    5. Science will eventually find the answer. There isn't proof that god created it either. Besides, evolution completely disproves the what the bible says about the origins of the universe. Just because Christianity has a beginning , doesn't mean it and the rest of the story are accurate when compared to hard evidence.

      Delete
  4. Him, that is as cretinous as saying because trumpet lessons don't teach you how to smelt brass they can't teach you how to play the trumpet.

    Evolution is what come in to play the instant that the first replicating molecule came into existence. it's a theory explaining the diversity of life, not it's origin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your seemingly convincing explanations to prove that evolution is real are absolutely baseless and unconvincing...Read this to understand why
      http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/evidences.htm

      Delete
  5. So how do you explain the origin Matt?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I have always found it funny that the only arguements against Evolution have been misunderstood facts from bible fanatics.

    Whether you believe in God or not, you can still believe in Evolution. God is not a science, it is a religion. Stop treating it like a science.

    In the same way that Galileo once was put under house arrest by the church for stating the now undisputed fact that the earth revolves around the sun, they demounce this science too. Hopefully they'll come around and stop living in a fantasy land.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "So how do you explain the origin Matt?"

    We don't yet have an explanation for it's origin, though self replicating molecules (dna) have been formed in labs, so it's not a particularly unlikely thing to have happened naturally.

    it's important to understand that the lack of an explanation isn't in it's self evidence for a made up explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  8. One misunderstanding this article suffers from, is not observing this difference between evolution and natural selection. Natural selection, which no one that I know of deigns, is simply, a species adapting to the environment by the elimination of subjects with a less desirable trait, (blind watch maker) this is not always connected with genetics. Evolution is the proposed ability for a sub-species (I use the term “sub” lightly) to gain information in genetics which would prove to be helpful through natural selection.
    This I cannot see, at least not on the large scale (as see in “fossil records”). Evolution may work in the small scale, (i.e. birds of Galapagos) but strong limitations arise (i.e. birds of Galapagos). Although the changes in the beak sizes show dramatic changes when observed for as long as Darwin famously did (few generations). Not that he did not recognizing creationist scientist Edward Blyth for similar observations with out the “Origin of Species” conclusion. This does not work when applied to the big picture of how, by ill chanced mathematics, compound-complexity evolves.
    The truth is that genetics do change through mutation, but do not gain as required for protein to person (Neo-Darwinian evolution) that our average biology class so zealously proclaims.
    “The fossil record is not evidence for Neo-Darwinian evolution because the fossil record is put together using Neo-Darwinian as the model. This is circle logic and therefore invalid.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is plain bullshit. Please, get the shit the priest/pastor/whatever religious figure implanted in your head pulled out.

      Delete
    2. Sensibly put and honestly appreciated!

      Delete
  9. Many "Christian" speakers - ones who support a young earth use bad science snd bad religion, and they drag the real Christians through the mud. None of the real Christians agree with the wackos who put people under house arrest or circulate bad science. As for the Church during Galileo's time, the rulers of the Church were nuts and should not have done any of that. No one agrees with them. I am ashamed that they called themselves Christians, because that is only one instance of their folly. Many try to prove the young earth with dumb ideas. I as a teenager can see through that. Here's the bottom line -
    Not everyone who claims to be a Christian is one. And a lot of those creationist scientists are not part of the true Church.

    And Darwin was not one of our own. Those who fully and finally fall away were never really Christ's to begin with. In other words, he was a professor, not a possesor, and eventually, his true colors showed.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Have you done no research. All that you say is based on your opinion not fact. If you are going to defend the theory of evolution you should use scientific evidence not your opinion. Find evidence for evolution and against it, look at both with an open mind. When you do you might discover that that what you say in this article is not true.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you a brainwashed delusional idiot? That's what my understanding of your post is.

      Delete
  11. Some people say that complex mechanisms like the eye or the brain cannot be the result of evolution.
    A Google search on "artificial neural networks", "genetic algorithms" or "fuzzy logic" will tell you that we are able to completely reproduce evolutionary sight, large portions of the brain, and complete teams of artificial soldiers (in computer games).
    This technology is used for solving problems that we cannot fix by ourselves.
    For me this proves that evolution is very real.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Really? I've been reading every pro/anti evolution article I can get my hands on out of curiosity and it seems like this article is spot on. Evolution is, like all good scientific theories, reinforced by countless observations. In fact, of the anti-evolution "scientific" arguments I read, not one of them was written by a scientist. Why would that be? The thermodynamics anti-evolution arument is particularly off-point.

    ReplyDelete
  13. How do Creationists explain the ORIGIN of their God Dictator? THe answer, he was always there. Thus, using their own logic, we could say man was always here and was never made by anyone. Hypocrisy? YES. That is religion hypocrisy.

    By the way, I DO NOT necessarily believe in evolution. I simply dont know. Can you say that or does your EGO get the better of you?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Alright...life origins.

    It has been shown that amino acids are present in asteroids and comets and meteors!!! So amino acids can be generated...

    Amino acids combine to form a self-replicating and information storage units called RNA (self-catalyzing RNA).

    This can be procured inside a cell...which is composed of a phospholipid bilayer...which have been shown to occur naturally in the environment.
    Hydrophillic head and hyrdophobic tails...it's all very plausible and possible.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Mathematics actually supports evolution as well as the laws of physics. Evolution happens within a closed system, but that closed system is the universe. So much heat is lost due to the conversion of glucose to ATP...we're really contributing a bunch to the heat death of the universe...

    ReplyDelete
  16. The truth is that genetics completely and totally supports natural selection and evolution. Which is why there are taught hand in hand. Protein is not the heritable material. DNA is. All evolution comes through genetic change!!! Without variation you cannot have selection...

    Gravity and atomic structures are THEORIES!!! Which means that they have lots of ample evidence in support of the model and there is no evidence to disprove that theory. There is no PROVING science. Anyone that truly understands science understands that it's all about disproving observations...

    ReplyDelete
  17. Or....you might look at the evidence science has given human kind, and say I would rather believe something that can be proven with testing and reproducing of results than, an excuse for ignorance. I grew up a christian and as soon as I hit an age where I could think for myslef and formulate my own ideas, Christianity stopped making sense. The teachings they teach are irrational and no held up by any fact, whatsoever. Prove to me there IS a god!! People that beluieve in evolution don;t have to be athiest, but there is proof and fact behind science and a "book" and tradition behind christianity. Here is a great question for you as well. If god is all powerful and all knowing and all good...how is there evil in the world is he created it, and he is all knowing and all powerful and all good? We wouldn't know evil. Can "GOD" create a stone he couldn't move? These are questions that have no answers!!! science has answers and they are based on reproducing results of a past experiment and imprerical knowledge (knowlege gained through experience) AKA actualy seeing an atom split, or 2+2=4. If Jesus came along again and said now 2+2=5, would you believe him? You would sayhe is crazy because you can physically see how 2 things added to 2 other things equal 4 things...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If science has all the answers how does gravity act through a vaccuum? How does magnetism act through a vaccuum? Since a vaccuum contains nothing then scientificaly gravity cannot have any effect beyond the atmosphere of the object CREATING it.
      Evolution, working backwards, leads to a single cell that evolved into all the complexity of life. But that cell had to be CREATED by a chemical reaction. The cell did not just pop into existence. Was there only one cell at the start or many? Were they all created at the same time in the same place? Or were there several instances of the creation of the starter cells at different points around the globe?
      If these cells came from space how were they created in a barren freezing cold environment?
      Science has no explanation for the creation of the original building blocks of life.
      Science has no explanation for the creation of the universe. The scientists who formulated the big bang theory now don't believe it. It is possible that the universe is a bounce universe that colapses and the reshapes itself. As Stephen Hawkin said the big bang doesnot preclude the existence of God.
      Anyhow science has testable theories but evolution is not one of them. It is possible to create mites from a dish of chemicals and some static electricity. Fully formed multi celular living animals from an inanimate chemical soup. Unexplainable.
      Science doesnt even have an explanation of life itself. How can a thing be alive one minute and then dead the next?
      By the way a belief in God is not necessary to following the teachings of Jesus in the new testament. If we all followed the peace and love teachings of all religions then there would be no greed in this world and therefore a lot less suffering.
      Have a nice day and may your god go with you.

      Delete
  18. I find 'Intelligent design' to be an interesting phrase, since natural selection, by itself, is an intelligent process. The difference is, natural selection is NOT a religion, and does NOT require faith, as it is provable.

    Even the banana is an example of natural selection. Humans, as arrogant as we are, are still animals, and, therefore, part of nature. Our 'selective breeding' of the banana plant equates to environmental, selective pressure, caused by another animal, as seen so often in the wild.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I agree with Anonymous. Matt, if you want to somehow prove evolution, you're going to have to cite established facts, not heresay and contradictory ideas. First of all, the real definition of evolution is "descent with modification" that occurs through successive generations and produces after a very, very long time an entirely new species. Evolutionists themselves readily acknowledge that a minimum of 50-75,000 morphological changes (which means major changes to an organism, such as changing the eyesight so that a land mammal can see in the ocean, or changing the digestive sytem to ingest massive amounts of fish, etc.)are required to take one species and create another.

    The most touted paleontological evidence for such evolution is the so-called land mammal to whale progression, and you know how many fossils they cite to demonstrate this progression? A total of 3. That's right, 3 examples of "intermediary forms." As Darwin himself said, "if a myriad of intermediary forms are not found, my theory will absolutely break down."

    There is so much a lack of data truly demonstrating evolution, that it doesn't even pass the threshold of a good hypothesis. You state "evidence" that is just anecdotal, and though some of what you say is true, and it does demonstrate microevolution or adaptation, there is nothing showing true descent with modification. The bacteria you mention have consistently reverted back to their original abilities once they are removed from he artificial environments that researchers used in the experiments. The finches of the Galapagos and their much-touted change in beak size reverted back to having the original size of beak once the normal weather patterns returned - there are many instances that show microevolution and no one argues with it, but such examples do not represent anything close to what Darwin predicted, and it has never, ever been observed.

    You totally misrepresent the idea of I.D. as well, since those systems that are cited by Behe and others as irreducibly complex, have components that are not used in any other natural system, and upon which the system is dependent in order to function. The point is that if that is the case, how did the components evolve independently (or before the advent of the system), when they are not seen without the other components of the system and are not useful for any other purpose? The mouse trap example is a crude one. We're talking about many systems (such as the inner workings of the cell, etc.) that are millions of times more complex than a mouse trap. But even the simple systems demonstrate the point. Take eyesight, for example. Each of the 42 proteins that interact to make the pathway necessary for the passage of a photon of light to the eye's optic nerve and mutually dependent and not seen in other systems. Remove one of them and the eye cannot see. How could such proteins develop on their own and independent of each other when they serve no other function?

    Lastly, The biggest problems with Darwinian evolution (again, I mean macro evolution) are that it absolutely can't be tested the way true theories can. You cannot develop a mathematical algorythm to demonstrate it, like you can with Newton's laws or the laws of thermodynamics, you also can't demonstrate it with observational evidence, whether paleontological or visual in a laboratory (see above), and you can't possibly program a computer simulation, something that all good theories require in modern science if they are to receive any substantiation. The only "evidence" is the anecdotal kind you mention (though scientists are certainly more thorough in citing it). As Richard Dawkins himself put it, "it looks like an intelligence designed it, but that's the beauty of evolution." He even proposed that perhaps aliens planted life here Unbelievable.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Just as a tornado tearing through a trailer park cannot spontaniously put together a working truck from the debris, so a cell, which is far more complex than a truck, absolutly cannot spontaniously be put together by random elements being thrown about in the same fashion.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Actually you should give more evidence and do a lot more research
    Then come back and tell me what you got
    For one thing: where have you got all this information?

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Let me ask you this. If evolution is true and we all came from a long process that involved a single reproducing cell, where did that cell come from?"

    You can say the exact same thing about God. If God is the beginning, then where did God come from? And of course, you're just going to say "God is infinite, he has always existed" or something else completely ridiculous like that. So you can tell me that there's some being that has existed for all of "eternity" whatever that may be, but it's not possible that a single living reproducing cell came from the chemicals and molecules in the universe.

    ReplyDelete
  23. And yet you miss the point. Evolution does exist. All Christians know and understand that. But evolution does not in any means disprove creation. And of course all evolutionists must realize that, no one is mental enough not to. But I just thought Id add that bit of information to the mix.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I believe in Creation.
    Not just because Gods word tells us so, but because evolution just does not make sense.
    I give you guys credit - it takes more faith to believe in that stuff than believing in any all powerful God.
    The biggest issue I have with evolution is intelligence. If we arrived over millions of years of chaos, chance, uncertainty and random processes, then there leaves no room for intelligence. After all, you are a product of no design, no purpose, no programming etc. There was every chance that you didn't exist at all - in fact better chance!
    You therefore cannot reasonable expect anything logical to come from your non logical minds as you are not a product of logic or wisdom. Such things cannot exist or arise within the realms of evolution and pure chance. You are merely throwing random words to and fro.
    We come across things everyday which have undergone programming and design and we recognise it as such. How foolish and sad that we cannot recognise that in our amazingly complex and created world.

    Psalm 14:1 The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm writing a book about idiots like you.

      Delete
  25. It's a shame you don't have a response for one of the most powerful arguments of all; Species that can't exist any simpler than they already are. Like a baby chick for instance. They have an "egg tooth" on their beak, which allows them to break out of the egg, so that they can survive once they are too big for their egg. According to evolutionism, everything is a developed trait. You can't develop a trait like this, since if the species didn't have this trait in the first place, the young would die. There are several other organisms that can only exist how they are today, because they have one or several traits that they NEED to survive. Angler Fish, Beaver, Woodpecker, Chicken, Giraffe and Spider are all examples of these animals. The only logical explanation is Creation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I read somewhere that the egg tooth is left over from when birds had teeth but that they loose it has they get older so it does have proof.

      Delete
  26. No one has lived over two hundred years. Video cameras were invented within the last two hundreds years. Descent with modification has never, ever been observed because it takes longer than two hundred years to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  27. wow some of the people posting on here are nut jobs...if you are a religious nut job who believes in creationism, then you are clearly are using it as a crutch for your weak mind.

    Those who refute evolution are ignorant idiots who 1) do not understand evolution, science, or rational thinking for that matter, or 2) use faith (which is completely ridiculous)

    ReplyDelete
  28. Science relies on the statistical probability of repeatable events and a link between cause and effect. Evolution relies on the statistical improbability of difficult or impossible events to repeat. That is not science, that is what some would call a "miracle".

    It's simple statistics. Why would one chose to put their faith (and believe me, it is faith) in a system (evolution) that requires of its believers to adopt anti-scientific stance on the most fundamental event of evolution: The Big Bang?

    I would like anyone to try and prove, using origin science, how the Big Bang could have happened.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We're working on it. Give us a few centuries.

      Delete
  29. I find it strange how people see the need for a creator. Why exactly does there have to be one? Is it possible that maybe, just maybe, we as humans cannot concieve a universe that just made itself, or that just happened? I personally see God (or gods, or creator, or whatever) as the product of human ignorance and a testament to how close-minded humans really are, because if everything must have a creator then who created the creator? Another creator? But then who created him?

    ReplyDelete
  30. haha sorry to say but evolution makes a millions times more sense than creationism. it just does. i mean first of the probability of life being created spontaneously is very high when the earth was around for between .5 and 1 billions yrs before life evolved. when theres that much time its actually very hard to say something wont happen no matter how unlikely it may be to occur in our scale of time. that is besides the pt. tho cuz evolution does not encompass the origins of life. and so what is we only have 3 transitional whale fossils as whoever said, idk if thats true but w.e, its illogical to think that there will be very many because the odds of a fossil forming are very low and the odds of the fossil surviving are low due to erosion and even earthquakes and plates moving, and the odds of us finding them are low. btw the time scale the animals were around was much less time then it took to create life, just in case any wanted to call me hypocritical. o yeah and btw evolution is observed every time a bacteria becomes drug resistant. this is caused by mutations which are extremely common on average ever person has about 200 genetic mutations which generally have no effect on the person but sometimes good stuff happens allowing for organisms to be better fit for their environment allowing them to survive etc. causing evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I don't understand why all of yall are so against the God thing.It takes a lot more faith to believe in evolution and "science" than it does to believe in creationism. im a christian and to be fair i've looked in to evolution to decied what i personally am going to believe and honestly it had too much chances and things that could go wrong.So with all that said if you going to be a rock hard atheist you should at least look into creationism or talk to a christian friend and see what they think. Ive looked in to atheism and decieded that is a load of bolonge and stuck with creatism. what will you choose?

    ReplyDelete
  32. I think to believe in some kind of Gods or whatever is the most convenient and confortable way to be or live. And I think Evolution is the most intelligent way to live. It is just fascinated me. (sorry my English)

    ReplyDelete
  33. @Alex:
    I would like anyone to try and prove, using origin science, how the Big Bang could have happened.

    Evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang. Evolution only explains how life changed and adapted over time. Go look at cosmology if you want to know about the origins of the universe.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anonymous said...

    It's a shame you don't have a response ...The only logical explanation is Creation.

    You're still thinking like they were just put there. They could always break out of the eggs. Any who couldn't died. Thus the ones who were naturally selcted to break out of their eggs continued.

    ReplyDelete
  35. One thing that I find Very interesting is the arrogance of the people that are arguing for evolution. Those who are arguing for Creationism are asking a very simple question, and that is how do you explain the beginning? Nothing wrong with that, but instead of trying to explain it, all you guys are doing is getting defensive and goin "oh, well you guys are just as dumb!"

    The fact of the matter here is that not every single person in the world has a PHD in phisics, and having come up through a very prestigious school system, our degrees are turning more into time cards, rather than certificates representing our intelegence. Those of us that ask the questions of: 1) how did it all begin, or 2) how can an explosion yield life, simply want to know the answers, not have our intellegence questioned.

    Finally, a key component that we all are missing in this discussion is faith. I am a man of very very little faith, that is why it is impossible for me to believe in something as extreme as evolution. Those of you that have come to the point where you feel that evolution is a 100 percent fact have obviously seen and fully understand the complex nature of the brain, let alone the entire human body. I have done very little studying in regards to the human body and the brain, but I have seen enough of its complexitites to understand that chance and luck and "mutations" could not, under any circumstance, happen. I do, however, find more certainty in the idea that we were put together with a purpose. If you choose to believe that your life has no purpose, I feel bad for you

    Luck and mutations cannot develope all of the neural pathways within our system. That is just ONE thing that could never happen by chance. All you "scientists" out there that know all of these complex bodily fuctions and still feel that macroevolution holds some type of sense are ignoring common sense and dedicating all of your time to finding more and more complex examples and explanations that encompass everything that didnt make sense in the first place, until you have spun a web so thick of exceptions and possibilities and "this could have happened a long time ago" that almost no one in the scientific community agrees on everything.

    All this comes down to is arrogance. People that know all they do and still feel creation is impossible are people who refuse to accept that there is a higher power. You people will have prayer coming your way, and I hope that when people come to you with the fact of Creation through Intellegent Design, you will attempt to answer the arguments with facts, not finger pointing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no fully established answer, but many choose to trust the Big Bang. I am one of them. Consider taking your medicine before you post. It makes me not have to waste time on you.

      Delete
  36. If evolution is true, which it very probably could be. Then how do you explain the creation of the universe. Look at it in this sense, in the bible it says God created the world in seven days. The hebrew word for days just means any sense of time, an epoc if you will. What is to say that God did not initiate the big bang and then let evolution create human beings and all other creatures over a long period of time?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Hey,I think what you guys are saying is not true.

    You should read the Bible
    and see what it has to say!

    Go Jesus!!!! :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I did. It believes the world is flat and resting on four pillars.

      Delete
  38. I just spent an hour reading all this crap..

    the main problem seems to be that no one else reads everything before writing their own little ranting..

    I am an atheist. And it is totally stupid to say that the THEORY of evolution doesn't have any shortcomings, because there are things that cannot be explained.

    But that is how science works. Theories develop and change. Science cannot impart absolute truth. Absolute truth doesn't exist. Why should we care how the universe began? it wont change the human condition.

    I do now one thing though.. the concept of "God" never brought about positive change in the world. But the concept of science has.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Their is no evidence for evolution. All the facts point to creationism, and honestly, why would you even want to believe in evolution? With evolution, you are a random accident in a huge universe. With creationism, you were created with a purpose and are very special to God. Honestly, I would rather be a special creation with a purpose than an accident thats no more special than a stupid monkey.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your choice is the feel good choice, not the correct one.

      Delete
  40. I'm a creationist and i think that evolution is an absolute load of crap. Non-living chemicals can't produce life on their own, and how can a living organism form from a single, non-living cell? New life can only come from past life. Anyway, countless attempts to create life from non-living matter have ended in failure. It just makes so much more sense that God created such complicated and intricate organisms such as ourselves, not random mutations that evolution states. Evolution couldn't have formed intellect, feelings and emotions. Only God can do that.

    ReplyDelete
  41. One of the most frustrating arguments to dabble with are those made by young earth creationists or those who wish to "debunk" the organization of the stratigraphic record based upon (a) lack of knowledge about sedimentation rates (b) radiometric dating being false (if one has ever studied geology, they would know that this record is not based upon sedimentation rates or radiometric dating, but chronostratigraphy...which means that geologists subdivide sections of rock based upon differences and similarities of the sediment's characteristics..ever notice how the geologic time scale is based upon eras, periods, epochs and zones...not exact dates). Most of the people who make these claims are obviously (and without any surprise) not geologists, stratigraphers, paleontologists or scientists of the like.

    Furthermore, it becomes increasingly obvious that anyone posing such arguments have alterior motives by which to refute science in order to provide more weight towards the existance of god...not the promotion of truth or knowledge. Dont be fooled...philosophically, there is no logical method of proving or disproving such an existance. The inference is simply made upon personal choice. I have reveiwed such arguments in social and academic forums again and again, what you choose to belive (in terms of religion) is based completely on the Ultimate explanation or answer you have created (this is a term coined to differentiate from proximal explanations such as the how, when, where...those explanations that use scientific and historical knowledge to explain all kinds of phenomena) The Ultimate explanation dabbles in the answer that humans have lamented over for centuries..the why question, the underlying reason for the existance of patterns, organization and observations in our universe.

    The suggestion I have is to leave science and historical invesigation out of such debates...it identifies and explains patterns in nature, provides proximal explanations and is grounded in the quest for accuracy and logic...not the ultimate truth. By scrutinizing the legitimacy of science and history based upon personal reglious beliefs, people only hamper the progression of discovery and knowledge. The ultimate explanation is a metaphysical topic, open for any thinking individual to provide insignt..there frankly exists no right or wrong answers.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I apologize for all the typos in my prevous comment....

    ReplyDelete
  43. just throwing this out there, but religion and should not be at odds. Do I believe in God? yup (sorry, man, but I do). Do I believe in evolution? um... YES. Of course, if your going to use the argument, "its so improbable that life would happen by coincidence," then look at an atom. how improbable it that all those tiny subatomic particles would gather together and make the building block for all matter? open your minds a little, people. sheesh.

    ReplyDelete
  44. one question.......y the heck cant it be both? God made the big bang happen Boom and that was that, things kept rolling from there and life sprouted on he big balls of dirt called planets etc progression of said life via evolution. it doesn't have to be one or the other ppl.

    ReplyDelete
  45. actually there are things that diprove evolution. They aren't that well known because, lets be honest, evolution believing scientists dominate the feild. A person believing in evolution is not going to admit and show the proof against it. There is a type of jellyfish that is excluded from the world in a group of asian islands. They have lost their ability to sting because they don't need to sting. But after millions of years guess what, they're still jellyfish. Why is it so hard to believ that a wide variety of animals weer created? Why do they all have to automatically come from the same ancestor just because there are some similarities? Another thing. Look at the world around you. Look at nature. See how everything fits so perfectly together? Look at the human brain, all its thoughts, capabilities, emotions, how complex the whole human body is, do you really think it can to be when a random, spontaneous bang happened and suddenly there were cells that formed into the amazing world we have today? Also, one of the ideas of evolution is that life comes form...rocks...yeah...one day this pebble is gonna became a cell that'll become a fish...sure... anyway, one day those of you who believe in evolution WILL regret it. You might think I'm crazy or roll or eyes but one day you will. i promise you that. One day you will wish you believed this comment. There IS a God. He created the earth. And even if you think you have a great life, you're life would be so much better if you would just believe in Him. All the emptyness and lonieness will go away. So go to church. I guarentee that it will give you a complete life, now and for eternity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At the time of evolution's proposal, those in doubt were the field's majority. But then testing came along and changed that.

      Delete
  46. We have the Theory of Evolution (descent with modification through time), and several theories of abiogenesis (formation of life from non-living molecular precursors).

    Recent research regarding abiogenesis:
    http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=5277

    The addition of genetic material to genomes (life is an open system):
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=virus-genes-human-genome

    Examples of observed macroevolution (transitional lifeforms):
    http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/02/macroevolution-examples-and-evidence.html

    The evolution of whales (more than 3 transitional forms):
    http://darwiniana.org/landtosea.htm

    The above are just a few samples of "the evidence". 1. Genetic material increases, 2. speciation has been observed, 3. macroevolution has taken place and has been documented.

    There is, of course, much more to evolution than this, but no one who considers the evidence cited even in this short list can with honestly claim that it is not at least "possible" for evolution to occur. Whereas it may take a greater research effort to realize it is not only possible, but highly probable, and even a fact in the same way that gravity is a fact. Given this evidence, it is irrational not to admit that evolution is possible.

    A commitment to the Bible (or religious text of choice), in my experience, is more often than not the primary reason an individual submits to irrational conclusions. Evolution says nothing about whether or not a god exists, but if you are a Biblical literalist, then it does disconfirm the truthfulness of your specific Creationist God as outlined by any of the many forms of Creationism subscribed to by believers. God, generally speaking, is not disproved, but specific interpretations of God are.

    For many individuals it is unfortunate that there is no Creationist God (according to common usage of the term). And no honest person would say Intelligent Design is anything other than a Creationist God. Finding a form of God that works with the discovered "factual" evidence may be their only recourse. There are some posters here who are comfortable in having done just that. I, preferring naturalistic explanations first and foremost, have no need of the supernatural, primarily because supernatural explanations present unique and untenable problems to ever knowing what "is" true, much less what "can be" true, but most of all, one cannot know what "is not" true; in effect, within a supernatural worldview, "knowledge" can ever be relied upon, nothing can be confirmed through alternate routes of investigation, which can be done in most cases with naturalistic explanations.

    Science does not prove assertions true, but it is able to disprove assertions. This is the power of science. It allows us to set boundaries on what is possible, while yet allowing our conception of what is taken as true to change with new discoveries. This also gives us the power to determine truth.

    With supernatural explanations, nothing can be disproved, which makes any and every assertion equally possible, no matter how fantastic, it is virtually impossible to form a coherent, concise idea of what might be true.

    Many of faith have no need for reasoning out the differences between naturalistic versus supernaturalistic approaches, as they already know what they want to know (irrespective of evidence), and it makes them feel good. The Bible dictates their truth.

    Holy books, in general, are the problem. Each reader will have resolve for himself how to break free from the dogma and control these limited vestures of absolute truth have over their minds.

    Keep your God, get rid of the book. Open yourselves up to all that the book has "failed" to tell you about. Think about how the phrases and paragraphs came to be written down (not unlike, actually, from how I am writing down these "Holy" words now). You may find you have something worthwhile to contribute to life as we know it, after all.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I have one question for all you evolutionists to answer. If evolution is true, then why haven't I seen any species evolving into a higher form?

    And to all of the people who believe that you can believe both evolution and in God, you can't. If you don't believe that God created the world in 6 24-hour days, then you are placing yourself above God. You are giving yourself the power to pick and choose what you believe to be true in the Bible.

    All of the Bible is true.

    ReplyDelete
  48. evolution is a bunch of BS some retard made up so other retards could follow his gay theory and become more retarded.

    How can evoultion come from nothing?
    Evolution is f***ed up...

    ReplyDelete
  49. so your saying that we, us ppl came from nothing? u should read the bible more often and see if creationalism or evolution is real...

    ReplyDelete
  50. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i1/chimeras.asp

    Check the site, there is quite a bit of evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I can't find the post again, but someone was speaking of growing up a Christian and when reaching his/her "age of reason," started thinking for his/her self and realizing that some of the things taught are a little...stupid...I'm in the exact same boat. When I started thinking, "Hey, that doesn't make sense. Let me look into it." I read some books, particularly Darwin's Origin. I'm now completely convinced.

    Do I still believe in God? I'm not sure. Maybe I do.

    A lot of the responses from the creationists seem to be repeated over and over as if they were coached from the same Kent Hoven video. Most simply present the appearence of making an argument against evolution/natural selection by stating that we can't explain the beginning of the universe, but are actually just avoiding it by using something that has nothing to do with evolution, but more to do with cosmology. I've been looking up a lot of anti-evolution websites, and I can't help but giggle. Each site as well as most of the creationists here use the exact same arguments and use the same animals (giraffe, chicken egg, garden spiders, beaver, etc.) that "could not evolve because they are too complex."

    Anonymous said...
    Their is no evidence for evolution. All the facts point to creationism, and honestly, why would you even want to believe in evolution? With evolution, you are a random accident in a huge universe. With creationism, you were created with a purpose and are very special to God. Honestly, I would rather be a special creation with a purpose than an accident thats no more special than a stupid monkey.

    -what are "all the facts" you speak of?
    -You aren't supposed to choose what you believe in; it should be believed because you feel it is true. It doesn't matter if I want to "believe in" (agree with) evolution, what anyone wants doesn't make it true or false. It just means that they want it.
    -I would rather be a special creation with a purpose too, but that doesn't mean I should decide what I believe on where I would rather have come from.
    -monkeys are not stupid and I think they are quite special.

    ReplyDelete
  52. my IT teacher agrees :P

    ReplyDelete
  53. Alright so all this evolution junk is getting to me. it has been said' by someone who does not belive in a God that evolution has the chances of happening the same amout as if a tornado came thru a junk yard and came up with a funtional 747.. it just couldnt happen.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Well, I'm still unsettled on the topic. Thats really only because I always get the info 2nd hand; I never seem to have time to find primary scientific sources, and I don't intend on pursuing biology as a career. But I still believe in God, and I think one of the most compelling reasons to lies in the idea of free will and Quantum mechanics.

    ReplyDelete
  55. You are a God damn idiot. It can't be both, it says in the Bible that God created the universe on the 4th day of creation, if you say other wise then you disagree with the whole Bible.
    And can I say bravo to the FUCKING ARSE HOLE that wrote this page. From the "probability of spontaneously forming is too low", you say that "we had created those in a lab".........wow that’s really conclusive, you are an inspiration..... FUCKING NO!!! Could you be move specific, a lab could be your mom's/mum's meth lab she has in her basement; if you had said "at such and such University, they tested Blah, then another University from some place, did the same experiment and they came up with the same result".

    Its statements like these that make me question if you have ANY idea what the hell you're talking about.

    And can I also point out that you said "the first cell would of been nothing but a self replicating molecule" are you FUCKING KINDING ME; have you any idea what you just said, you said that a replicating molecule.....is simple, there are no simple molecules, and what then, the cell needs to eat, it need to be able to filter out any particles that might be harmful, it need a photosynthesis cell group to take energy from the sun (this may or may not be necessary); it needs to have a FUCK load of data to be able to start life off, even a Bacteria, and as you may know, a protein molecule has hundreds if not a few thousand amino acids (but never less than 50) even a cell with 17 amino acids has a probability of 1 in 355 trillion to get in an order that would work successfully.

    I would also like to point out that there is no such thing as evolution; things adapt, for instance, if you look at different kinds of dogs, people would say that they have evolved from wolfs; this is NOT evolution, this is merely a God given trait, to allow different animals to adapt to their environment, if you take away the stimulus that originally changed the animal from its original state, the animal (after many generations) will return the its original state; this is called the adaptation cycle.

    I quote: Like will give rise to like.
    Meaning that frogs will never be birds, pigs will never fly, cats will never have gills and humans will never be better than what we are now; that’s the way the world is, that’s the way God made use, if we are the product of pond scum, then why do monkeys have 2 more chromosomes than us, or did monkeys come from us. If monkeys came from us, then why would the seem to be climbing down the evolutionary (so to speak) why is it so hard to believe that there is a God, and that he loves you and wants you to be happy he wants to live an eternity with you, and all you have to do is believe that made the ultimate sacrifice for you.....that’s it lady's and gentlemen.

    P.S. If you believe in evolution, and not in the Bible, then you are DEFINITELY not going any where but hell, if you believe in evolution then you may as well live up life now, because when you die, it's only going to get worse for you.

    P.P.S To the guy that made this page...... I call your bluff.

    ReplyDelete
  56. I dont get it. Im 14 and have heard both sides of this argument. I thought evolution would have the weaker argument simply because u observe miner changes in creatures in order to adapt, but u ddon't see animals changing into a whole other species. Why would a whale need legs? Why would a rat need wings? Why are we, as humans so different from the animals. How did the earth randomly fit so well together and how on earth do we have the ability to reason beyomd survival, but the unknown? It's hard to believe im an accident and i might as well kill myself if my only purpose is to reproduce and hope my children mutate into something better.

    ReplyDelete
  57. and what does evolution have to do with our understanding of right and wrong. The ability to reason and love. lets face it. we are not animals, we are human. a great reflection of God. GOd didnt make a bang. WE Are Not random. I dont know where God came from and I cant comprehend him completely, but I do know that I have felt his presence, I have seen miricles, and IM not stupid or ignorant. What I do know is that jut because you dont want to beleve in God or dont like GOd or want to feel as if you are completely on control, you are not. If it wasnt for God I wouldnt be breathing right now.

    ReplyDelete
  58. This is a little bit nuts. Evolution is not the work of some God hating scientists, it is not a weak theory cobbled together from specs of evidence, and it is not an explanation for the creation of the universe. Evolution explains how life can change and progress over time, not how the universe was started or how life was first formed. It does not rule out a God or undermine religion. God and evolution can coexist side by side and the world would be better of if they could do so peacefully. Creationists are not all naive idiots who shun science, many have false information or simply do not believe in evolution, which is OK. Evolutionists are not all God-hating atheists who seek to disprove religion. They are simply people who embrace the scientific community and understand and agree with its findings. And many people are BOTH. There is no reason why you cannot believe in God and evolution. If we could all set aside out differences and discuss this like adults instead of making up facts and calling each other names, perhaps we could actually learn about the other sides point of view.

    ReplyDelete
  59. love you all!

    ReplyDelete
  60. I like what one person said about God not being religion. He's not. Also, lots of people do crave to know where the big bang happend. While I agree with many of the misconceptions, there are also misconceptions some have about evolution. You can't argue either if you don't know enough about both. Lots of this is true. The ideas are interesting, and in the long run, you can beleive both, I bet many of you didn't know that Darwin was a Christian...

    ReplyDelete
  61. A book worth reading is Calculating God, by Robert J. Sawyer. It is worth the read for athiest and thiest's alike.

    Why can't god and science fit together. I am not going to argue against either. In my own opinion. I believe evolution is real, and so is god. Though in the way we do not understand exactly how evolution works, we do not understand god. Men have tried to explain evolution through study and observation, they have wrote down what they have found and presented it to their peers. The exact same thing happened with religious writings. Many of the symbolic writing in the these religious writings can be explained by the lack of knowledge in those times. People did not understand how everything worked back then, so went about explaining it in a way that would be easily understood. They observed what happened, and wrote it down. Is the bible not a collection of writing's by prophets? God did not write the bible, man did.


    In the book calculating god. It explains the science that backs the theory that there were big bang events before our own. Currently our universe is expanding. Eventually it will start to collapse. There is science proving this. use google and you can find MULTIPLE sources claiming this. Eventually when all the mass in the universe collapses back down to a single point. we will have singularity. Infinite mass in an infinitely small point. When that occurs. The pressure and heat that will come as a result of this singularity will cause another big bang. It is possible that through an inumerable ammount of big bangs, 2 things could have happened.

    ReplyDelete
  62. The theory in "calculating god" is that eventually matter came together to cause a sentience that was non biological and this sentience learned to survive the eventualy collapse, or possible not survive, but position and set itself in a way to come into existence again through another big bang. This sentience then created other sentiences, and was able, through experimentation to create perfect conditions for a planet like us to exist. Through science this non biological sentience has created biological life. The other theory is that cells were created through a perfect condition during one of these big bangs, and that is where we are. Many people will ask, well when was the FIRST big bang? and who started that off?



    I agree with what was said higher up. Evolution does not explain origin. It explains how we well... EVOLVED from that first state. I do have one thing to ask of creationists though. Who created god? Was he always there? If he WAS always there, then how hard is it to believe that there has ALWAYS been big bangs? If you are able to believe that god has been around infinitely, then the logic is the same for the other side of the story with infinite expansions and collapses.




    Many people always talk statistics. Someone higher on this thread said, it the chance that evolution happened is the same chance that a tornado went through a scrap yard and created a boeing 747. first, do you know these statistics? have you tested it? you know...... we test evolution everyday. when was the last time you tested creationism and god? One our side we have that fact that through innumerable big bangs, sentience has come to be. You say that an all powerful sentience has created man? how can we not coexist? Believe in god, BECAUSE OF SCIENCE.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I personally believe in god. But not in the symbolic form that he is portrayed in. For what happens after death. I give the answer that people deep down and only give. I DON'T KNOW. If i die and it seems that evolution is wrong, im blowing smoke and all that science has worked for is wrong? then what? oh well im in heaven. If god casts me to hell for my sins of science, then why would i want to be in heaven with a god that disowns trial by error? We all err so he would be alone.





    A being as smart as god that created man, would be logical and not emotional. he would not punish us for our logical decisions IE: not believing in god. especially a PERFECT logical being. This leads me to believe if god IS emotional, then he is not ALL powerful, but just POWERFUL. Who said god was all powerful? Is this not how he is described by prophets? Lets talk about god and things that point towards him being more logical than emotional for a second. There are some parts where god speaks of himself as the alpha and omega, the begining and the end ect. Kinda sounds like symbology.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Most people back then weren't the brightest guys. If god started going to physics and chemistry and biology ect. they shit a brick and think it was the devil.... But god understands this and uses simple words and meanings. This god also understood the key to a happy life was following some rules. This god understands that the majority of human kind really isn't the smartest, Not saying everyone is dumb. But you must admit. In the United States a little under 1% of the population holds a PHD. You know, the thing that takes like forever of being smart and proving that your smart to get.



    This god sees this so he puts the in these rules easily understandable for all of us. Say, no lying. In some situations, lying can save a life. No sex before marriage. Many times, a couple have sex before marriage, are happy, get married and life totally happy lives. No killing, sometimes, this can save lives. But most of the time, following these rules are good. This all points towards a god that is logical and thus understands science. Now what is stopping you from believing that this logical god used science to create us?

    ReplyDelete
  65. If god told the prophets of old that he wasn't perfect, what impact do you think that would have made? Imagine this. What if everything had turned out different. All the religious writings include that fact that god wasn't perfect. Why would you follow them? God wants you to follow them because its good for you. So it is only logical to assume, that he needed to convey to us that he was perfect. Hell, in any right that we can understand he IS perfect in this scenario. Dudes been around for like forever right? Any imperfection he has is on a level that we do not understand.



    One thing I would like to bring up, if people like statistics is this. What do you think the chances are that in the millions of years of life, or thousands if your like that, either or whatever, what are the chances that some dude is sitting way bored and thought. Hey why are we here, ima write the bible. Obviously, for this scenario's sake, it is not as simple as that. He probably invented some story, told his family. Little kid runs and tells his friend, who whatdya know, thinks its real, and tells his kid ect. Or any other way of social interaction. Anyways. I believe the percentages of this is WAYYYYYYYYY higher than a god that has some bad ass beard, sent his son to die on a cross to we can all go hang out in the sky, unless we are bad, then we go to this place with tons of fire ect.... I do not mean this disrespectfully. I promose. Just painting the picture.

    ReplyDelete
  66. I just wish people were more open to both sides. The athiest need to be more open, as well as the religious people. People also need to not be afraid to admit they don't know. Like i said earlier. I DON'T KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN WHEN I DIE. I can speculate based on LOGICAL REASONING. things that make sense. NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE, 2+2=4, unless you einstein or something. Somewhere i heard he said 2+2=5 when dealing with large quantities of 2. But w/e. For ACTUAL logic, 2+2 will ALWAYS = 4. CANNOT STOP THAT. Expand that logical reasoning to DOES A+B=C? IF YES THEN X IF NO THEN Y. You get programming or boolean reasoning. Hey, we have working AI's right now that can learn. Those nifty japanese dudes are making them. And what, computers started getting worth using in the mid 90's with the internet? Imagine millions of years... or even just thousands... damn you young earth dudes... REALLY? thousands? common. And will i REALLY get wings? anyways, imagine thousands or millions of years of ai R&D. pretty sure we could create an AI that could fend for itself, learn everything from its environment, create fire, the wheel, more shit, kill other AI's to hog resources, invent flight and space travel, colonize other planets, and eventually play god. Which aren't we doing with stim cells already anyways and humans as a race have only been on the earth for a VERY short period. Add much more time, and these ai's could make single cells organism's that will evolve and shiz.

    KK this is all my opinion, im usually bad at grammar, but w/e im a gamer and ill use that lame excuse to for grammer for this. felt like getting my opinion out there without spending hours editing. FOOD FOR THOUGHT. i LOVE CRITICISM. as long as its constructive. dont be like.... well your a dumb if you don't think like whatever. please use reasoning and throw me scenario's and analogies. You know. communication skills. and yes now that i have said that, give me crap for my bad grammer which is a comunicai.. you know whatever, just thansk to whoever actually spent the time to read this lulz.

    ReplyDelete
  67. The creationists argument states that the infinitely dense particle of matter that existed prior to the big bang must have been created by something as everything has a "beginning" however that must open the argument up to who created a God? Secondly does everything have to have a beginning? As human beings we have the ability to question nature, our beginnings and origins. We have been taught from a young age that everything has a beginning and end but is this really the case could our universe been born out of other factors in other universes or maybe the answers lie in the unanswered questions of dark matter and black holes. Religion has no basis for an argument as it does not question its own reliability! As a scientist it is essential that papers are peer reviewed and scrutinised. Nothing is ever even pretended to be 100% accurate in science which allows the continual questioning of data collected allowing the evolution of science. Just look at the last 100 years of medical history and how medical developments have surpassed any previous technologies only possible due to scientists questioning other scientists. If you quoted John the friggin baptist in a journal you would be laughed out of the scientific community. To believe in the teachings of the bible you must take it all or nothing and as chronologies date back 6,000 years how is it even possible for even Christians to believe this? Radiographic dating and its accuracy along with the measurement of astrological phenomenon such as stars being billions of light years away surely flaws any argument theists have against sciences current understanding. I'm all for someone presenting me with evidence of a god created world if I was approached with other evidence other than the bible that was reliable and sound in its origins that could be cross referenced with other data. In this case my view would change but until that day stop quoting the bible unless you have empirical proof that it is indeed the actual word of God!

    ReplyDelete
  68. http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/16649/title/Why-Do-We-Invoke-Darwin-/

    ReplyDelete
  69. Read Jonathan Gray's books. The Forbidden Secret and Dead Men's Secrets for some good information that most don't have. They can be found as a pdf for free online most likely.

    ReplyDelete
  70. For all those who say all religious people are un intelligent, I ask you if you would say that to the faces of M.L.K.,Malcom x,the Dalai Lama, Ravi Shankar,Mother Teresa,Isaac Newton'John Locke,
    Beethoven, Thomas Jefferson,and John F. Kennedy

    ReplyDelete