home
RSS
My Take: Jesus would believe in evolution and so should you
The most compelling evidence for evolution comes from the study of genes.
April 10th, 2011
01:00 AM ET

My Take: Jesus would believe in evolution and so should you

Editor's Note: Karl W. Giberson, Ph.D., is vice president of The BioLogos Foundation and is the author or coauthor of seven books, including The Language of Science and Faith.

By Karl W. Giberson, Special to CNN

Jesus once famously said, “I am the Truth.”

Christianity at its best embodies this provocative idea and has long been committed to preserving, expanding and sharing truth. Most of the great universities of the world were founded by Christians committed to the truth—in all its forms—and to training new generations to carry it forward.

When science began in the 17th century, Christians eagerly applied the new knowledge to alleviate suffering and improve living conditions.

But when it comes to the truth of evolution, many Christians feel compelled to look the other way. They hold on to a particular interpretation of an ancient story in Genesis that they have fashioned into a modern account of origins - a story that began as an oral tradition for a wandering tribe of Jews thousands of years ago.

This is the view on display in a $27 million dollar Creation Museum in Kentucky. It inspired the Institute for Creation Research, which purports to offer scientific support for creationism.

And it’s hardly a fringe view. A 2010 Gallup poll indicated that 4 in 10 Americans think that “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.” (http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/four-americans-believe-strict-creationism.aspx)

While Genesis contains wonderful insights into the relationship between God and the creation, it simply does not contain scientific ideas about the origin of the universe, the age of the earth or the development of life.

For more than two centuries, careful scientific research, much of it done by Christians, has demonstrated clearly that the earth is billions years old, not mere thousands, as many creationists argue. We now know that the human race began millions of years ago in Africa - not thousands of years ago in the Middle East, as the story in Genesis suggests.

And all life forms are related to each other though evolution. These are important truths that science has discovered through careful research. They are not “opinions” that can be set aside if you don’t like them.

Anyone who values truth must take these ideas seriously, for they have been established as true beyond any reasonable doubt.

There is much evidence for evolution. The most compelling comes from the study of genes, especially now that the Human Genome Project has been completed and the genomes of many other species being constantly mapped.

In particular, humans share an unfortunate “broken gene” with many other primates, including chimpanzees, orangutans, and macaques. This gene, which works fine in most mammals, enables the production of Vitamin C. Species with broken versions of the gene can’t make Vitamin C and must get it from foods like oranges and lemons.

Thousands of hapless sailors died painful deaths scurvy during the age of exploration because their “Vitamin C” gene was broken.

How can different species have identical broken genes? The only reasonable explanation is that they inherited it from a common ancestor.

Not surprisingly, evolution since the time of Darwin has claimed that humans, orangutans, chimpanzees, and macaques evolved recently from a common ancestor. The new evidence from genetics corroborates this.

Such evidence proves common ancestry with a level of certainty comparable to the evidence that the earth goes around the sun.

This is but one of many, many evidences that support the truth of evolution - that make it a “sacred fact” that Christians must embrace in the name of truth. And they should embrace this truth with enthusiasm, for this is the world that God created.

Christians must come to welcome - rather than fear - the ideas of evolution. Truths about Nature are sacred, for they speak of our Creator. Such truths constitute “God’s second book” for Christians to read alongside the Bible.

In the 17th century, Galileo used the metaphor of the “two books” to help Christians of his generation understand the sacred truth that the earth moves about the sun. “The Bible,” he liked to say, “tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens ago.”

To understand how the heavens go we must read the book of Nature, not the Bible.

The Book of nature reveals the truth that God created the world through gradual processes over billions of years, rather than over the course of six days, as many creationists believe.

Evolution does not contradict the Bible unless you force an unreasonable interpretation on that ancient book.

To suppose, as the so-called young earth creationists do, that God dictated modern scientific ideas to ancient and uncomprehending scribes is to distort the biblical message beyond recognition. Modern science was not in the worldview of the biblical authors and it is not in the Bible.

Science is not a sinister enterprise aimed at destroying faith. It’s an honest exploration of the wonderful world that God created.

We are often asked to think about what Jesus would do, if he lived among us today. Who would Jesus vote for? What car would he drive?

To these questions we should add “What would Jesus believe about origins?”

And the answer? Jesus would believe evolution, of course. He cares for the Truth.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Karl W. Giberson.

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: Bible • Christianity • Culture & Science • Culture wars • Opinion • Science

soundoff (3,562 Responses)
  1. Wonderer

    All these interesting theories about theories... The  "Big Bang" always makes me smile...apparently something did happen in nothing from nothing. Will the theory of this "event" in multiple universes really solve this conundrum? Here are some more interesting ones: Matter can evolve...but how did the laws that govern and sustain them come about? Do they evolve? Cause if they don't then they are the true reality that "evolving" matter conforms to! What is the significance of "evolution over time" if all that is came about in the absence of time? What is time? Does "natural selection" or "natural processes" explain anything? No really ...think about it...observed mechanisms are not initiators or sustainers, only observed functions happening to/in matter...certainly not creating or sustaining it... no matter how technically specific you get there's nothing profound there...

    Furthermore, there is the inexplicable miracle of consciousness attempting to fathom all of this. The most awesome experience of autonomous reality being the spark in our minds that enables us to have our own perceptions & experience of reality. "Ye are gods"...be children of the Light... Most significantly, it has never to my knowledge been confessed by either group, that possibly "creation" is utterly beyond our faculties and abilities, having no connection with "making things" or "emulating them" from observed (we did not put it there) phenomenon. And I might add, considering the limitations of our faculties, it does not surprise me that this is not obvious to all. 

    So I doubt very much that Jesus has anything to say on "evolution" as it has nothing to say in and of itself...but reinterprets itself every time truth seekers question it...Where are they at now? Stopped following after GAIA. In fact, evolutionists have stated over and over that they do not have a clue as to why anything "is" at all...so believe them! They endeavor to  classify species and discover the workings of  "observable" phenomena. Though the "how" (theories) of said phenomena are also quite weak...eg. notice how reverse evolution brings us right back to a biological "big bang" as improbable as the birth of our universe...oops...universes...

    I think it more likely that Jesus would prefer we focus on truth revealing us to be lesser than apes if we consider our abuse of those gifts we supposedly "evolved into" that push them onto the brink of extinction and so many other species along with them...

    So you can choose to make sides of "big bangs" and "cambrian explosions"(over time)  OR "Let There Be Light" revealing a complexity of infinite proportions and "design" ergo... Designer. Though I'm really not convinced that there are any "sides" to these impossibilities allowing – us and all there is – to be possible...but a single Source.

    For myself, I need no reminding that God "...knows the wisdom of this world and that it is foolishness."

    PS evolution is as much a "fact" as the sky is blue...meaning only at a certain angle & under certain limited conditions...oh yeah... and those require "light" as well... think about it...

    April 14, 2011 at 2:25 pm |
    • BoAv

      The Big Bang theory states that everything arouse from a singularity that was infinitely dense and hot. Everything in the Universe came from the single particle. If we look at the second theory of thermal dymanics which states neither energy can be created nor destroyed, couple this with Einsteins E=MC^2 in which E is energy M is mass, and C is the speed of light in a vacuum which means all of the mass in the universe at one point could have been energy. If we look at experments that are being peformed on foxes in Siberia , which are looking at how dogs evolved to coexist with humans we see that even in 50 years many behavoirs,traits, and the way the foxes look have changed. I suggest that all of the bible thumpers turn off the pastor, pull up Netlfix and watch Becoming Human: Nova whichs an excellent look into how humans may have evolved.

      January 28, 2012 at 5:41 pm |
  2. B Nakka

    Evolution has no proof, all evolutionists have are mere opinions with a smudge of evidence that is not conclusive either.

    Maybe my eyes and a camera have a common ancestor both seem to record pictures. Maybe my legs and wheels have common ancestors both seem to move.

    What else?

    April 14, 2011 at 11:05 am |
    • Nonimus

      There is a lot of evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution:
      Fossils, such as Ambulocetus, Tiktaalik, Archeopteryx, etc.
      Biochemistry like cytochrome-c protein
      Biogeography like marsupials in Australia
      Genetics like Human Chromosome-2 and endogenous retroviruses.

      April 15, 2011 at 3:55 pm |
  3. B Nakka

    There are two contradicting lines in this article.....

    1. These are important truths that science has discovered through careful research. They are not “opinions” that can be set aside if you don’t like them.
    Anyone who values truth must take these ideas seriously, for they have been established as true beyond any reasonable doubt.

    2. How can different species have identical broken genes? The only reasonable explanation is that they inherited it from a common ancestor.

    If line 1 is true then line 2 should be false because how come line 1 says science and all its proof "IS NOT AN OPINION" but then line 2 is stating an opinion and/or just a mere suggestion.

    Science like Religion should also require some form of faith. If religions says God created something out of nothing how is it any wrong then science saying that all life forms originated from nothing (ala Big Bang Theory).

    Why do people seperate science and religion and hold one higher than the other. We need both in our life to explain some of the most inexplicable things. If my doctor says sorry we have hit the end of the path and there is nothign to try, this ailment can't be cured why should I not have faith in religion to ease my pain?

    The author claiming "BROKEN GENE" to establish a common ancestor for chimpanzes and humans should also use his same rationale to establish a common ancestor for my eyes and a camera because we both have the same underlying mechanisms.

    This article is stupid to claim opinion as fact only because the explaining medium is science and not religion. How silly for an intellectual?

    April 14, 2011 at 11:02 am |
  4. B. Randon

    How pathetic. Only religious evolutionary scientists are desperate enough to appeal to an authority to argue the case of evolution. Appeals to believe what an authoritative source might have believed, are a fairly good indicator that you may want to stop and look at the data and then think about that data... for a long time. This appeal to Jesus and Truth is the religious evolutionists' attempt to force evolution into the status of scientific law. That isn't the way that real science works or Truth for that matter.

    WWJD indeed! He saw the religious power structures that kept the people in darkness, he attacked their dogma, and he wagered his life to make the point. This isn't science vs. religion. It's two religions arguing about the same data.

    Don't forget that it's still the THEORY of evolution, not the LAW of evolution. That's because you can't reliably monetize it as a business process, unless you're CNN, BioLogos, PBS, History Channel, NSF, or some other dogmatic supporter. These dogma and propaganda farms make their money that way. Some others might believe their product is inspired or a direct result of evolutionary thought, but it's only interpretive thinking, not science.

    Evolution explains everything and nothing at the same time. It's so maleable and plastic that it can never be disproven. It won't allow itself to be disproven. Anything that can't be disproven is either law or false. BioLogos wants you to assume "law" by appealing to Jesus and Truth. That is a cognitive bias called the authority bias. That is not science.

    April 14, 2011 at 7:50 am |
    • Nonimus

      Scientific theories do not get promoted to laws, they are distinct things.
      "Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circ.umstances.
      Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." ( http://ncse.com )

      "It's so maleable and plastic that it can never be disproven."
      Evolution is falsifiable. As is sometimes attributed to Haldane, "a fossil rabbit in Precambrian rocks would be enough".

      April 15, 2011 at 3:50 pm |
  5. Evan

    "Evolution is a fact"

    That depends on what type of "evolution" you mean.

    If you mean "evolution" as in "change over time", you are correct.

    If by evolution you mean Darwin's theory, you are standing on shaky ground.

    I admit: Darwin was a very intelligent man. However, there are major flaws in his theory.

    1) Natural Selection does not create new traits. Nobel Prize Winner T. H. Morgan stated “[Natural] Selection, then, has not produced anything new, but only more of certain kinds of individuals”. In other words, natural selection can explain why a specific trait may be predominant in a certain ecosystem (such as fur in a cold climate), but not why certain organisms have traits that other species do not even possess. Natural selection can explain why a dog has four legs, but fails to explain why an octopus has four more. However, Morgan stated “[Macro]Evolution, however, means producing new things, not more of what already exists”. Natural selection does not create new traits.

    2) Genetic mutation does not cause real change. First off, mutation rates are very low. The chances of a mutation occurring are about 1 in 10,000,000. The chances of this mutation being carried on to the next generation are much lower. At this low rate "...it still takes 10 million years to undergo 1% change in DNA base sequences," as stated by Susumo Ohno. With a touch of humor, Dr. Stephen Jay Gould presents a problem with this: "But how can a series of reasonable intermediates be constructed?... The dung-mimicking insect is well protected, but can there be any edge in looking only 5 percent like a turd?". In other words, because genetic change takes such a great length of time, certain traits will be so minor that there would be no reason for that trait to become dominant in a society, as an organism with it would have no significant advantage over one that doesn't. Also, mutations are almost always negative. Contrary to Darwin's theory, genetic mutation does not improve a species; if anything, it makes it worse. Even if a positive mutation did occur, it would never be significant enough to cause real change. Even if it were, it would almost certainly be outweighed by negative mutations. In short, mutation is not a legitimate way of explaining the introduction of new and better traits.

    3): A third problem with Darwin's theory is some things in nature are as simple as they could be yet still function. This is known as Irreducible complexity. Irreducible complexity is when an object is as simple as it could be yet still function. Take a mouse trap for example: no part can be removed from it and allow it to still function. Similarly, irreducibly complex organisms can be found in nature. Darwin himself admitted "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Dr. Michael Behe, a biochemist, has studied complex organisms down to the molecular level. In his book, Darwin's Black Box, he concluded that numerous things found in nature, such as cilium, antibodies, and the bacterial flagellum, are irreducibly complex. If any function of these organisms were removed, the entire organism could not function, and therefore could not evolve. If these organisms did evolve, they would have to develop all of their functions at the same time, which is against the nature of "slow, successive steps" in Darwin's theory. Darwin's theory does not explain the irreducible complexity found in certain organisms.

    4) There is no more, if not, less, proof for Darwin's theory today than there was when Darwin wrote "The Origin of Species". Fossil record have not shown the change from one species to a completely different species. Every year, scientists claim they have discovered the missing link. However, they are later disproven. With trilobites, for example, you can by a fossil of them at a geology store for less than $20, but scientists have yet to find their predecessor. In short, fossils do not help prove Darwin's theory.

    "In fact, evolution can be observed in rapidly evolving species of bacterium".

    You're correct. "Evolution" (change over time) can be found in evolving species of bacterium. However, "Darwin's theory" is not. Bacterium makes minor changes so they can be better suited to their "enviorment". However, they do not evolve into a completely new species.

    Call me a creationist if you want, but Darwin's theory is little more than a decaying theory.

    April 13, 2011 at 11:12 pm |
  6. Evan

    "Evolution is a fact"

    That depends on what "evby evolution you mean Darwin's theory, you are standing on shaky ground.

    I admit: Darwin was a very intelligent man. However, there are major flaws in his theory.

    1) Natural Selection does not create new traits. Nobel Prize Winner T. H. Morgan stated “[Natural] Selection, then, has not produced anything new, but only more of certain kinds of individuals”. In other words, natural selection can explain why a specific trait may be predominant in a certain ecosystem (such as fur in a cold climate), but not why certain organisms have traits that other species do not even possess. Natural selection can explain why a dog has four legs, but fails to explain why an octopus has four more. However, Morgan stated “[Macro]Evolution, however, means producing new things, not more of what already exists”. Natural selection does not create new traits.

    2) Genetic mutation does not cause real change. First off, mutation rates are very low. The chances of a mutation occurring are about 1 in 10,000,000. The chances of this mutation being carried on to the next generation are much lower. At this low rate "...it still takes 10 million years to undergo 1% change in DNA base sequences," as stated by Susumo Ohno. With a touch of humor, Dr. Stephen Jay Gould presents a problem with this: "But how can a series of reasonable intermediates be constructed?... The dung-mimicking insect is well protected, but can there be any edge in looking only 5 percent like a turd?". In other words, because genetic change takes such a great length of time, certain traits will be so minor that there would be no reason for that trait to become dominant in a society, as an organism with it would have no significant advantage over one that doesn't. Also, mutations are almost always negative. Contrary to Darwin's theory, genetic mutation does not improve a species; if anything, it makes it worse. Even if a positive mutation did occur, it would never be significant enough to cause real change. Even if it were, it would almost certainly be outweighed by negative mutations. In short, mutation is not a legitimate way of explaining the introduction of new and better traits.

    3): A third problem with Darwin's theory is some things in nature are as simple as they could be yet still function. This is known as Irreducible complexity. Irreducible complexity is when an object is as simple as it could be yet still function. Take a mouse trap for example: no part can be removed from it and allow it to still function. Similarly, irreducibly complex organisms can be found in nature. Darwin himself admitted "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Dr. Michael Behe, a biochemist, has studied complex organisms down to the molecular level. In his book, Darwin's Black Box, he concluded that numerous things found in nature, such as cilium, antibodies, and the bacterial flagellum, are irreducibly complex. If any function of these organisms were removed, the entire organism could not function, and therefore could not evolve. If these organisms did evolve, they would have to develop all of their functions at the same time, which is against the nature of "slow, successive steps" in Darwin's theory. Darwin's theory does not explain the irreducible complexity found in certain organisms.

    4) There is no more, if not, less, proof for Darwin's theory today than there was when Darwin wrote "The Origin of Species". Fossil record have not shown the change from one species to a completely different species. Every year, scientists claim they have discovered the missing link. However, they are later disproven. With trilobites, for example, you can by a fossil of them at a geology store for less than $20, but scientists have yet to find their predecessor. In short, fossils do not help prove Darwin's theory.

    "In fact, evolution can be observed in rapidly evolving species of bacterium".

    You're correct. "Evolution" (change over time) can be found in evolving species of bacterium. However, "Darwin's theory" is not. Bacterium makes minor changes so they can be better suited to their "enviorment". However, they do not evolve into a completely new species.

    Call me a creationist if you want, but Darwin's theory is little more than a decaying theory.

    "Evolution is a fact"

    This depends on what type of "evolution" you mean.

    If

    April 13, 2011 at 11:11 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Evan
      1) Natural selection is but one of the mechanisms in play in the evolutionary theory. There are 4 other major laws.
      2) Genetic Mutation isn't like an X-Man comic! You must appreciate the incredible time scale involved, which may be tough if you believe the earth is 6000 years old.
      3 and 4) Professor Behe has been thoroughly and publically debunked.
      In the court case Kitzmiller Vs Dover Area School District, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough."
      Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor 'missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,' what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system.
      The basal body of the flagella has in fact been found to be similar to the Type III secretion system, a needle-like structure that pathogenic germs such as Salmonella and Yersinia pestis use to inject toxins into living eucaryote cells. The needle's base has ten elements in common with the flagellum, but it is missing forty of the proteins that make a flagellum work. Thus, this system negates the claim that taking away any of the flagellum's parts would render it useless. The parts of this supposedly irreducibly complex system actually have functions of their own.

      The Darwin quote "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." is hauled out time and again by creationists. He was specifically referring the eye. However, nobody ever put in the rest of the statement in which that first part was a rhetorical device. Darwin then went on to outline the evolutionary path of the eye with great accuracy.

      April 14, 2011 at 4:24 pm |
  7. Anon

    Lulz, ok so you completely ignore the whole bible claiming the earth to be a sphere bit, and the fact that you think that genetics has little to do with evolution shows you know nothing of the theory. Lemme ask this, are you a YEC or not? If not and you believe in intelligent design, would you care to explain what makes you think that an intelligence has to be involved? One step further, if you think that, which intelligence is manipulating our evolution. Btw, yes, speciation is evolution. That's how it works. Oh and... "as well as botanically and ecologically" you do realize that plants are biological yes? They evolve just like anything else. But I think if we are to discuss further you need to explain your thoughts on the age of the earth as I am simply assuming for the most part you are a YEC. Well... that or your just a troll/poe... It can be so hard to tell sometimes.

    April 13, 2011 at 11:09 pm |
  8. UrbsDei21

    How unreasonable Christians are for forcing an "unreasonable interpretation" on the Bible. Like taking what it says at face value. Gee, who'da thunk?

    April 13, 2011 at 10:54 pm |
    • I_get _it

      "Like taking what it says at face value."

      Yes... a church's compilation of ancient works of bits of history, morality tales, historical fiction, myth, legend, superst.ition and fantasy.

      April 13, 2011 at 11:05 pm |
  9. WBenson

    In the King James Bible parable of the 10 Minas (Luke 19:11-27), Jesus gives a veiled prophesy of his own pending death to be followed by his return as master of an earthly kingdom. In the parable, Luke has Jesus describing himself as an arrogant nobleman who had to go away (verse 12) but whose servants were to “occupy” (take charge of?) the kingdom until He could again return (verse 13). In the parable, Jesus complains that the people of his kingdom hate and reject him as ruler (verse 14). The parable then prophesizes that at his second coming, some followers will have invested well what had been entrusted to them, and others not. The former are to receive cities to rule over – supposedly in Biblical fashion –, and the latter will have everything taken from them (verses 15-25). Then Jesus, in the parable-prophesy refers to those who reject him as “those mine enemies” and commands: “bring them hither, and slay them before me” (verse 27). Non-Christians, the enemies to be slain, today comprise about 4-5 billion of the world’s population. Sorry Dr. Giberson, it sounds like just more hateful Middle-East terrorist talk to me.

    April 13, 2011 at 9:25 pm |
  10. Bubba

    Let me spell it out for you: the world's real. If it has rules, we should learn them. If Jesus is real, He will come and save you even if you ARE an evolved monkey with fingers on your feet. We were whatever we are when Jesus was born; he had those little fingers on his feet and belly-button too, and He still went up on that cross. There's noting in the Bible about potatoes or tomatoes, either, so don't flip out over DNA.

    April 13, 2011 at 4:54 pm |
  11. Bible Clown

    I see we are being treated to more of "HeavenSent's" demented ravings, and he brought his whole family, too.

    April 13, 2011 at 4:11 pm |
  12. Rick

    The finches on the Galapagos islands with the larger beaks were obviously on their way to becoming something other than finches. That being said, the next time all of you "ology" professors would like to go on a research expedition, given our tough economic times might I suggest a bus trip across America instead. I think an expedition to locate Jimmy Duranty"s kids should be launched. Did you ever see the shnoz on that guy! I wonder if he might of had some peanut cracking ability that the rest of us couch potatoes don't have in our DNA. Food for thought.

    April 13, 2011 at 4:10 pm |
    • Mike Bull

      Actually, we now know that the finch beak size is cyclical depending on food supply. Darwin wasn't there long enough to observe this, and interpreted the data using his faulty paradigm. The problem with evolutionary theory is no one questions the basic paradigm, which is a philosophy not a science. All change is interpreted as being capable of producing new species. Disputing this is no more unscientific than postulating it is.

      April 13, 2011 at 10:36 pm |
  13. HeavenSent

    EVILution is a lie from the pit of hell. If so called scientists read, comprehend, and understood ALL of Jesus' truth, they would understand that we did not evolve from monkeys and that the world does not revolve around the sun.

    GOD sees fit to confound the so-called wisdom of this world. Their egos blind them to Jesus' truth.
    "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness."
    1 Cor. 3:19

    If you put your faith in so-called science, it will lead you to the path of death. Put your faith in Jesus' truth and receive life.

    Amen.

    April 13, 2011 at 12:55 pm |
    • Bible Clown

      How do you figure that the Earth doesn't revolve around the sun, honey? Do you think it's a big candle up there, and the stars are holes in the floor of heaven? I hear rain is when God flushes His toilet.

      April 13, 2011 at 4:14 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      BibleClown,

      You are confounded by the so-called "wisdom" of this world because you have no eyes to see or ears to hear.

      Put your faith in Jesus' Truth instead of putting your faith in the foolishness of this world.

      Amen.

      April 13, 2011 at 4:25 pm |
    • Artist

      Wow you are truly insane. You actually think the Earth does not revolve around the sun and question the science of that. What next the Earth is 6000 to 10000 years old? lol

      April 13, 2011 at 4:27 pm |
    • Bible Clown

      Heavy, do you believe in electricity?

      April 13, 2011 at 4:28 pm |
    • I_get _it

      @HeavenSent,
      "If you put your faith in so-called science, it will lead you to the path of death."

      Ah, so that's why you refuse to take your anti-psychotic meds? Pity.

      April 13, 2011 at 4:33 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      I do not have any issue with science that is not anti-Christian agenda-based and does not attempt to disprove GOD. When science attempts to contradict GOD's Word, we know the science is false because the Word Was in the beginning.

      We may not understand everything, for now we see in a mirror dimly, but putting your faith in humanity rather than in the Creator of All is foolish.

      Amen.

      April 13, 2011 at 4:35 pm |
    • Bible Clown

      "for now we see in a mirror dimly, but putting your faith in humanity rather than in the Creator of All is foolish." Do you believe in the refraction of photons? And if the Creator is only a myth, wouldn't it be foolish to put your faith in him? Seriously, you think when it gets dark at night God is hiding the sun? Do you talk to your cats?

      April 13, 2011 at 5:07 pm |
    • BoAv

      Pray the science away!

      January 28, 2012 at 5:44 pm |
  14. youngearth

    Evolution is one of the Devil's deceitful ploy to snare millions. Evolution and Christianity are mutually exclusive. The earth is really quite young and man has been created in the image of his Creator. Right now sinful and rebellious man denies that he has been created in the image of God and would rather worship and serve the creation.

    Isa 45:12 It is I who made the earth and created mankind upon it. My own hands stretched out the heavens;I marshaled their starry hosts.

    April 13, 2011 at 11:22 am |
    • HeavenSent

      sadly many have been deceived into believing the world's lies

      April 13, 2011 at 12:57 pm |
    • Berny

      The problem with your statement, other than the fact that it flies in the face of all the scientific evidence we've recovered up to now, is that it assumes a book written by Middle-Eastern nomads some two to three thousand years ago is the truth.
      There is a complete absence of any evidence to prove such an assumption. Taking the Bible out of the equation completely leaves the only logical answer – evolution.

      April 13, 2011 at 1:41 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Berny,

      You have been blinded by your ego and believe the world's lies instead of Jesus Truth. EVILution, Carbon Dating, and the HELLiocentric model were invented by the devil to deceive the world away from Jesus' Truth.

      These demonic creations make more sense to you because your mind has been confounded by the lies of the Evil One.

      Shelve your ego and open your heart to Jesus' Truth.

      Amen.

      April 13, 2011 at 1:54 pm |
    • Bible Clown

      So how far does your rejection of science go, fellas? You don't believe in speciation at all, and you think the world is actually flat, am I right so far? Do you believe in the periodical table of elements? Is Nitrogen real? How about Oxygen? They were 'discovered by scientists.' Do you believe that gasoline will run a car? How about computers? Sorry, cars and computers are only possible in a world where evolution is possible and the world isn't flat. It's healthier for you to assume that the Bible is a spiritual guide and not a temporal one, a view the Bible supports by telling you to render unto Caesar etc.

      April 13, 2011 at 4:20 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      BibleClown,

      True wisdom revels Jesus' Truth. Any "science" that attempts to turn GOD into a lie is itself a lie from the pit of hell. The science you mention is not a problem in and of itself, but when scientists try to use an agenda to attempt to disprove GOD, they are doing the work of the devil. Put your faith in GOD's word, which Was in the Beginning, instead of in humanity, which is as a vapor in the wind.

      Amen.

      April 13, 2011 at 4:31 pm |
    • J

      Bible Clown, please provide the scripture in the Bible where it refers to the Earth as flat. I do believe it refers to the Earth as a sphere. Look up the definition of a sphere and get back with me.
      Evolution to an educated, logically thinking person is a joke. Microevolution is a stretch and macroevolution is pure fallacy. The only observable evidence we have that either supports or refutes evolution is the fossil record, and after 150 of extensive research following Darwin's lunacy, it clearly points towards creation. It amazes me that the leading evolutionary scientists today are attempting to dismiss the fossil record as the "best" evidence of evolution. Really now?? Imagine that.
      People like you Bible Clown who love to pick on the uneducated really need to step back and take a look at your character. Who are you inspiring with your behavior?

      April 13, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
    • J

      correction... 150 "years" in my previous post.

      April 13, 2011 at 4:50 pm |
    • Anon

      J, the bible does not call the earth a sphere, it calls it a circle. Please look up the definition of a circle for me, as far as I recall back to my geometry class, a circle is 2d... In other words, flat. As for your distinction between micro/macro evolution, it's completely meaningless. At the point you agree that bacteria and the like can evolve trying to deny that larger things evolve becomes silly. Regardless however, even if you did prove that evolution was false, you still would not have proven creation, much less your particular bronze age god. You do actually have to present a positive argument, false dichotomies are useless.

      April 13, 2011 at 5:26 pm |
    • J

      Anon, your comparison of bacteria to microevolution and "larger things" to macroevolution is somewhat comical. Maybe you should brush up on the meaning of those two terms.
      The translation of the word circle from its original Hebrew context is controversial. Either way, the author of the book had the right idea. The horizon of Earth makes a circle to the eye of the beholder.
      Next...

      April 13, 2011 at 7:05 pm |
    • Anon

      Your lack of knowledge of genetics is also laughable J. Fair point on that though, some of your kind have explained micro evolution terribly wrongly then. However you would still do well to actually look up how evolution works. Speciation has been observed... That's what evolution is in a nutshell... Then again, if you seriously think the earth is 6 to 10 thousand years old evolution would be a joke. Unfortunately for you, the overwhelming majority of evidence points to this earth being billions of years old. Plenty of time for micro evolution to separate species out and make their interbreeding impossible (Ie. macro evolution). And yes I did in fact do a little bit more research just for myself on what exactly it is, and what creationists claim it to mean. Are you at least willing to concede the whole "sphere" argument then at least? Given how if that's what it's supposed to be then the KJV version is at least not the inerrant word of god no? Or worse, if it is supposed to mean circle, it's still wrong...

      April 13, 2011 at 8:42 pm |
    • J

      Anon, my knowledge of genetics is laughable? When did I mention genetics? Please don't tell me that you think evolution is merely genetics... Oh, and speciation is evolution in a nutshell?? Are you serious? Please tell me you're not serious.
      My friend, evolution is an "attempt" to explain our existence biologically, as well as botanically and ecologically; and it is an epic failure. Anyone with enough education can analytically approach the evidence and the enormous problematic enigmas of the theory and come to that conclusion. Intelligent design is fact. There's no two ways about it. As the human race becomes more intelligent and enlightened as a whole, the absurd theory will take its place amongst other epic failures of mankind.

      April 13, 2011 at 10:38 pm |
    • Anon

      (disclaimer, uh oh, double post, put the other one in the wrong spot, didn't replay to youngearth... copy pasta)
      J, Lulz, ok so you completely ignore the whole bible claiming the earth to be a sphere bit, and the fact that you think that genetics has little to do with evolution shows you know nothing of the theory. Lemme ask this, are you a YEC or not? If not and you believe in intelligent design, would you care to explain what makes you think that an intelligence has to be involved? One step further, if you think that, which intelligence is manipulating our evolution. Btw, yes, speciation is evolution. That's how it works. Oh and... "as well as botanically and ecologically" you do realize that plants are biological yes? They evolve just like anything else. But I think if we are to discuss further you need to explain your thoughts on the age of the earth as I am simply assuming for the most part you are a YEC. Well... that or your just a troll/poe... It can be so hard to tell sometimes.

      April 13, 2011 at 11:13 pm |
    • Anon

      Oh, and evolution is not the only/main/best reason to think the earth is old..... That's what we have geology for.

      April 13, 2011 at 11:25 pm |
    • J

      Ok Anon, humor me and enlighten me on the significance of atheists and trolls? I can't tell you how many times I've been called a troll by atheists. LOL Is there something you guys aren't telling us? I'm sorry, but that's hilarious.
      I'm sorry to confuse you. No, I'm not a YEC. I believe the earth is much older than 6 to 10K years. I believe there are two books in the Bible that are highly metaphorical. Those are the book of revelation and the book of genesis. I believe the Bible is an allegorical account of man's struggle with his own spirituality. I believe Adam and Eve to be the first incarnations of fully developed humans. Before that I believe souls incarnated in apes. This is where all the confusion comes into play as to the decendants of man being apes. Microevolution is observable and completely compatible with God's plan for the plant and animal kingdom. Stasis amongst species alone is clear evidence that macroevolution,however, is pure fallacy. Furthermore, there is geological, archaeological, metaphysical and scientific evidence for creation all over the planet and thoughout the universe. Most people biasly solicit information that supports their argument and they come to conclusions too quickly. Atheist's analysis of universal evidence is an example of that. Their analysis is laced with hatred and prejudice for the opposing viewpoint. So, it's really not about evidence... it's about position.

      April 14, 2011 at 10:55 am |
    • Alyssa

      "Before that I believe souls incarnated in apes. This is where all the confusion comes into play as to the decendants of man being apes."

      You do realize that the bible never says animals have souls only human beings. If you believe it's in the Bible please provide the scriptures that state it.

      April 14, 2011 at 11:01 am |
    • J

      You are correct Alyssa. The Bible does not state that. There were books of the Bible removed by the orthodox churches in the first few centuries following Jesus' crucifixion. This was observed in historical record, then proven with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. So the Christian is left to ponder what teachings we are "missing out on" because the early church leaders thought they were heretic. Jesus himself was considered heretic to the early churches. This is something truly to be considered if you really believe in Jesus. There are many teachings in the Bible that simply don't make sense if taken literally, but in light of early Christian teachings and fundamentals that have been hidden from us, they make much more sense to the inquisitive mind. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the early Christian teachings discovered in upper Egypt about the same time are not coincidence. It is God's poetic justice coming full circle. So the question beckons...just how much do you want to know about early Christianity and... truth?

      April 14, 2011 at 11:44 am |
    • Nonimus

      @J,
      "The only observable evidence we have that either supports or refutes evolution is the fossil record, and after 150 of extensive research following Darwin's lunacy, it clearly points towards creation."
      This is incorrect. First, all fossils support evolution, such as Ambulocetus, Tiktaalik, Archeopteryx, etc. As for fossils supporting creation, I think somone once said something like, 'disproving evolution would be easy. All one has to do is find the fossil of a rabbit in the Cambrian.'
      Second, there is other evidence for evolution such as, biochemistry like cytochrome-c protein, biogeography like marsupials in Australia, and genetics like Human Chromosome-2.
      How exactly does any of this support Creationism?

      "...[evolution] is an epic failure. Anyone with enough education can analytically approach the evidence and the enormous problematic enigmas of the theory and come to that conclusion."
      What analytical approach exactly supports Creationism?

      "Before that I believe souls incarnated in apes. This is where all the confusion comes into play as to the decendants of man being apes."
      "You are correct Alyssa. The Bible does not state that."
      So, what makes you think souls incarnated in apes and how is that "where all the confusion comes into play"?

      "Furthermore, there is geological, archaeological, metaphysical and scientific evidence for creation all over the planet and thoughout the universe."
      Present some, please.

      April 14, 2011 at 12:29 pm |
    • J

      Nonimus, I honestly don't have time or the space on this discussion board to list those evidences because there's simply too many. However, I will be happy to provide you with a link to just a few that will get you started.
      http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/fossil/fossil.htm is a good place to start. If you will read the information on that website in its entirety, you will see the reference to many unbiased scientific sources. I can provide plenty more if you need them, but I think the evidences contained therein will be sufficient.

      In the meantime, you're an evolution thumper huh? Answer these questions for me please...
      1)Explain the Cambrian explosion
      2)Explain stasis in complex species
      3)Explain large morphological gaps in the fossil record
      4)Explain the lack of identifiable phylogeny in the fossil record

      That should be enough to stump you for a while. If you need more enigmas, I'll be happy to provide...

      April 14, 2011 at 1:03 pm |
    • Anon

      Ok, so this does make this easier then. The reason we call you trolls/poe's is because there are honest to god people who spout the same things you do/ or YEC and the sad fact of the matter is is that you almost can't tell the difference in what they are saying. The significance of being a troll would be that you were simply doing it start a fight... Well now that I know your not a YEC we can continue... So let me just make sure I understand this correctly, and let me start by saying that animals changing over time to different things (ie. from ancient ape ancestors to modern day humans is evolution). You seem to agree that things change over time then, only you disagree that it could occur naturally... is that about right? "Stasis amongst species alone is clear evidence that macroevolution,however, is pure fallacy." Explain what you mean by stasis amongst species... didn't you just say that the first human souls would have been in apes originally... From there I assume you think god guided the species from ancient time into what they are now (again, correct me if I'm wrong). And btw, if I hated you, I would be using much stronger language and many more personal insults... I like to think I've avoided that... So for now I guess the questions are; Have species changed over time and if so do you believe that god guided all of them... And if that is the case, please provide a reason for me to thing an intelligence did it. As my understanding of biology isn't the greatest (not a biologist), but the basics of how things mutate and change and how natural forces tend to select out beneficial traits is not something beyond me... Basically I could say the same of you really; You come from the position of god exists and that he created the world, therefore from there it would make sense that god really did all the evolving of creatures because it's certainly easier to say that then than try to deny that the earth is old and therefore life must have been made as it is... And just one more thing back to your point of "hatred and malice"... have you read any scientific journal papers on evolution? They are so BORING TO READ... there is no hatred or malice in them, just boring boring facts.

      April 14, 2011 at 2:10 pm |
    • Anon

      addendum to the troll/poe part... Or to just annoy people...

      April 14, 2011 at 2:24 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @J,
      I might read through the site you mentioned, but honestly it is not a credible scientific source as it states in part of it's Mission Statement:

      "Genesis Park questions the evolutionary illusions surrounding the dinosaurs and approaches the subject of origins with a literal adherence to the scriptures and an emphasis on creation demonstrating God’s power." (http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/about/about.htm)

      Obviously, a "literal adherence to the scriptures" indicates a bias toward the Bible over observation, testing, repeatability, falsifiability, i.e. the scientific method.

      Also, I see that, as you did with Alyssa, when called on your inaccuracies, you tend to deflect and avoid straight answers. You haven't answered any questions.

      As to you questions, I am not a scientist nor a an expert in these fields, however I will attempt to answer the best I can.

      1) The 'Cambrain Explosion' is a misnomer since according to the shortest estimates it still took 5 million years, not exactly an explosion. Also, there is evidence of lifeform priors to the Cambrian; some as far back as 3+ billion years ago.

      2) I am not familiar with your use of 'stasis' here, but if you mean that some species do not evolve at the same pace as others, then you are correct. Sharks for example are close to what they appear to have been for millions of years, because their form works. Without evironmental pressures that highlight or emphasize the benefits of new mutations, there is little chance for small changes to overcome the population pressure of existing forms, i.e. in a large succesful population new traits may get diluted, out-produced, or even selected against by other means such as se.xual selection.

      3) Since fossilization only happens in certain conditions, fossils are rare.

      4) If by "Identifiable Phylogeny," you mean a complete chain of direct ancestor – direct descendent from first life to the present, then I would refer you the answer 3 above. I did glance at the phylo page on the site you referenced and just found a bunch of qoutations. So in a fight fire with fire approach, I don't have time or space here to deal them all but here is a site that addresses this issue: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-1.html

      And finally, you seem to be attempting to discredit the Theory of Evolution instead of providing positive evidence for your own hypothesis. The easist way to 'overthrow' a scientific theory is to provide a better one; one that answers all the same questions the previous one did and more, in a scientific manner. If you are aware of such a 'theory', and I use that term loosely, please provide evidence for it, instead of fallacious arguments against a well-established and well-substantiated scientific theory.

      April 14, 2011 at 2:51 pm |
    • Anon

      Bump for emphasis on that last paragraph Nonimus said... He put it far better than I have as of yet. If for the sake of argument we agree that evolution as is is untenable as an explanation, please provide why we should believe some creator did this, much less the biblical one... and say not Allah, Vishnu, Zues, Pickle Inspector, the Flying Spaghetti Monster...

      April 14, 2011 at 2:56 pm |
    • J

      Anon, I must applaud you for being honest. So thank you. Knowing that you don't have alot of biological background I will not bore you with terms that you have not been exposed to, and explain things in a manner in which you can understand them better.
      You asked what stasis meant... Stasis amongst species simply means that the fossil record shows that the vast majority of species suddenly "appeared" in the fossil record and remained anatomically and biologically identical throughout their tenure of existence. For example, the first trilobite recorded in the fossil record is identical to the most recent one. Evolution would suggest the contrary to this. The trilobite remained in the fossil record for a suggested "270 million years". Wouldn't you think they would have "evolved" during that time? That is just one example amongst thousands of others.
      Also the Cambrian explosion is another enormous enigma for the evolutionist, but it is a monumental piece of evidence for creation. According to our fossil record, thousands of complex species suddenly "appeared" in the fossil record during the Cambrian period of earth's history. This is simply unexplainable to the evolutionists, therefore they dismiss it and refuse to discuss it. These, amongst other very problematic enigmas, are always dismissed and never brought up in the argument for evolution because they simply disprove the theory. The creationist welcomes any and all enigmas concerning our fossil record because intelligent design explains each and every one of them, and the fossil record vastly mirrors creation rather than evolution.

      April 14, 2011 at 3:07 pm |
    • J

      Nonimus, as with Anon, thank you for your honesty in your inability to explain the terms I referenced.

      Furthermore, I listed the Genesispark site because it is an invaluable source for "unbiased" scientific information. I repeat, if you will read the information, you will see that the majority of references to "scientific" information comes from evolutionary scientists, unless you think they're not a "creditable source".

      And my "own hypothesis" is intelligent design, which our entire fossil record supports. All of the enigmas which evolution cannot explain(which are many) is easily explained with intelligent design. The most extraordinary enigma for the evolutionist(which I haven't even mentioned) is the origin of life. Can you comprehend the enormous amount of information or "code" contained in just "one" strand of DNA? To try and put it in perspective, it is information that is so complex that our supercomputers can't duplicate it. But yet, your evolution suggests that a few molecules laying on the ground can somehow generate it. I'm sorry, but that reeks epic failure!! There again, intelligent design explains it perfectly.

      April 14, 2011 at 3:34 pm |
    • Anon

      Oy, I was afraid of the "code" part of that... At any rate, didn't you say that you believed that our ancestral apes carried the original souls of humans? You say you believe things in their present forms have always been that way.... but the fossil record does not support that... There were no mammals in the early oceans of earth... or land animals for that matter... Are you saying your god just created these things as time went on? And the DNA argument is a weak one... DNA in early earth would have been much much simpler, no one says DNA as it is now is exactly how it started with life. Also, please don't confuse a metaphor like "code" that we use to describe DNA with that actually being what DNA is, you must also recognize that this would be a fallacy. And you say all these things are easily explained with intelligent design... how so? And how is that explanation different than "god did it"/god of the gaps? And once more, for the sake of argument say evolution as is does not explain things well enough, please provide why I should think that something designed everything, and again, why should we think it is your particular bronze age god as apposed to aliens/allah/vishnu/etc.

      April 14, 2011 at 3:54 pm |
    • Anon

      (argh, again forgot to reply directly to young earth's post to keep in the same place...)
      Oh, and Nonimus explained your Trilobite example. It's just as weak an argument as "why are there still monkeys." If their current form works well for surviving, why would you expect that it's form would dramatically change? No one who supports the theory of evolution says that it should. You do need natural pressures to cause that, without those the population will simply remain stable.

      April 14, 2011 at 4:00 pm |
    • Anon

      Oh, and one more thing. What does your "hypothesis" say about all the kinds of creatures who once existed and now don't... Did they simply just disappear of the earth and then god popped in a new thing? Does he spawn creatures like WoW spawns monsters? 🙂

      April 14, 2011 at 4:04 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @J,
      Your claim of "unbiased" scientific information is unsupportable given the mission statement I presented earlier. Frequently, credible scientists are qoute-mined in an attempt to add credibility to pseudo-scientific claims. And, as I see several quotes mined from Stephen J Gould, I'll let him speak to the "quotes" provided on such websites:

      "Faced with [the] facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am - for I have become a major target of these practices."
      "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

      – Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.
      As quoted on the The Qoute Mine Project at talkorigins.com, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html#quote3.2

      As to the Intelligent Design concept, just like creationism, it has no evidence either. What exactly is specified / irreducible complexity? But more importantly how do you identify those aspects scientifically? The whole idea of something being too complicated to have occurred naturally is an argument from igonrance in the first place. What they are saying is, 'I have no idea how this could have occurred naturally,' which is not an argument it is an admission of ignorance.

      Fortunately, ID has already had its day in court, literally. If you haven't already, I highly recommend Ken Miller's testimony in the Dover v Kitzmiller trial. (full transcripts and excerpts at http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/intelligentdesigncase/)

      In addition, Judge Jone's decision is very insightful and among other things stated,
      "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory."
      (as quoted on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District)

      April 14, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
    • J

      Oh and Nonimus, one more thing.. "I have no idea how this could have occurred naturally" is an admission of ignorance? When have you heard a creation scientist say that? A better phrase would be "There is no way this could have occurred naturally".
      What evolution suggests at the most basic level concerning the origin of life has been metaphorically compared to "a tornado passing through a junkyard and a fully functional jumbo jet being the result". Now, if evolutionists are going to suggest that this happened "naturally" without intelligent design, then my dear friend, that is not only ignorance, that is lunacy. The probability of such an occurrance has been measured at an astonishing 1 in 10*40,000. Can your mind even comprehend how small of a probability that is?? To put it in perspective, science doesn't acknowledge improbabilites greater than 1 in 10*50, as probabilities that small are simply not possible. So one can easily see how absolutely absurd the notion is. Evolution's argument is, well, given enough time, it will happen. Really? That's why when I'm in the room with someone who supports evolution, I make sure I keep my distance, as those types of people are truly unstable.

      April 15, 2011 at 10:49 am |
    • Nonimus

      @J,
      I was actually giving ID the benefit of the doubt, because an admission of ignorance is honest and not something to be ashamed of. But, if you want to go with,"There is no way this could have occurred naturally," then please show evidence that supports the claim that there no way, with 100% certainty (which isn't really scientific), by known or *unknown* mechanisms of nature, that evolution could not have happened. Although science doesn't deal in proofs, this is about as close to a case of, 'you can't prove a negative,' as one gets in science.

      When you say, "What evolution suggests ... has been metaphorically compared to 'a tornado passing through a junkyard and a fully functional jumbo jet being the result'," what you fail to mention is that the metaphor is ridiculous, or more technically a weak analogy fallacy. Why? Because airplanes don't reproduce. We are talking about *biological* evolution, which requires reproduction, and which is not random. So, the odds you provided, if based on this analogy, are irrelevant. By the way, if you are going to provide odds, it would be helpful to provide an explanation of how they were calculated, or a link to an explanation, because what those calculations are based on makes a huge difference, e.g. airplanes and tornadoes.

      You said, "That's why when I'm in the room with someone who supports evolution, I make sure I keep my distance, as those types of people are truly unstable."
      I'm sure that those who accept the well-substantiated scientific Theory of Evolution appreciate you keeping your distance as well.

      April 15, 2011 at 12:04 pm |
    • J

      This is where the argument ends, because minds that don't know enough about biology will never grasp the absurdity of the claims of evolution. While there are some facets of microevolution that are observable, macroevolution and what it suggests as a whole is absurd. Only people educated in science can acknowledge that. That's why to uneducated people with agendas against religion, evolution is such an attractive stance, because they simply don't understand, and evolution "sounds" good. And educated people like Richard Dawkins with deep-seeded, powerful agendas against religion will continue to fabricate superficial rhetoric in support of a hollow theory until he draws his last breath, because to acknowledge the weaknesses of the theory would be to strengthen the argument for creation, and he certainly isn't going to do that.
      There are more and more evolutionary scientists who are converting to creation science simply because they can't ignore the overwhelming evidence that supports creation and can't explain the problematic enigmas of evolution any longer.
      So, like I said earlier, this argument is over because it's obvious now that you, Nonimus, are no different than the rest of your Atheist comrades. You can't grasp the information that I'm presenting, so you fabricate hollow rhetoric to refute it.

      Good day, and good luck to you!

      April 15, 2011 at 12:39 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @J,

      You said, "That's why to uneducated people ... evolution is such an attractive stance, because they simply don't understand ..."

      Gallup says, "There is a strong relationship between education and belief in Darwin's theory, as might be expected, ranging from 21% of those with high-school educations or less to 74% of those with postgraduate degrees."
      (http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/Darwin-Birthday-Believe-Evolution.aspx)

      You said, "There are more and more evolutionary scientists who are converting to creation science simply because they can't ignore the overwhelming evidence that supports creation and can't explain the problematic enigmas of evolution any longer."

      But how many of those scientists are named Steve? http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

      You said, "You can't grasp the information that I'm presenting, so you fabricate hollow rhetoric to refute it."
      What information did you present? Other than an obviously biased web-site that is.

      April 15, 2011 at 2:57 pm |
    • J

      @ Nonimus
      Obviously biased website? How is a fossil biased? Is the fossil choosing sides?

      I refuse to debate someone who will not acknowledge scientific evidence, and furthermore does not have enough content knowledge of the subject being discussed to engage in intelligent debate.

      April 15, 2011 at 7:26 pm |
    • Anon

      J, no one is attacking you... The fact that you said, "That's why to uneducated people with agendas against religion" merely shows that it's you with the bias, and possibly a persecution complex... We've asked you more than a few times to explain how intelligent design works and you've simply thrown out obvious strawman after strawman... You have in no way shown why intelligent design should be accepted, instead you've simply mocked us and said that we hate you and your religion... Please do link to/show how intelligent design works. I would love to hear someone who believes this actually explaining how god/aliens implanted new information into our genetics through time. If you can't even begin to do that why should anyone take you seriously over, again, the overwhelming majority of scientists who study these things? You already admitted in believing in an old earth, why trust geologists over biologists? Or physicists for that matter. (Oh right, the perceived persecution complex you so love to show you have :P)

      April 15, 2011 at 10:40 pm |
    • Anon

      Addendum: Obvious strawman after strawman of how you think evolution is wrong... Again I must go back to the false dichotomy problem. You haven't shown how intelligent design explains anything, merely what you think is wrong with evolution. I mean seriously, the whole argument about how complex DNA is falls flat on it's face simply because no one in there right mind would expect to find DNA exactly as we know it now (in other words, your mathematics may be accurate, but it lies on a false assumption of the makeup of the earliest lifeforms). Unless of course you would like to claim otherwise about knowing what the earliest life was. You agree that the earth is very old yes? You don't believe mammals existed 2 billion years ago do you? Then the question should be how does intelligent design explain how new forms of life came into existence. How did we go from (and this creature didn't exist 2billion years ago either) the earliest vertebrates to reptiles and mammals? Did your designer design things so they would change their form on their own without it's direct intervention? Does he just work in mysterious ways? Seriously, if your putting this forward as theory those are the kinds of things you have to be able to answer. (not even including having to answer what exactly this designer was and how you know)

      April 15, 2011 at 10:55 pm |
    • Nonimus

      REPOSTED:

      @J,
      I might read through the site you mentioned, but honestly it is not a credible scientific source as it states in part of it's Mission Statement:

      "Genesis Park questions the evolutionary illusions surrounding the dinosaurs and approaches the subject of origins with a literal adherence to the scriptures and an emphasis on creation demonstrating God’s power." (http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/about/about.htm)

      Obviously, a "literal adherence to the scriptures" indicates a bias toward the Bible over observation, testing, repeatability, falsifiability, i.e. the scientific method.

      . . .

      April 14, 2011 at 2:51 pm | Report abuse |

      April 16, 2011 at 1:00 pm |
    • J

      @Nonimus

      Thanks for saying that you "might" read it. I am fully aware of the mission statement and the "side" that the website is on, but once again, does the fossil evidence presented on the site know about the mission statement? In my mind, the evidence speaks for itself and doesn't need to choose sides. That's our responsiblity as humans to make the choice based on the evidence. Of course, to me, I've always had an intuitive knowledge and affirmation of God. The scientific evidence only reinforces what I already believed through faith.

      April 18, 2011 at 10:45 am |
    • Nonimus

      @J,
      Bullet #1: Forbidden Archaeology (http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/fossil/fossil.htm)

      Contains a review of the book "Forbiden Archaeology" by Cremo and Thompson, neither trained in archaeology, by the way.

      The first point for almost all creationist/ID/Vedic creationist/anti-evolution claims is, if evolution is so wrong, then defeat it where it matters, in the arena of science, e.g. peer-reviewed journals, universities, labs, and by doing actual research, without which, it is just an unqualified opinion.

      Here are some excerpts from other reviews:

      Highlight: 'I doubt that many working in the field would agree.'
      The authors maintain that the analytical techniques applied by nineteenth century scientists to incised bones and "eoliths" that led some to conclude that these very ancient items were the result of human activity, are nearly the same techniques as those applied today to accepted evidence. Therefore, the authors assert, the conclusions reached by nineteenth and early twentieth -century researchers that these very ancient objects were cultural in origin are of equal validity to the identification of more recent (late Pliocene) cultural objects by modern scientists. Thus, when a nineteenth-century researcher using a standard microscope of the time claims that striations found on bones dating back tens of millions of years are butchering marks, this is the equivalent, in the authors' view, of a modern researcher identifying cut marks using a scanning electron microscope. I doubt that many working in the field would agree.
      (Feder KL. Geoarchaeology 1994; 9(4):338., as quoted by http://ncse.com/book/export/html/2114)

      Highlight: '...it is a veritable cornucopia of dreck.'
      The argument is simple: think of all the generalizations we can make about human evolution. Now think of all the exceptions, paradoxes, mistakes, and hoaxes. Now switch them. That is this book. As the Fire-sign Theatre once proclaimed: "Everything you know is wrong!" (But then, they were trying to be humorous, too). For unclear reasons, given the looseness of their religious thesis, this book is anti-evolutionary. The authors are trying to argue that humans have always been on earth, even unto the pre-Cambrian, when there was not much for them to eat or breathe.... The best that can be said is that more reading went into this Hindu-oid creationist drivel than seems to go into the Christian-oid creationist drivel. At any rate, this is a must for anyone interested in keeping up with goofy popular anthropology; at well over 900 pages, it is a veritable cornucopia of dreck.
      (Marks J. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 1993; 93:140-1, as quoted by http://ncse.com/book/export/html/2114)

      Highlight: 'I think the book falls short of a scientific work...'
      I think the book falls short of a scientific work primarily (but not entirely) because (1) its arguments abandon the testing of simpler hypothesis before the more complex and sensationalistic ones, and (2) the use of so many outdated sources is inadequate for a book that seeks to overturn the well-established paradigm of human evolution — scholars must not work in isolation, especially today, when multi-disciplinary approaches are needed to remain on the cutting edge of knowledge. However, for researchers studying the growth, folklore, and rhetoric of pseudo-science, the book is useful as 'field' data.
      (Tarzia W. Forbidden Archaeology: Anti-evolutionism outside the Christian arena. Creation/Evolution 1994 Summer; nr 34; 14(1): 13-25, as quoted by http://ncse.com/book/export/html/2114)

      April 18, 2011 at 12:57 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @J,
      Bullet #2: Fossil Footprints (http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/fossil/fossil.htm)

      Discusses various examples of supposed ancient "anomalous" human footprints, the first one being at Paluxy River.

      Talk origins first response states:
      "The alleged human footprints involve a number of misidentified and spurious phenomena.
      Most supposed "man tracks" in the riverbed are forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks– made by dinosaurs that at times impressed their metatarsi (soles and heels) as they walked. When the digit impressions of such tracks are subdued by mud-collapse, erosion, infilling, or a combination of factors, the remaining metatarsal portions often superficially resemble human footprints. However, when well cleaned such tracks show definite indications of tridactyl, dinosaurian digit patterns (Kuban, 1986a, 1986b; Hastings, 1987).
      Some of the reputed human prints are erosional features or other natural irregularities. They do not show clear human features without selective highlighting, nor occur in natural striding sequences (Cole et al, 1985).
      A smaller number of alleged "giant man tracks" are carvings on loose blocks of rock (Godfrey, 1985; Kuban and Wilkerson, 1989)."
      (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC101.html)

      Christopher Weber,one of the editors of Creation/Evolution, says:
      "Therefore, when the carved tracks and eroded dinosaur prints have been accounted for, no one would ever suspect that any other 'human' tracks existed unless some creationist painted the 'toe' and 'heel' with oil or water and called it a 'human footprint.'"
      (as quoted on http://ncse.com/cej/2/4/paluxy-man-creationist-piltdown)

      Interestingly, even ICR states:
      "Even though it would now be improper for creationists to continue to use the Paluxy data as evidence against evolution, in the light of these questions, there is still much that is not known about the tracks and continued research is in order."
      (http://www.icr.org/article/paluxy-river-mystery/)

      April 18, 2011 at 12:59 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @J,
      Bullet #3: Cretaceous Hammer (http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/fossil/fossil.htm)

      "In June of 1934, members of the Hahn family discovered this rock with wood protruding from it. They chiseled it open, exposing the hammer head. ... [The] site is part of a large geographical zone called the Edwards Plateau and it primarily consists of Cretaceous rock."

      Talk origins response:
      "The hammer is encrusted with calcium carbonate, which can happen quickly. The fossils are in nearby rocks, not part of the material encrusting the hammer. There is no evidence that the hammer is more than a few decades old."
      (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC130.html)

      April 18, 2011 at 1:00 pm |
    • Nonimus

      @J,
      Bullet #4: Bell in Coal (http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/fossil/fossil.htm)

      It states:
      "In 1944, as a ten year old boy, Newton Anderson dropped a lump of coal in his basement and found that it contained this bell inside. The bituminous coal that was mined near his house in Upshur County West Virginia is supposed to be about 300 million years old!"

      You know what, J, I'm not even going to search for references. The only evidence presented for where this bell was found is the word of a 10 year old boy in 1944. This doesn't even begin to meat any resonable criteria of evidence, let alone any scientific criteria.

      P.S.
      I'm not wasting any more time with this useless web site. It is seems to complete conjecture, speculation and hopeful wishing – *not* science.

      April 18, 2011 at 1:01 pm |
    • Nonimus

      oops, typos. should read:

      ... This doesn't even begin to meet any resonable criteria of evidence, let alone any scientific criteria.

      P.S.
      I'm not wasting any more time with this useless web site. It is seems to be complete conjecture, speculation and wishful thinking – *not* science.

      April 18, 2011 at 3:32 pm |
  15. gabo

    @ Anna2,

    So that was it. I should have paid those 30 bucks too. Then we would be arguing at the same level. 🙂

    "Anyway....everybody tells the truth on the internet right?"

    They don't?!

    April 13, 2011 at 9:57 am |
    • AnnaInfinity

      You must be morbidly obese! You're so full of yourself!
      It's okay though. It must be humiliating for you to be unable to go anywhere because everybodies staring at your bloated ego.
      What were you saying again that was so important? I seem to be unable to cut through the boredom.

      April 15, 2011 at 10:54 pm |
  16. fourtimes10p

    If we're going to talk about evolution we have to talk about all of evolution, the origin of life and the universe. We all came from a big bang. Ignoring the first law of thermal dynamics, matter and energy have always existed. Two points in the universe collapsed at which is density was infinite (all the matter of the universe most likely started as the size of a pea) at which instead of utterly destroying itself a remaining percentage of matter survived randomly. In which the basic building blocks of life atoms where formed. Further ignoring angular momentum and physics, these pieces of matter over came the directional force of the Big Bang and began rotating in different directions with zero friction.
    (imagine 1 billion nuclear bombs going off in an area the size of a pea containing matter with zero resistance/friction around . Instead of continuing to fly out in different directions for all eternity, what really happened is they slapped together and over came the initial force of 1 billion nuclear bombs.)
    Further the atoms created, over came the immense force and energy of this explosion and began spinning together to form other more complex forms of atoms. In which we all originate from.

    April 13, 2011 at 8:50 am |
  17. Canyon Shearer

    This is not science, this is not Christianity, this is tripe in its most bared form...

    needGod.com

    April 13, 2011 at 7:25 am |
  18. Curt

    What this person fails to mention is that evolution goes hand-in-hand with natural selection, domination of the species, a superiority of one species over all the others. That is certainly a truth we see in the animal kingdom... and we've seen it in human nature with the Nazis, Tibet, and we could go on. Jesus' message speaks against domination of the species... Jesus calls on humanity to feed the hungry, cure the sick, clothe the naked, etc. So, would Jesus believe in evolution? I think not.

    April 13, 2011 at 7:03 am |
    • krickey7

      Evolution says nothing about superiority of species, survival of the fittest or any other value-laden idea. It's indifferent to any individual and even any species. It merely says that if a set of genetic material gives any kind of advantage, it will increase in frequency in a population. As a process, the accretion of changes in genetic information will change the population. Frankly, if being plentiful, simple and hardy works, individuals with that set of genetic materils will survive to reproduce.

      April 13, 2011 at 10:28 am |
    • Bible Clown

      Man, I LOVE how you nuts are all 'evolution experts.' One yesterday said that evolution meant believing that a glass of mud turned into a monkey, and that turned into a human overnight. You think it means apes in little nazi uniforms putting gibbons in gas chambers. What it means is that a flood comes, and your kid is too fat to swim but mine makes it to the shore. MY KID has children, while yours is dead; that's natural selection. If a famine came, your kid might survive by living on fat, then YOUR KID would be the one having children.

      April 13, 2011 at 4:27 pm |
    • FlaminSword

      Right on Curt...
      besides, evolution teaches that man evolved from other creatures, but the Bible teaches that God made the first man from the dust of the earth and then breathed life into him. Both ideas cannot be true. The author is suggesting that Christians believe whatever they want about the Bible except that God created the heaven and the earth, and man and beast and bird and plant, etc. If God did not create us, then what authority would he rightfully have over us.
      What the author does not want you to consider is what kind of world we would have if evolution were true. It would be a world where real love (caring for others more than yourself) would not exist, murder would be right and proper "survival of the fittest", genocide would be proper and necessary for the evolution of the species, and our short life would have no purpose other than survival and pleasure.
      Man is so much more than a smart animal. The author of the article should take some time to actually listen to the Creationists and to consider the claims of the Bible; but he probably wont because pride has blinded him.

      April 14, 2011 at 12:31 am |
    • BoAv

      Survival of the fittest was not coined by Darwin but by Social Darwinist Herbert Spencer. By the way I like the account of Gensis according to Ubisoft, in which Adam and Eve esape Eden with the apple by running on rooftops and fighting the ones who came before.

      January 28, 2012 at 5:51 pm |
  19. Joe Redbear

    Ok Anna2.... Then too what you just said...The more you beleive in something...the more it becomes true part? Then by that statement we could say the same thing about the Bible. People are going to beleive in whatever they are told. All because someone looks or dresses, or talks or walks in a possitve way? Because someone said...GOD said this? or better yet THis is GOD's words...or Jesus said? I can not put my finger on it... But it is scary too think that we as humans can be maunipulated by a BOOK. Rank's right up ther with the person who wrote the Book....I SPoke with Big foot.

    April 13, 2011 at 4:29 am |
  20. sweets

    Shouldn't this article be listed under the "OPINON" section...or perhaps "ENTERTAINMENT?" Certainly not the "BELIEF BLOG" since this section would be about articles of FAITH.....

    April 13, 2011 at 1:08 am |
    • A Messenger

      Agreed. Here is my take – and take it for whats it's worth. Space and time are defined by the laws of physics. And all of the greatest minds in the scientific community aggree that space and time cease to exist in a singularity (a black hole for those in the know). So, if space and time can be manipulated, twsited and even halted – and it is acknowledged as abosulute in the scientific community – then why would you apply time – as we know it – to an omnipotent being whose reference of time may and quite possibly is not the same as ours – A day in God's time may be a millenia in ours. Just a thought.

      April 14, 2011 at 9:19 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.