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. john weaver

    Another writer trying to prove evolution. Trying to tell us that the facts prove this and that. A lot like the global warming so called facts. Hey March was the coldest march for many years. What they are not telling is that many experts believe in both creation and that man made global warming is not true. Just because someone says something loudly and often enough proves nothing whatsoever. Have to add this yet from the Bible Gods Word. The fool has said in his heart there is no God...

    April 10, 2011 at 5:59 am |
    • Q

      Yes, there are educated "experts" who disagree with the scientific consensus, however, when considering evolution it is almost invariably a matter of religious faith, rather than any paucity of evidence. This is why creationists offer only negative arguments against evolution rather than any positive evidence supporting creationism (of course it's hard given their proposed mechanism is magic). Regarding global warming, "weather" for a particular month is not "climate" and local cold is offset by other regions experiencing unusual warmth. Only after the global averages have been calculated would your statement begin to have validity, but even still it would require past and future comparisons as to whether observed increases are continuing. In both cases, however, the "experts" who disagree represent a truly tiny minority...

      April 10, 2011 at 6:10 am |
    • Liesmith

      I love the no-lose scenarios of the Bible.

      If I call myself God, then predict that you will foolishly not believe my claim, have I proven my predictive capabilities?

      April 10, 2011 at 8:26 am |
    • EvolvedDNA

      John. this writer is a Christian, who is part of an organisation trying to squeeze god into the very science they know is making god redundant. If they had real evidence that creation happened they should be publishing results and putting forward the predictions that such a study would produce.

      April 10, 2011 at 10:03 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      EvolvedDNA, you know that Christians have complained numerous times that we can't get those posts accepted by the mod squadders. Now you write as if we have never tried to post them on this bogus site.


      April 11, 2011 at 10:47 am |
    • HeavenSent

      Another thing EvolvedDNA and your other multiple handles. When are you going to post the answers many Christians have given you over the last 20-30 articles of the same questions you repeatedly post? You insist on posting these same misconceptions of scriptures, but never post that we've given you answers to your misunderstanding of said scriptures.


      April 11, 2011 at 10:56 am |
    • Rick

      "No lose scenarios", what do you call punctuated equilibrium ? A nice little bed time story made to leapfrog over your canyon of lack of evidence. Seriously, "it happened so fast that it didn't leave any evidence." If that's the best all you "OLOGY" majors can do please keep it to yourselves. I can already hear all of you screaming "but its a PROVEN FACT" All us dumb Christians are still here waiting for you to show us your proof. It might help if you try talking slowly and don't use any of your big college words.

      April 11, 2011 at 11:13 pm |
    • Bible Clown

      I love how you are all experts on global warming too! It's so precious when you say 'It was hot this summer so global warming is a dirty lie.' It's as if I said "Easter came and Jesus didn't come back to life so Christianity is a dirty lie." Yes, that certainly disproves your version of global warming, but doesn't do much about the real one.It proves you have poor critical thinking skills and makes me think you aren't the wisest person posting today, that's for sure.

      April 13, 2011 at 4:47 pm |
  2. Atheists are fools.

    The guy who wrote this artical is a complete idiot.... Jesus Christ would never believe in such a stupid theorie like evolution. Humans are God's own unique creation, just as primates are, stupid idiots write articals like these, CNN stfu....

    April 10, 2011 at 5:55 am |
    • Q

      Who could possibly argue with your well supported and soundly reasoned point...

      April 10, 2011 at 6:00 am |
    • Armageddon

      Idiot... really idiot to those who believe in this article... a caveman with a fool understanding just like jason...hahaha! its doesnt make any sense if we deal with salvation of the soul. why? soul never evolve in your so called evolution.

      April 10, 2011 at 7:48 am |
    • Liesmith

      Any belief in a scientific theorie that hasn't become a law requires not only faith, but ignorance of the truth of religion. The one true holy book even predicts that non-believers are fools who will never accept the Word.

      I also believe that the so-called "theorie of gravity" is just His noodley appendage lovingly holding us to Earth. Praise be to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:23 am |
    • Q

      @Liesmith – Please take the time to learn the difference between a theory, a scientific theory and a law. You clearly don't know enough to form an educated opinion...

      April 10, 2011 at 8:45 am |
    • Q

      Oops...Poe'd me...

      April 10, 2011 at 8:46 am |
    • Liesmith


      Heh, isn't it distressing that it's so hard to tell the difference sometimes?

      April 10, 2011 at 10:01 am |
    • 2011

      This is a typical example of a fundamentalist Christian who rely on nothing but blind faith. Fundamentalist Christianity has become a cult today.

      April 10, 2011 at 11:03 am |
    • jimtanker

      @ Liesmith


      April 10, 2011 at 11:21 am |
    • Lhart


      April 10, 2011 at 1:10 pm |
    • P

      This totally sounds like a South Park quote! (They took our jobs!)

      April 10, 2011 at 7:48 pm |
  3. Tom

    The Bible is incompatible with science. It would be nice if more people understood that science works and that evolution happened. But it is not possible to believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans to walk the Earth 6,000 years ago in a place that is located in present day Iraq/Iran, and also conform to the Out of Africa model and evolutionary science. These same people would claim that God is pleasant despite all the violence he condones in the old testament. It's so absurd.

    April 10, 2011 at 5:55 am |
    • Elizabeth

      i agree! i don't believe we've been here millions of years. Scientists have looked at the grand canyon to decide that. Apparently, each layer took thousands of years to form. BUT, when Mt. Saint Helen blew up, it laid down layers that would have thousands of years to form. I'm sure there have been many events like that throughout history that can explain the extra millions of years worth of dirt.

      April 10, 2011 at 1:06 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      No, it didn't you nitwit.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:04 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Tom. First, Adam and Eve were created on the 8th day. On the 6th day, God created all the races. The Bible and true science are compatible. You just don't know how to read the Bible so don't blame Christians for your lack of knowledge of His truth. You have no clue that God destroyed the 1st earth age and the 2nd earth age that we live in is about 14,000 years old which is Genesis – Revelation. You need to understand eons in scriptures plus how to cross reference the books in the Bible. Finally, the 10 tribes did migrate over the Caucuses Mountains to settle throughout the world. Africa being one of those settlements.


      April 11, 2011 at 12:07 pm |
    • The Truth

      Elizabeth, you tool. "BUT, when Mt. Saint Helen blew up, it laid down layers that would have [taken] thousands of years to form." What? Nice try but those layers from Mount St Helen were ON TOP of everything else, not buried in the subsurface. And rock in various strata can be carbon dated. It would be immediately apparent to any geologist worth his salt that the material located around Mount Saint Helen's was from a recent event, not one from millions of years ago.

      April 11, 2011 at 9:25 pm |
  4. Susan

    Hey yall, will you visit HelpFaye.ORG a friend of mine with 2 babies is fighting for her life..... Thanks

    April 10, 2011 at 5:54 am |
  5. Sal

    The matter of whether the fictional hero Jesus would believe in X or Y is as pressing as whether Simba from 'The Lion King' would believe in it. We know lions exist, but there has never been any talk by historians of talking lions. We know Jesus was a common name at the time, but none of the prominent historians of his day mention him.

    April 10, 2011 at 5:52 am |
    • Rick

      you need to check a little harder yourself, for they DO mention him

      April 11, 2011 at 10:45 pm |
    • Bible Clown

      Tacitus says he was executed. He doesn't mention the ground shaking or the body coming back to life.

      April 13, 2011 at 4:49 pm |
  6. mathew

    He who is blind will not care (or even know) that the Emperor (Evolution) has no clothes?

    April 10, 2011 at 5:52 am |
  7. Hunter

    AH NO he wouldn't, what preposterous question. To even ask such a thing reveals a total lack of understanding of the first 3 chapters of Genesis.

    April 10, 2011 at 5:50 am |
    • billy Ryan

      A book written by some guy.

      April 10, 2011 at 5:51 am |
    • HeavenSent

      billy, chosen Holy Men divinely inspired by God scribed the Bible. God is the author.


      April 11, 2011 at 11:51 am |
    • Suzie

      HeavenSent, If you were trying to pull off the biggest con in history of course the con has to come off as being inspired by God otherwise people wouldn't believe it! That's the history of humanity, if you can't explain it – it's a God.

      April 11, 2011 at 4:24 pm |
    • OldYgg

      "billy, chosen Holy Men divinely inspired by God scribed the Bible. God is the author.


      Oh, so that's how Snooki's book works.

      May 2, 2011 at 11:41 pm |
  8. Stuart Iribarren

    Just minimal logic tells us that discovered archeological evidence should have by now PROVEN the THEORY of evolution, but it NEVER EVER has; "Everything seems to point in one direction," is NOT the same as "HERE is the evidence that PROVES what we've been saying..." The author seems to have deliberately left out that several evolutionary theories ABSOLUTELY refute others, ie, if one is true, then another must be completely wrong. Besides, despite its dilution and variation today, "evolution" HAS ONLY ONE definition: ONE SPECIES FORMED INTO ANOTHER ONE, which NOT ONE SHRED OF FOUND EVIDENCE exists for. "Common ancestor..." is a warped perversion the "common Creator," who has apparently fascinated the world with the differences in life forms that exist from just the slightest variety in DNA, which points much more towards a very intentional method and design. Just think of how ridiculously absurd the whole concept is: PLEASE FOLLOW ME HERE PEOPLE, BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER WAY THIS COULD HAVE HAPPENED: billions of years of atoms (which by the way came from WHERE?? (lets not ignore that the existence of MATTER is EQUALLY as profound as life)) bombarding into each other form into the first, simplest life form, which would of course instantly die... then billions of years later that same combination occurs forming life, but this time the conditions exist to allow it to live for a few seconds... then another SEVERAL billions years pass... it survives, say, an entire day, then dies...eventually it lives long enough to fission itself into two, then those two halves die, so we start all over... tens of billions of years later, the organisms split into two, those survive long enough to split, then enough exist to continue to duplicate without dying out... once that population can sustain itself, NOT ONE, BUT TWO mutant ("evolved") cells HAD TO emerge, CONVENIENTLY RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER, that somehow have OPPOSITE GENDER "ORGANS," (or whatever theyre called in one-celled organisms), THE FEMALE of which reproduces, then THEY die, then ANOTHER SEVERAL HUNDRED BILLIONS OF YEARS LATER, TWO SIMILAR MUTANT, OPPOSITE GENDER CELLS, WHO ALSO HAPPEN TO BE STANDING RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER, reproduce, then THEIR offspring survives a day or two... IT MAKES NO SENSE!!!


    April 10, 2011 at 5:49 am |
    • billy Ryan

      You decry "points to' and then use it in your argument. What you cannot, ( nor can anyone) get a grip on is million, billion of years.

      April 10, 2011 at 5:59 am |
    • andrew

      Your scientific approach really dazzled me. I believe the universe is only 14-15 billion years old. Your take on evolution seems to take place over a few hundred billion years or so? Also, it makes absolutely no sense and follows no chronological order of how organisims on earth came to be.

      April 10, 2011 at 6:08 am |
    • Stuart Iribarren

      @billy Ryan: seems like a very good observation, but I wasnt necessarily trying to use my "points to" to really prove creationism/religion as much as I was highlighting that the level of evidence is equal for both sides of the argument; I dont have a problem with downgrading my personal "proof" of creationism to "points to," but it would apparently not be OK with the author of the article (and most evolutionists (especially those receiving federal grants)) to equally downgrade their so-called "confirmed facts," which should insult the intelligence of every taxpayer, since, with no dispute, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY MISSING LINK.

      @andrew: I was using an exaggerated timeframe in order to allow for the odds of life forming from atom bombardment to occur (or maybe it wasnt so exaggerated? just think of what ABSOLUTELY MUST HAVE occurred in order for these random atoms to combine into life: 1) EVERY amino acid piece had to line up perfectly, ONE AT A TIME, each atom connecting to the next, til a chain was formed 2) EACH PART of this first life (obviously a cell- with DNA, mitochondria, nucleus, membrane, etc) HAD TO to form itself, again, ONE atom at a time... 3) the atoms RIGHT NEXT TO THESE SPONTANEOUSLY FORMING amino acids, HAD TO BE the perfect combination of Hydrogen and Oxygen, to make water, WHICH EVERY LIVING ORGANISM NEEDS... 4) a FOOD/ENERGY SOURCE ALSO HAD TO, SPONTANEOUSLY, be forming itself RIGHT NEXT TO this water molecule AND this amino chain... how long do you think it would take for ALL these atoms to line up simultaneously AND right next to each other?? is 14 billion years enough? what are the odds of atoms JUST MAKING WATER randomly? how much BIGGER are the odds for all of these to line up perfectly, and how long do you need for these combinations to happen) How does this make "absolutely no sense" nor "follow a chronological order"?? the order I describe is the ONLY order by which life could have formed!? what do you propose as an alternative??

      April 10, 2011 at 7:53 am |
    • Q

      @Stuart – Please take some time to actually read what research is underway in abiogenesis. Your understanding is woefully inadequate and appears to be the standard parroting of one of the many flawed "hurricane in a junkyard" improbability arguments...

      April 10, 2011 at 8:44 am |
    • Tyler

      You don't seem to be antagonistic, and you sound like you just want some answers, so I'll try to help a little. Q is right. Some research on abiogenesis would be helpful. Something that also may get you started is some basic knowledge on chemistry. I read two of your comments and you seemed put off by the atoms and molecules coming together in certain ways, or by the probability of them coming together. Keep in mind that many compounds form naturally. Sometimes in lab, we have to do work on a solution to get things to react, but that is not always the case. Examples for you include the atom carbon. Carbon is an essential element in biology and organic chemistry. Carbon atoms will readily from long chains with other carbon and hydrogen atoms. Just one carbon with four hydrogens will give you a simple organic compound (methane); indeed you may be surprised that astrophysicists have found more complex organic compounds in gas clouds in space. Other atoms that readily react with each other include all of the group 7 and group 1 atoms with an example being the essential electrolyte sodium chloride (table salt). However, not only do atoms come together readily, but compounds themselves will spontaneously combine with other compounds/atoms to form more complex compounds. Maybe tis will help. It isn't always simple, and I'm being very short and crude to save time, but just remember nobody said it was common, or even probable, just that it was possible.

      April 10, 2011 at 9:49 am |
    • jimtanker

      Wow, not only do you have no clue about evolution, you know NOTHING about cosmology, astrophysics, physics, chemistry, biology, and probably any other -ology that could be named. Try going to talkorigins.org and you will be a much better educated person on the FACTS of the matter. Your old musty book has NO facts in it.

      April 10, 2011 at 10:55 am |
    • Stuart Iribarren

      equip .org/articles/the-truth-about-evolution

      wikihow . com/Deal-with-Religious-People-if-You-Are-an-Atheist

      April 10, 2011 at 2:52 pm |
    • EvolvedDNA

      Stuart..you are lucky.. there are people here who can help understand what evolution is, and what abiogenesis is and what we actually know about them. Just because some thing sounds incredible it does not make it impossible ..after all you would argue that god made us, well, who made god.. and so on so you have not solved any problem. God is just as impossible with your logic.

      April 10, 2011 at 9:50 pm |
    • Stuart Iribarren

      @Tyler @jimtanker:

      complex compounds, regardless of how or why they form, will always reduce themselves to simpler forms as soon as any change in their situation occurs (the Law of Entropy). Evolution (and life in general, with duplicating and replenishing cells) contradicts that law. But lets not ignore the more important issue: No form or variety of evolutionary theory, including Abiogenisis explains the origin of MATTER, which is addressed in Genesis 1:1 (In the beginning, God CREATED (made from nothing)...), BEFORE life is introduced in the bible. Do we all agree that theres pretty much a standard "nobody knows" answer from all parties on that issue? But back to Abiogenesis... I could get multiple post-doctorate degrees in that, and EVERY other life science, and regardless of what they teach, none of them are ever change the fact that life ABSOLUTELY HAD TO occur by the necessary atoms (REGARDLESS of HOW), grouping themselves together in WHATEVER the necessary way was, to form, THEN SUSTAIN, THEN REPLICATE themselves. This occurring "in nature" is preposterous- MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE- regardless of your timeframe OR chosen theory. BUT, I'm willing to listen if you can make a comparison of some of the most recent and credible theories in a few sentences

      April 10, 2011 at 10:42 pm |
    • Stuart Iribarren

      I have no problem with God being impossible with anyone's logic, provided that it is presented as equally impossible as evolutions logic, which I think I've succeeded at. because when ALL the evidence is weighed, God cant lose 😉

      April 11, 2011 at 2:09 am |
    • Fo shizzle?

      Stuart, you are a perfect example of a person who would refuse to believe something no matter what evidence did exist simply for the fact that you desire so strongly to disbelieve it. The things you don't mention are key to your arguments, just like the things we don't yet know about evolution will most likely be key in proving its overall correctness beyond what has already been proven. Expert knowledge isn't perfect, but it goes well beyond yours and mine. Time will tell on this one.

      April 11, 2011 at 5:34 am |
    • overbaked

      Stuart, you seem to have an urgent need to not believe in evolution. Do you think your desire to serve a god might be driving your argument and corrupting the logic you try to use against the logical world? I think you are afraid that evolution might be the reality. It scares you, so you create walls of solipsistic logic to guard your insecurities about your faith. It's alright. We're all wrong in some significant way. Just let it be. Relax. Evolve.

      April 11, 2011 at 5:42 am |
    • What are rambling about?

      I like how you capitalized IT MAKES NO SENSE at the end of your rambling. That was funny. I get the irony. Do you?

      April 11, 2011 at 5:58 am |
    • Sympathetic

      Those who try to derail science with logic like Mr. Iribarren fail to do so not because of what they can argue (whether it makes sense or not), but because of what they cannot. This person has made a decision to believe something and will never believe anything else under that resolution no matter what is discovered in real life.

      April 11, 2011 at 6:04 am |
    • not convinced

      God is very disappointed in you for misrepresenting your knowledge on the subject of evolution. Deceit is a form of lying. Stop acting like you know what your talking about. Your the kind of person that makes evolutionists seem right. I'm on the fence on this issue, because it's something I never really cared about before. But your comments make me swing toward science on this one. Real science, not your convenient arm chair world where every law of nature just happens to coincide with your views. Sorry, you just make evolution seem more credible. Your not doing God any favors. Your trying to make people believe that you know something you don't. Jesus would not do this. You shouldn't either.

      April 11, 2011 at 6:27 am |
    • Stuart Iribarren

      @Fo shizzle? ("Expert knowledge isn't perfect, but it goes well beyond yours and mine. Time will tell on this one.")
      @overbaked ("I think you are afraid that evolution might be the reality.")
      @What are rambling about? ("I get the irony. Do you?")
      @Sympathetic ("This person has made a decision to believe something and will never believe anything else under that resolution no matter what is discovered in real life.")
      @not convinced ("Stop acting like you know what your talking about.")
      YOU (ALL OF YOU TOO) DID NOT DISPUTE WHAT I WROTE (PERHAPS BECAUSE IT WAS SO OBVIOUS TO YOU.. SHOULD HAVE BEEN EQUALLY OBVIOUS THAT IT WASNT AS OBVIOUS TO ME). Believe it or not Im not convinced that "my religion" property interprets (or even translates) "according to their kind," which, if you didnt know it, is the single verse that is the entire basis for creationism vs evolution, but I have not been given sufficient evidence FOR evolution. Do any of us hold degrees in multiple sciences and theologies, so we could irrefutably argue our position? I think not; so its essentially a matter of faith for all of us, which none of us apparently want to give up. We're hypocrites ALL of us; I could remember when debate used to MEAN something. we used to pull our textbooks out, we used to EAT 'um.

      April 11, 2011 at 8:12 am |
    • Face

      Yet another average person trying to explain a subject as big and confusing as quantum physics to others who don't know much more on the subject either....
      Stop trying to "overthink" scientists, we are on the same side, its just that you don't understand/know anything about science....
      Take some classes on biology and geology, as well as astronomy and physics, THEN get back to us...
      Oh and you still have to prove your religion is the "right" one out of ALL the others....
      Until then... you fail...

      April 11, 2011 at 9:50 am |
    • HeavenSent

      Mmmh, what do we call these scriptures today?

      Isaiah 40:22: "It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE OF THE EARTH." How did Isaiah know in 700 B.C.

      Job 26:7: ". . . and hangeth the earth upon NOTHING."

      Job is the oldest book in the Bible! Written over 3500 years ago! How did Job know something that was IMPOSSIBLE to know during his day?

      Genesis 2:7: "And the Lord God formed man of the DUST OF THE GROUND, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul."

      Psalm 8:8: ". . . whatsoever passeth through the PATHS OF THE SEAS."

      How did David (the writer of Psalms) know, over 2,000 years ago, there were "paths in the seas"? David probably never even saw an ocean! HOW DID HE KNOW?

      Ecclesiastes 1:7: "All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again." How did the writer of Ecclesiastes know the water cycle of condensation and evaporation? The sun evaporates water from the ocean, water vapor rises and becomes clouds. This water in the clouds falls back to the earth as rain, collects in rivers, and makes its way back to the ocean.

      How did the writer of Ecclesiastes know this in 1000 B.C.? 2500 YEARS AHEAD!

      Leviticus 15:13: "And when he that hath an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in RUNNING WATER." God said to wash the infected flesh in RUNNING WATER.

      Job 38:19: "Where is THE WAY where light dwelleth?" How come Job didn't say where is THE PLACE where light dwelleth? Because light is always moving. How did Job know something in 1500 B.C. ?

      Ecclesiastes 1:6: "The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again ACCORDING TO HIS CIRCUITS." How did the writer of Ecclesiastes know the wind traveled within circuits? How did he know with their so-called limited knowledge thousands of years ago?

      Proverbs 6:6-8: "Go to the ant. . . gathereth her food in the harvest." Solomon had been right after all. . ." How did Solomon know that in 1000 B.C.?

      Proverbs 17:22: "A merry heart doeth good like a MEDICINE." How did the writer of Proverbs know that – 3000 years ahead?

      Leviticus 17:11: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood." That's the most accurate statement ever written about the blood! It is the blood that carries on all the life processes of the body. It is the blood that causes growth, builds new cells, grows bone and flesh, stores fat, makes hair and nails. It is the blood that feeds and supports all the organs of the body. If the blood supply be cut off from an arm, that arm will immediately begin to die and rot. It is the blood that repairs the body. It is the blood that clots wounds, that grows new flesh, new skin and even new nerves. It is the blood that fights disease. Exactly what the Bible said in 1490 BC.


      April 11, 2011 at 11:48 am |
    • Godly?

      Stuart has no idea what he is talking about. He thinks he does, which is all that matters to him. Stuart has taken information that supposedly proves his claims as face value, but conveniently ignores other information. He claims, in one of his responses, that his knowledge and the knowledge of those commenting on his original comment is insufficient, yet he continues to insist that he is right. There are some people that just can't fathom that they may be wrong on a subject and will go on and on about their own position in rants fueled by hubris.

      April 11, 2011 at 4:07 pm |
    • Pathetic attempt

      People like Stuart take flaws in knowledge and turn them into something more concrete than they actually are. He thinks that just because evolutions studies are incomplete, they are absolutely not true. However, like all sciences (including the ones that created the computer Stuart writes his comments on) evolution in in a constant flux of information and discoveries. Cholesterol, when discovered, was first thought to be good for you. Then, it was thought to be bad for you. It is now known that it is both good and bad, depending on the fat you get it from. Yet, cholesterol itself still remains. The same is true of evolution. There may be holes in info, but there is stll only one explaination to describe why there are slow changes in species over time...evolution. Stuart offers no alternative, but his own perception. Anyone can point out the flaws in a new science. Anyone can refuse to believe something, despite there being no evidence for any other explaination. But, are these people being objective or subjective?

      April 11, 2011 at 4:17 pm |
    • Stuart Iribarren

      @Pathetic attempt:
      People like Pathetic attempt take flaws in knowledge and turn them into something more concrete than they actually are. He thinks that just because biblical studies are incomplete, they are absolutely not true. However, Pathetic attempt failed to acknowledge that he agrees with me that evolution in in a constant flux of information and discoveries. The same is true of biblical interpretation. There may be holes in info, but there is stll only one explaination to describe why there are slow changes in species over time without us being able to observe them actually turning into other species: creationism. Pathetic attempt offers no alternative, but his own perception. Anyone can point out the flaws in a religion. Anyone can refuse to believe something, despite there being no evidence for any other explaination. But, are these people being objective or subjective?

      April 11, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
    • Stuart Iribarren

      Godly?has no idea what he is talking about. He thinks he does, which is all that matters to him. Godly? has taken information that supposedly proves his claims as face value, but conveniently ignores other information. He points out that Stuart claims, in one of his responses, that his knowledge and the knowledge of those commenting on his original comment is insufficient, yet he continues to insist that Stuart is wrong and those who dispute him are right. There are some people that just can't fathom that they may be wrong on a subject and will go on and on about their own position in rants fueled by hubris.


      April 11, 2011 at 5:31 pm |
    • Pathetic attempt

      Evolution occurs every day around you. Hand sanitizer is a good example. When it says on the container that it only kills 99.9 percent of the germs, it's because the other tiny percentage has a random genetic trait that allows it to resist the chemicals. These germs with the genetic mutantion reproduce and create other germs that are also resistent to the chemicals. Thus, a perminant change in that species is created. They are currently called supergerms, and they exist. This is what evolution is. It is random, if you want to call them that, mutations that work to the benefit of a species. These mutations over time create new species. Dog breeders use the same principle of evolution to create news breeds of dog. This is evolution you can see, but only if you can admit it.

      April 11, 2011 at 5:59 pm |
    • Stuart Iribarren

      @Pathetic attempt:

      you (and many others) CONTINUE TO AGREE WITH ME: "Dog breeders use the same principle of evolution to create news breeds of dog. This is evolution you can see, but only if you can admit it."

      April 11, 2011 at 6:19 pm |
    • Pathetic attempt

      It happens over long periods of time, if you can fathom that. I notice you didn't address the bacteria example. Scrambling for an answer? I like your childish claims that everyone agrees with you. Earth shattering angle. I work with emotionally disturbed children. Thats the kind of thing they would say. I get the feeling you are very frustrated. Get used to it. Science will continue to frustrate those such as yourself who simply cannot accept anything outside of your safe little bubble. Believe me, I understand. I was raised in such a bubble.

      April 11, 2011 at 7:43 pm |
    • Water to Whine

      I am a member of a society of people who band together to refute the Earth being round. Iribarren, you sound like the kind of person who would be interested in such a society. Let me know, I will give you our info.

      April 11, 2011 at 7:56 pm |
    • What???

      Dogs into pigs? What is this guy talking about? No evolutionary theory claims that dogs turn into pigs. It claims that they have a common ancestor. This type of dogs into pigs reasoning is the reason most religious folks can't argue about evolution. It is hard to counter a theory, unless one completely understands that theory. Most religious folks refuse to even consider a theory that appears to counter their religion, therefore will never have the intellectual means to debate it.

      April 11, 2011 at 8:57 pm |
    • The Truth

      My goodness, Stuart. You're another one who needs to go to godisimaginary . com and get deprogrammed. Seriously.

      April 11, 2011 at 9:17 pm |
    • Rick

      @pathetic attempt
      Your example of the hand sanitizer proves nothing. The "random genetic trait" you mention was information already in the bacteria's genetic code. You need to provide an example of completely new information being added to the code. That is what is required for evolution, NEW information. Jodie Foster's character in the movie Contact recognized that when she found prime numbers in the transmission, it couldn't be just random noise but that it was information. And she realized that behind ALL information is intelligence.
      The simplest single cell's dna contains enough information to fill 1000 encyclopedias and yet you'll probably go right on denying that there is any possibility of intelligence behind it. And you say my faith is blind.
      By the way for all you "OLOGY" majors out there, I was taught in my college text book in the 80's a theory called embryonic recapitulation which had been thoroughly disproven and debunked as total fraud decades prior to my days in college. And yet I was still taught it as if it where a fact. So to all you degreed eggheads on this sight all you've proven to me is you were willing to pay a lot of money for you brainwashing and indoctrination. Ya'll need to spend some time at the college of common sense.

      April 11, 2011 at 10:41 pm |
    • Stuart Iribarren

      ugh I did it again... I'm so embarrassed that I continued this conversation for as long as I have, with people who dont even read what theyre commenting on, and who have no ability to utilize logic and reason. talk about mentally disturbed children... gnite folks!

      April 12, 2011 at 4:11 am |
  9. Rich

    Would unicorns believe in gravity?

    April 10, 2011 at 5:49 am |
    • Liesmith

      No. Unicorns can fly. This is proven in "Gospel of the Spaghetti Monster", Chapter 7, Noodle 3.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:15 am |
    • RUSerious

      Sauce be upon him, rAmen.

      April 10, 2011 at 10:18 am |
    • Pastafarian

      I need to go touch my noodly appendage.

      April 10, 2011 at 7:24 pm |
  10. Steve Wilkinson

    First, Jesus would realize that the term ‘evolution’ needs to be defined before this conversation could be had, a point the author of the article seems to have missed.

    Second, a Christian needs to be careful in deciding to toss out the historicity of Genesis 1-11 and apply the ‘evolutionary’ concept to its origins if their only reason for doing so might be some mis-interpreted scientific data. In other words, if you’re seeing something in Scripture today that thousands through history didn’t see, you might want to double check your other interpretations!

    Third, there are positions between fundamentalist and theistic evolutionist, such as progressive creationist, which allow one to hold the best of the Bible with the best of Science, compromising neither.

    Fourth, we don’t know the human race began millions of years ago in Africa, but more likely 60k-100k years ago in a areas which might be northern Africa/Middle East (they are kinda close you know!).

    Fifth, we don’t know that all forms of life are related to each other, that is simply one possible inference from the data. They certainly have NOT been established beyond a reasonable doubt!

    Sixth, re: Vitamin C – Here we go with ‘Junk DNA’ which is being shot down piece by piece every day. But this one in particular is no longer valid: Amélie Montel-Hagen et al., "Erythrocyte Glut1 Triggers Dehydroascorbic Acid Uptake in Mammals Unable to Synthesize Vitamin C," Cell 132 (March 21, 2008) 1039-48.

    While I believe it possible for theistic evolution to be the case and maybe even hold together theologically (that’s the tricky part), it certainly is NOT even in the ballpark as certain as the author of this article asserts. This is simply irresponsible journalism as well as irresponsible Christianity.

    Here is an article I wrote which does a MUCH better job or laying out the options as well as their +/-.

    April 10, 2011 at 5:40 am |
    • billy Ryan

      Well played

      April 10, 2011 at 5:44 am |
    • Q

      With respect, wasn't the author simply pointing out the differences in vit C production, not uptake and that the relationship mirrors the other lines of evidence for common descent (e.g. phylogenetic and fossil)? I don't see how the article you cite changes this particularly in light of the abstract restating the authors "synthesis" vs "uptake" point?

      Regarding common ancestry, what is your "reasonable doubt" and what mechanism would you invoke to support an alternative explanation?

      April 10, 2011 at 5:52 am |
    • Steve Wilkinson

      @ Q –

      Sorry, I’m an apologist, not a molecular biologist, but my understanding is that we don’t know this ‘broken gene’ (ie: Junk DNA) is really junk. The picture is more complex than that. He’s also failing to mention that this same gene is ‘broken’ in bats and guinea pigs, not just primates. This better explains it and why that article applies:

      about 30 minutes in

      The basic upshot is that it isn’t necessarily evidence for common descent. The same could be said for phylogenetic and fossil evidence, as both don’t necessarily agree or produce the same tree.

      These are all possible inferences from the data, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The reasonable doubt would be conflicts between these lines of evidence as well as other models which can better explain the data. One example might be the convergence of the Vitamin C recycling above in at least three separate, and quite different species.

      April 10, 2011 at 7:05 am |
    • Q

      @Steve – Again, with all due respect, that the vit C synthesis pathway may have also become defunct in other species doesn't remove it's relevance within the primate lineage when considering, at the sequence level, where and what types of mutations produced the defunct gene, i.e. it's not simply that a gene is defunct, but that the divergence in sequence within a defunct gene matches expectations of mutation rates and the phylogenetic relationships predicted by common ancestry. I'm afraid the mp3 you reference only strengthens the point in that it references the distinct nature of the unitary pseudogene mutations between the lineages with this synthesis defect. I'm not sure what your point is referencing the convergence of compensatory pathways to fix an agreed upon defect. I would offer this example first argues against "intelligent" design requiring the fix (the one speaker's reference to the designer choosing to create a defunct gene to prevent vit C "overload" was curious at best, disingenuous at worst). The principal speaker on the mp3 regarding the pseudogene is inferring that convergent evolution (readily demonstrable at many scales, from molecular to morphological) doesn't address the issue, however, given the commonality of the precursors for the compensatory mechanism, it's actually a nice example.

      Your reference to differences between phylogenetic v. fossil lineage reconstructions is confusing in the absence of any scale, but in general, their concordance (to my knowledge) doesn't present a confounding disagreement. Beyond this, that lineages can be independently linked via the two methodologies and then overlayed (with what I understand to be minimal disagreement at the ends of the trees) is a non-trivial observation, strongly supporting common ancestry.

      If you choose to seek out truly fine scale examples in the physical evidence for evolution while dismissing the larger context of the broad concordance of geological, paleontological, molecular biology, etc evidence, then I suspect you will always have enough room for your doubt, though at what point is it still reasonable? While I concede a rabbit fossil in the same geologic strata as a T. rex would cause me to reassess my acceptance of evolution, is there actually any evidence which would cause you to reassess your position? If not, is that "reasonable"?

      April 10, 2011 at 8:12 am |
    • Elizabeth

      there doesn't have to be a 'common ancestry'. maybe, God just decided to make us (and chimps or monkeys or whatever) with that 'broken gene'. Just because dogs and monkeys both have fur doesn't mean they both descended from cats! God can do whatever he wants and if he wanted that 'broken gene' in us then guess what? its there.

      April 10, 2011 at 1:01 pm |
    • John

      The website you gave is very, very biased. I was reading the list of pros and cons, and with just a little bit of scientific knowledge, I can already tell how the article tries really hard to make it look like a fair comparison, but it's just not.

      Out of curiosity, I looked up the website, and guess what... it's a religious website! No wonder... lol.

      April 10, 2011 at 5:01 pm |
    • Steve Wilkinson

      @ Q –
      I’ll have to defer the argument over Vitamin C, as I don’t have the time to research it better at the moment. I’m an apologist, not a biologist, as I said earlier. That’s kind of like being in the jury and listening to expert testimony from both sides. I’ll have to go read and listen to more. My main point was that this issue isn’t nearly as simple, nor ‘cut & dry’ as Karl suggested. Maybe ‘no longer valid’ was too extreme and not clear enough language on my part. I’m just so used to this particular example being tossed out as case-closed when it is not as far as I have been able to see.

      Here are some discussions, for example, that I’ll have to dig into in a few days:


      A Tale of Three Creationists, Part 1 (3 parts total)

      re: phylogenetic v. fossil – Yes, your understanding of it doesn’t match mine for sure. Well, for example, nearly once a week if my son is watching “Dinosaur Train” the paleontologist talks about birds coming from dinosaurs. Yet, birds precede dinosaurs in the fossil record. And then I read an article like this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051010085411.htm or, the common fish to amphibian transition and then then: http://www.reasons.org/fossil-record/fish-amphibians-transitions/tetrapod-transitions-evidence-design
      Those are just a few examples. As I watch both sides in this debate, I’m not seeing ‘beyond reasonable doubt.’

      re: fine scale example – the devil is in the details. Yea, the theory looks good on a grand scale. However, unless these ‘problems’ are simply errors in the analysis or freak discrepancies, they must be considered.

      re: reassess my position – The problem is there are SO many details to consider, both inside of biology and out, as well as inside and outside of science in general. A worldview has to take all the data from all the disciplines and try to combine them and analyze them and compare them to the worldview. The vast preponderance of data points towards theism and Christianity, so when I bump into issues in biology, certainly I assume the Christian/theistic model unless proven otherwise. That’s simply the smart way of assessing things. So, the big-picture you speak of in biology, is really a pretty small-picture in the grand scheme of things.

      So, I would reassess my position if all kinds of key areas in my overall worldview began to look like they were in error. And, common ancestry could possibly fit my model (so it isn’t a deal-breaker), I just don’t think it fits as well as other explanations which I do see better fitting the data as also.

      @ Elizabeth –
      The key term here to be careful of is ‘broken gene.’ I would kind of think it to be odd (though as you point out, not impossible) if God created several separate species, and even ones proposed to have common ancestry, with the same ‘broken genes.’ A more likely explanation from a Christian worldview would be that the design was there for these mutations to take place under certain environmental criteria, or that the genes aren’t broken (they have function). The naturalistic worldview does have problems dealing with these common evolutionary paths (convergence).

      @ John –
      The article was aimed at an intra-church discussion, to show that the 3 other views are all possible to hold with Christianity (though should be discussed and debated), with the real opponent to the Christian worldview being ‘naturalistic’ evolution, or materialistic naturalism. Other than the fact that it was a broad overview, it certainly wasn’t meant to take on the challenge you pose. Don’t worry, other articles will do that in the future. However, if you found anything inaccurate or misrepresented, that’s why the comment section is there. Did you find something?

      April 10, 2011 at 6:41 pm |
    • dgatwood

      @Steve Wilkinson

      Birds do not predate dinosaurs in the fossil record. Dinosaurs date back 230 million years. The earliest bird-like fossil I'm aware of dates back some 150-160 million years. Granted, that was a bit farther back than previously believed, but not before the earliest dinosaurs. Either way, when you're talking about things that occurred hundreds of millions of years ago, new discoveries are invariably going to cause minor changes in the timeline. There's a big difference between missing the date where birds branched off by a few million years and somebody claiming that dinosaurs walked the Earth 6,000 years ago. 🙂

      April 10, 2011 at 9:01 pm |
    • Q

      @Steve – First let me say thanks for a nice discussion. Clearly we're on opposite sides but it's nice to see posts minus the vitriolic ad hominems (I wish I could say I was immune to this behavior). I took a look at most of your references, however, those linking to advocacy sites are certainly far less useful. I'm sure you know that Feduccia's hypotheses are rather far outside of the consensus and there is considerable evidence against his positions, notably, more recent evidence refuting Feduccia's claims: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17521978 and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20107440
      (In other words, you can relax in knowing "Dinosaur Train" is not misleading your children or mine, but rather, still representing the best of our available concordant physical evidence).

      Regarding "fishapod" evolution, your link amounts to an a priori position paper attempting to conflate the evidence provided by Tiktaalik, e.g. it attempts to paint a branching process as in error because it doesn't match a more direct linear progression. Again, while you may disagree, despite the individual forms bearing mix and match transitional features complicating their precise position in the transition from amphibian to tetrapod, that these morphological features occur within the expected lineages within an expected geological window are strong evidence that a transition occurred. Each alone represents distinct features of a transition between major vertebrate classes, which is in itself, strong evidence of evolution. For the record, next time your conversing with an evolutionist, don't forget to mention the Polish tetrapod tracks, which (if an actual fossil can ever be found) may cause significant revision of our understanding of the "fishapod" transition (though at present, that these tracks were found in marine as opposed to freshwater deposits suggests two possible independent transitions).

      Regarding fine vs. larger scale evidence, I would offer that we inherently know we can find exceptions to the rule if we search hard enough, particularly if driven by a "worldview". However, I'd also offer that we are capable of an intuitive "meta-analysis" which can pool the whole of available evidence. In research, we understand that anomalous results are inevitable, but we also know that repeated sampling (while ever incomplete), significantly increases our confidence in the reliability of the pooled results (pure statistics). When considering the examples you've provided, it appears you are actively seeking out an alleged anomalous result and each time, when placed in the context of a larger sampling, evolution continues to stand as the best explanation. Obviously, one is free to continue searching for the anomalous result in hopes it will overturn the result provided by the pooled data, but frankly, as time goes by, this event becomes less and less probable.

      I would only add that given your comments about the totality of considerations informing your opinion, that this serves to some what undermine the claim of a "reasonable doubt" standard in that you are conceding physical evidence alone represents only a fraction of your mental equation. While many theists contend that underlying evolution is an anti-theistic worldview, this article, other theistic evolutionists and many "accomodationist evolutionists" certainly undermine that position (I would classify myself as a hopeful agnostic deist). The question is which comes first, physical evidence or a priori metaphysical belief? What is at the heart of this debate and indicated in the sources you yourself choose to provide is physical evidence. However, I would humbly and respectfully offer, that in admitting you are constrained by an a priori belief system, you are not engaging the evidence as it stands, but rather as it fits (or doesn't as the case may be) into your preferred brand of theism. When asked to sit on a jury, you are asked: "Is there any reason you might not be able to render an impartial verdict?". Given your last post, you have answered this question with a resounding "yes". Of course, there's absolutely nothing wrong with this but again, it does have implications when we attempt to define the "reasonable" component of "reasonable doubt". It's been a pleasure chatting with you...

      April 11, 2011 at 2:44 am |
    • Vulpes

      Yours is the worse kind of misinformation. There is no "middle way". It is only a matter of how ignorant you are about science or how willing you are to accept supernatural things. Scientist who looks at evidence and base ideas around it. You are a person of faith who muddies the evidence to suit your beliefs.

      April 11, 2011 at 9:35 am |
    • HeavenSent

      Steve, what are you trying to ask when you wrote Genesis 1-11? Chapters 1-11 of Genesis or Genesis scripture verse 1:1-11?


      April 11, 2011 at 11:22 am |
  11. bolo

    "BLIND FAITH"never accept diffrent views.Always will b the Bible say this,Bible say th@.How one walks in the middle of the sea without being drown?

    April 10, 2011 at 5:37 am |
    • bolok

      bouyancy it wasn't, miracle it was.

      April 10, 2011 at 3:48 pm |
    • John

      I totally agree. Blind faith is just brainwash.

      April 10, 2011 at 4:58 pm |
    • Audri

      You are right. But it takes incredible faith to believe in a theory. It takes only faith "the size of a mustard seed" to believe in the truth.

      April 10, 2011 at 5:57 pm |
    • EvolvedDNA

      Audri..there is no faith involved when looking at scientific evidence it is what it is....to believe in a god however takes an enormous amount of misunderstanding to ensure that the evidence is misinterpreted to "support" your case.

      April 10, 2011 at 9:34 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      bolo, the sea in those scriptures means "people". And the seas give up the dead. The believers give up the dead (spiritually dead, dry bones, wells without water).


      April 11, 2011 at 10:30 am |
  12. Gawiskan

    Must be the day off at the loony bin.

    Coercive persuasion trumps logic evidently...

    April 10, 2011 at 5:29 am |
    • jim

      I have found neither in any posts here.......on either side.

      April 12, 2011 at 6:15 am |
  13. Jerry

    "evolution since the time of Darwin has claimed that humans, orangutans, chimpanzees, and macaques evolved recently from a common ancestor." – wasn't it "humans, orangutans, chimpanzees, and gibbons"? Wouldn't macaques have a common ancestor too but a much longer time ago?

    April 10, 2011 at 5:28 am |
  14. andrew

    You people are all complete morons. If you are disclaiming evolution, then you are also disclaiming the evidence that has been found to support evolution. Did the remains of previous species linked to the origins of humans come from alien life? was it completely fabricated? was it never found at all? No, of course it wasnt, it has all been scientifically proven and substantiated that we have evolved from a previous species. Evolution is a necessary part of the cosmological, biological, and terrestrial makeup that allow beings or objects to adapt to their environment and surroundings. You religious fanatics come off as complete ignorant, uneducated fools when you comment on this issue for a few reasons. 1. You are always quick to interpret the bible literally, but fail to incorporate the dark aspects of the bible in your rhetoric such as slavery, subjugation of women etc.. This only proves that all of the "truths" that you preach are only "true" when it doesnt come off as illegal or heinous in todays socety. 2. You completely ignore hard, scientifically proven evidence, corroborated by scholars and scientists alike the origins that they have found is bogus. You have to either be completely insane or braindead to believe that humans were put on this planet just a few thousand years ago. Religious zealots, please stick to preaching your antiquated, primitive teachings elsewhere. You have no audience here believing you in your outrageous claims that we have not evolved despite a plethora of findings, lab testing, remains, evidence , and general common sense towards scientific truth.

    April 10, 2011 at 5:26 am |
    • Ahmed

      And you're the General of the moron! Evolution has no claim whatsoever to being a science. To follow our ancestry back trough the sons of adam. Who was the sons of God, is so much more satisfying than to search through disma swamps for bleeping monard forebears. The human race has dropped even in our life-time, several degrees deeper into moral perversion and violent disorder. Humanistic cite our animal ancestry as an excuse for much of this behavior. WHY blame people for action dictated by their bestial genes and chromosomes???? This rationalization, like a temporary insanity plea, provides license for further irresponsible conduct. THE tru cause for EVIL and the tru remedy for it found only in the word of God in man. Sin has deface the image of God in man.

      April 10, 2011 at 10:17 am |
    • armageddon

      What about the Evidence for creation? increasingly, genuine science suggests a young earth, which supports the biblical creation story. Bear in mind that even the most advanced techniques cannot detect 14C in specimens older than 80,000 years. In 1997, the Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth group (RATE) began an eight-year project researching data typically ignored or censored by evolutionists. One of their discoveries was significant levels of 14C found in various samples of both coal and diamonds collected worldwide. The finding indicates that the coal and diamonds could not be billions of years old, as evolutionists claim.

      Scientists also now know that the 14C/12C ratio has not been the same throughout earth’s history. (For one thing, the amount of 14C in the atmosphere increased sharply around the time of the Industrial Revolution.) Physicists Suess and Lingenfelter have now shown that 14C is entering the atmosphere about 30 percent faster than it is leaving. When it comes to carbon dating, this means that a thousand-year-old specimen appears much older than it really is when dated by a method that assumes atmospheric equilibrium. In fact, the older a specimen, the greater the error!

      Even when correcting for the known increase of 14C during the Industrial Revolution, specimens still appear older than they really are. Moreover, the layer of water described in Genesis as surrounding the pre-Flood earth could have shielded the atmosphere from much of the 14C entering from space. Thus, pre-Flood specimens would contain so little 14C that they would appear to have been decaying for tens of thousands of years. this is A Bad Foundation
      Teaching our children the lesson that there is no absolute right and wrong is very dangerous. It has caused a disaster in our public schools, our court system, and for the very fabric of our society. Evolutionists can also rationalize all kinds of immoral behaviors as merely part of the evolution of man; nothing is inherently bad. As a teenager, I learned that my science teacher had an affair with a woman in the loft of his home while his pregnant wife was downstairs. Though it deeply hurt his wife, he appeared indifferent to her feelings. He excused himself by saying, “Not all of the primates we’ve evolved from are monogamous, so adultery is perfectly natural. We can’t help it.” Evolution clearly undermines Christian living.

      April 10, 2011 at 10:28 am |
    • A. Russel Wallace

      Ahmed, the human race has dropped because we let people like you breed.

      April 10, 2011 at 12:09 pm |
    • snowboarder

      armageddon "the layer of water described in Genesis as surrounding the pre-Flood earth"


      April 10, 2011 at 2:54 pm |
    • Rich


      If Young Earth theory were correct we'd find no evidence of any life on earth more than six +/- thousand years old.

      And before you start spouting the 'god buried the dinosaur bones to make it seem like the world is older than it is', don't even bother. If god were really this deceptive and deliberately tricking us, should you really worship god the deceiver?

      As it is, it's awfully convenient that the bible puts the creation of the world right around the same time as the formation of the first permanent cities in the Middle East. Perhaps by the time anyone got around to writing down the stories and myths some three-four thousand years later, they had just forgot (or really, never knew) that people had been around before cities.

      Please, please please, for the sake of civil and intellectually honest discussion, don't quote any more Answers in Genesis junk science. Their site is full of inaccuracy, half-truths and flat-out lies.

      April 10, 2011 at 3:00 pm |
    • dgatwood


      You clearly don't understand nuclear decay if you believe that advanced hardware cannot detect Carbon-14 in substances older than a particular age. Statistically, there won't be much, but not much is not the same thing as none.

      The half life of a radionuclide is the period of time in which roughly half the mass of the substance is expected to spontaneously decay. That means that every 5730 years, there's half as much carbon-14 as there was before.

      Imagine if a gunman told you that every hour, he was going to kill half of the hostages. If you're in a room with ten people, after four hours, there are no more hostages. If you're in a room with a million people, it takes 20 hours (and a *lot* of bullets). In a similar way, the amount of Carbon-14 you would expect to find depends on the original concentration. Scientists are pretty sure that the rate of Carbon-14 creation has been fairly constant for a few tens of thousands of years. Ten million years ago, though... who knows.

      Also, Carbon-14 can be formed in many ways, of which cosmic rays interacting with nitrogen in the atmosphere is only one. A nonzero amount of radiation from the sun goes all the way through the Earth. Therefore, a nonzero amount of Carbon-14 is likely being produced from Carbon 12 on an ongoing basis. Not a lot, but you'd expect it to be nonzero. Further, when you're talking about coal, Carbon 12 is often found near uranium deposits that emit lots of particles. If you've ever looked at the radioactive decay products that occur in nuclear reactors, you'd know that Carbon-14 is among them. Huh. Who would have thought that maybe the same things that happen in a reactor could also occur in the ground?

      Finally, that 50,000 year upper limit is based on the assumption that living organisms contain on average about a hundred Carbon-14 atoms in their *entire* *body*. That's not very much, and it would be relatively easy to *massively* skew those statistics in any number of ways. For example, if scientists dig up victims of Hiroshima in a few hundred thousand years, assuming that history from our era has long since been lost, they will no doubt believe that those fossilized bones are only 6,000 years old. Similarly, in the early days of the sun's formation, it is quite possible that its output was less stable than it is now. A spike in gamma emissions could cause a huge increase in Carbon-14. Similarly, animals living on top of exposed beds of Uranium would have much higher Carbon-14 levels. And so on.

      In short, the presence or absence of Carbon-14 is only useful as an approximate way to judge the age of substances in strata that are expected to have been deposited within the last few thousand years, *not* as an indication that things in lower strata were miraculously deposited more recently. In fact, some of the petroleum reserves have Carbon-14 levels consistent with that of a *living* *organism*. I'm pretty sure God didn't create oil reserves in the past few days or weeks, which pretty clearly demonstrates why carbon dating *cannot* be used as the sole source of age determination, and as such is useless as a means of "proving" that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

      Any "science" that uses the presence of Carbon-14 as supposed evidence of older substances being new is nothing more than a very deliberate and malicious attempt to mislead people without enough background to understand that the statements have no basis in fact.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:51 pm |
    • Armageddon

      Modern world teaches that if you believe in creation, that God simply spoke things into existence … well, your intelligence is pitiful.
      Jesus said, “If you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me” (John 5:46 NKJV). Christ took Moses’ writings as plain truth; He authoritatively and liberally quoted from the Old Testament regarding Creation, the Exodus, and the Flood. He never suggested that any part of Genesis was a parable or fable. In fact, Jesus referred to Adam and Eve as real people. (See Mark 10:6–9.) No matter what the world thinks of us, we should believe like Jesus.
      I grew up believing in evolution. Most of the 14 different schools I attended taught that we are here because of evolutionary processes that took millions and billions of years. Surprisingly, some of these were even religious schools!
      William James, the father of modern psychology, said, “There’s nothing so absurd that if you repeat it often enough, people will believe it.” Thus, the ridiculous view that, given enough time, chaos will produce order has taken a firm hold on our culture. And now, more and more Christians are being swept up by it, suggesting that God created all the sophisticated design around us using evolutionary processes. But this compromise creates an enormous problem:
      It makes it logically impossible to believe the rest of God’s Word as it is written.

      However, even with my simple faith in God’s Word set aside, both reason and science soundly refute evolution. Indeed, mounting scientific evidence indicates that intelligent creation is truth.

      Now anybody else could TELL me, where can i find that VERSE in the bible that JESUS would believe in evolution???

      April 11, 2011 at 1:31 am |
    • Face

      Man thanks for clearing that one up! Here the answer lies in an average person that reads the bible and DOESN'T have ANY knowledge regarding science! Get me a ticket on your band wagon!!

      Could we.........GASP!!...............have more than 1 or 2 dating methods!?!?!?!?!
      In order:
      Rubidium-87 -49 billion years
      Rhenium-187 – 41.6 bill.
      Thorium-232 -14 b.
      Uranium-238 -4.5b
      Potassium-40 – 1.26 b.
      Uranium-235 – 704 million
      Samarium-147 – 108 m.
      Iodine- 129 – 17m
      Aluminum-26 – 740k
      Carbon-14 – roughly 5k years

      But I'm sure already know that!
      Please give us some more knowledge given to you through those bible glasses!!

      April 11, 2011 at 9:28 am |
    • Vulpes

      "genuine science suggests a young earth, which supports the biblical creation story. " - Ummm, another lie by a creationist? If I had a dollar for every lie that they tell ...

      April 11, 2011 at 9:28 am |
    • HeavenSent

      Andrew, some day you'll learn the truth that the bones that were found were those of apes.


      April 11, 2011 at 10:25 am |
    • Frespech

      It hasn't been proved to me at all- just because someone draws a composite 4 stage image of the evolution of man doesn't make me a believer. You could take the recent discovery of Lucy- shave the hair off and paint lipstick on her and transform her to look like Pam Anderson. It is made to represent whatever they choose to help support their theories. I for one don't buy it.

      April 11, 2011 at 11:18 am |
    • Frespech

      The supposed # of your proofs that we evolved would fit into a shoe box and then be questionable. If I want to prove a bunch of bones was was more ape like, draw the picture with pointed teeth and more hair.

      April 11, 2011 at 4:16 pm |
    • The Truth

      @Ahmed & Armageddon: There is no god. Please find the site godisimaginary, read every page there and put your misguided beliefs to a final, merciful rest. We will gladly welcome you back to reality.

      April 11, 2011 at 5:44 pm |
    • Rick

      @ Rich
      How did C14 get into diamonds. And why is it that when they use all of the different radiometric dating tests on the SAME piece of rock , the tests yield WILDY differing results. Would you care to enlightened us?

      April 13, 2011 at 4:34 pm |
    • Chartreux

      Armegaddon, every single study you quoted is flawed and has been debunked. The only people still using them are Creationists.

      April 22, 2011 at 3:33 pm |
    • Scott

      @:Armageddon: Moses may have predicted jesus; but, he also said: “Have ye saved all the women alive?... Now therefore Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known a man by lying with him, but all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves” Num 31:1-2, 9-11, 14-18

      May 1, 2011 at 1:52 pm |
  15. Atheism is truth, god isn't real

    It should read "Would Jesus believe in Evolution, if he were ever real?" Jesus never existed, it's just a story.

    April 10, 2011 at 5:22 am |
    • Shawn

      I just wish your opinions were basses on fact rather that bias and ignorance. Whether you want to believe that he was divine is a different question. But many many nonreligious texts also make note that he did live. Idiot.

      April 10, 2011 at 9:27 am |
    • Brent Slensker

      You're the idiot Shawn...There are NO writings historical contemporary with Jesus! Josephus, for one, was born years after Jesus supposedly died. Tacitus refers to people who were christians at his time, 100AD. The whole Christ story is a contrived myth.

      April 10, 2011 at 11:24 am |
    • jaysunstar

      Jesus of Nazerath is an historical fact...Not just a religious one. Most scholars agree that he existed. Proving that he is the son of God is the problem.

      April 10, 2011 at 3:31 pm |
    • myklds

      Jesus or Yeoshua didn't exist and a myth?

      It only shows how Aheists's egos bloated like space blob but their brains are shrinking to the size of a quark.

      April 10, 2011 at 3:40 pm |
    • ScienceSoma

      It isn't completely decided that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, so he very well may have. It is certain, however, that there is no proof for any miracles he was said to perform. Also, his divinity was decided upon in 325 AD at the Council of Nicea. Yes, a bunch of guys in a room voted on whether Jesus was God or just a prophet. They voted God, and now you believe it. If healthcare worked that way we would be past it.

      April 10, 2011 at 8:04 pm |
    • DeAguaDulce


      Jesus was worshipped as God long before the Council of Nicea. What you are spouting is just garbage. The Council of Nicea was convened to reaffirm the Christian belief that Jesus was the incarnate God and to refute the claims of Arius who denied this. The various scrolls that were later collected into the book we now call the New Testament existed long before this council convened and attest to the Chritian beief in Jesus Divinity. In addition to the Apostles such ealy Christians as Polycarp (69 – 155 AD) , Justin Martyr (103–165) and Iraneus - all of whom predate the Council of Nicea - testified to the Christian belief that Jesus is God. If you reject this belief, that is your choice, but you cannot change history by your constant protestations to the contrary.

      April 10, 2011 at 9:15 pm |
    • EvolvedDNA

      Mykids..God sttil is not real , no matter how much you may like to insult.. maybe try to prove your position rather than just sling insults.

      April 10, 2011 at 9:23 pm |
    • Nathan

      Let's all follow this new prophet! Whatever he says is truth!

      April 10, 2011 at 9:56 pm |
    • josh

      i wonder how atheism is truth when atheist don't believe in anything.

      April 11, 2011 at 4:03 am |
    • Face

      Please read the definition of "atheist" then tell me where it says ANYTHING about what "they" DO believe in.....
      stupid comment....it STILL doesn't mean anything even if you were to label Nihilist's as that as well, which most other people do....
      NT but you are another Fail...

      April 11, 2011 at 9:19 am |
    • HeavenSent

      Perception. If one doesn't believe, of course he/she won't believe. If you should ever shelf your ego which butts head with Jesus' truth, you too can see His truth written on the pages of the Bible.

      Until then, it's sad to all Christians that you stay spiritually dead walking among us, well without water, dry bones (creak, creak).


      April 11, 2011 at 10:22 am |
    • Frespech

      The truth, historical facts which you seem to believe with regard to your theory of evolution all support the existence of Jesus. So we have to then assume that your statement is incorrect.

      April 11, 2011 at 10:56 am |
    • Scott

      @ Shawn: Yes and all of them are either forgeries or dated long after jesus’s death

      May 1, 2011 at 1:43 pm |
  16. BCK

    "Jesus" and "truth" in the same sentence? And maintaining that christians helped facilitate scientific progress?
    It must be a delayed april fool's joke.

    I guess anyone with a computer can write an article for CNN.

    April 10, 2011 at 5:21 am |
    • Jason Baker

      Oh golly man !!!! Ok what I have to say doesn't mean squat to you unless you know me. So let me take this opportunity to paint a picture. Nice guy. In college. Christian. Married,kid on the way. Ok boom. Nice to meet you. Why couldn't God created a system where evolution would develop the myriad of animals of which one is mankind on this planet? He could. He did. Well what about Adam and Eve? Well they were not monkeys but men. But very different humans. HUmans that God gave souls to. A spirit and body combined is what they had. A conscience if you will. This made them different. It is from these two that we sprang from. Boom everything works. DONt be so closed. It all works. We dont have even 1% of what happened. SO how can less than 1% of the knowledge out there conclude that two things cant work? Stop it. God is real. Science and evolution is real too. BOTh. BOTH. BOTH BOTH duh!!

      April 10, 2011 at 6:36 pm |
    • P

      The "truth" is that Christianity is not going away anytime soon. It has a tremendous influence on our culture and our politics. The best we can do is try to convince the reasonable Christians – and there are plenty of them out there – that science is not some evil force trying to undermine religion. Science is a search for the way things really are. Does it have all the answers? No. Does religion? No. But if Christianity can adopt the findings of science into its religion, than we as a culture can actually make progress instead of being divided into little warring factions.

      April 10, 2011 at 7:35 pm |
    • Face

      @Jason B.
      Would you happen to have any evidence to support your "soul" idea?
      We prob agree on more than you think, despite me being a rationalist, but when people start claiming a "soul" whatever that is, exists they need something to go on....

      April 11, 2011 at 9:15 am |
    • HeavenSent

      P, Jesus' truth is about Life and the Hereafter. True Science and the Bible are in harmony with each other even though you have no eyes to see, nor ears to hear His truth. True Science has been uncovering His truth from scriptures all through the ages. Practicing Christians know this truth and are in awe what is being uncovered in scriptures by the scientific community through the ages. God reveals His truth to different generations for those that seek. When you start seeking, you too will understand what Christians are in awe of.


      April 11, 2011 at 10:18 am |
  17. Gnostic

    Man is always creating things, ideas etc. Is that not evolution. As a species we are evolving, yet we are creating. No Difference.

    April 10, 2011 at 5:20 am |
    • HeavenSent

      Gnostic, thank God you learned the basics of Jesus' truth, even if you call it something else. Other than that, you promote chaos and never think anything out to it's conclusion.

      You can stay anti-social all you want. You can call yourself anything you want. Christians know what we are dealing with and Jesus originally called you fools who refuse to learn His wisdom and abide in the law.


      April 11, 2011 at 10:06 am |
  18. Armageddon

    i Could say...This is an absolute "LIE". you idiot is trying to establish evolution. Oh yeah! and For you this a Fact??? You believe that your Grandafather a great Chimpanzi???? your father urangutang? and your Grandmother an Ape!!!??? hows that? you go to hell!!! Satan is trying to destroy humanity as what you believe evolution. and thats EXACTLY The RESULT of Lawlesness of humanity. If Only every Human recognize that there is God WHO CREATED universe and earth who give life, this Idea of STUPID EVOLUTION wont ever happened. As a result, People becomes so wicked in this age. Anyways this only Proves to me that Identifying the TRUTH to ERROR is just between a half millimeter. Means Truth can now be Twisted a half milli. for you to believe. in short this ORIGINATED BY LUCIFER "THE FATHER OF ALL LIES" According to the TRUTH in the Bible. So Clever enough DOES IT??? NOW GET THE HELL OUT! HAVE MERCY on your Lost SOUL!!!

    April 10, 2011 at 5:16 am |
    • gupsphoo

      Thanks for your comment. It truly show how stupid a creationist can be.

      April 10, 2011 at 5:19 am |
    • leonid7

      your post illustrates how difficult it is to refute something you know nothing about with an ideology you don't understand.

      April 10, 2011 at 5:30 am |
    • billy Ryan

      Take some GOD MADE valium dude. Evolution is a reality, and the author tries to get YOU involved in seeing God is in evolution

      April 10, 2011 at 5:31 am |
    • jason

      funny thing is you write like a caveman . go back and read your grammar. such as "you idiot is trying to establish evolution" possibly you mean "you idiots ARE trying to establish evoulution" and then your very next sentence "Oh yeah! and for you this a fact?" should probably be "Oh yeah, for you is this a fact?" then theres"Satan is trying to destroy humanity as what you believe evolution." Im not even sure what to think of ur sentence here hahaha ! Possibly "Satan is trying to destroy humanity with those who belive in evolution. A lot of your sentences are like a kindergartener trying to speak a sentence but saying things like "me gots no cookies" instead of I don't have any cookies" I can keep going to the very end of your post but i think you and everyone gets the message 😉

      April 10, 2011 at 5:33 am |
    • andrew

      Please refrain from further comments. You might as well be pandering to the chimpanzees you reference in your incoherent, rambling opinion, if one can even classify that as an opinion. We prefer that blogs are written in proper english so that it may be decipherable and easy to read for others.

      April 10, 2011 at 5:35 am |
    • IronBoar

      Ook! oook! Oook! Jesus was a fictional character, based on 500 year old third hand 'accounts', twisted by the Church for power and profit, used by governmnents to 'convert' and conquer other people. The writer of this article feels bad because he actually isn't a Christian, and has to justify this.

      April 10, 2011 at 5:40 am |
    • Peter Grenader

      Do you think you could you try to learn the English language in the not-to-distant future?

      April 10, 2011 at 10:10 am |
    • 2011

      This is a typical example of a brainwashed fundamentalist Christian who relied on nothing but blind faith.

      April 10, 2011 at 11:00 am |
    • El Kababa

      Armageddon, people like you have been saying the same thing since 1859.

      April 10, 2011 at 2:18 pm |
    • T Dog

      If you have a direct line to God's Own Truth – why are you so angry? Was Jesus as full of hate as you are?

      April 10, 2011 at 2:26 pm |
    • snowboarder

      english is obviously not your native language.

      April 10, 2011 at 2:48 pm |
    • jaysunstar

      Your anger and hate is a perfect example of what has gone wrong with humanity. Do not throw stones when you live in a glass house.

      April 10, 2011 at 3:24 pm |
    • Jason Baker

      Oh golly man !!!! Ok what I have to say doesn't mean squat to you unless you know me. So let me take this opportunity to paint a picture. Nice guy. In college. Christian. Married,kid on the way. Ok boom. Nice to meet you. Why couldn't God created a system where evolution would develop the myriad of animals of which one is mankind on this planet? He could. He did. Well what about Adam and Eve? Well they were not monkeys but men. But very different humans. HUmans that God gave souls to. A spirit and body combined is what they had. A conscience if you will. This made them different. It is from these two that we sprang from. Boom everything works. DONt be so closed. It all works. We dont have even 1% of what happened. SO how can less than 1% of the knowledge out there conclude that two things cant work? Stop it. God is real. Science and evolution is real too. BOTh. BOTH. BOTH BOTH duh!!!

      April 10, 2011 at 6:36 pm |
    • P

      Wow!!!! Is this a joke??? There is no way that somebody could live in this century and be this stupid.

      April 10, 2011 at 7:28 pm |
    • DB

      WOW!! Another person who decided not to go to school and learn. He would be so surprised if he just learned basic Biology. Why don't you start with just the parts of your body and how they work, you brain dead fool!

      April 11, 2011 at 8:04 am |
    • jkn

      The only people who would say your "Grandfather came from a chimpanzee" is someone like.......well, you. The whole people came from apes meme is from creationist alarmists lying about evolution to keep their flock loyal.

      April 11, 2011 at 8:39 am |
    • Vulpes

      "i Could say...This is an absolute "LIE". you idiot is trying to establish evolution" - A typical creationist. I guess if the facts of evolution mean nothing then apparently things like capitalization, grammar and spelling take a back seat as well. "urangutang" ... really?

      April 11, 2011 at 9:25 am |
    • HeavenSent

      Armageddon, the reason why non-believers follow all these theories is because they hate Jesus. They hate having to follow rules and regulations except when something doesn't go their way. They are spoiled, unrighteous, look for any excuse not to be responsible for their thoughts/beliefs, writings or actions. If they believe they derived from Apes they have the excuse to act like animals. If they believe in the Big Bang, they don't have to acquire ethics or morals. I can go on and on about their bad behavior, but you already know Jesus' truth when He called them fools who refused to learn wisdom and abide in the law.


      April 11, 2011 at 10:02 am |
    • David

      Wicked now? The millions of poor dumb nomads at the time of the Great Flood must have had the corner on wickedness! All of them got washed away, even in the far reaches of the earth, just going about their business of surviving, by a vengeful God that they had no knowledge of.

      April 11, 2011 at 10:18 am |
    • HeavenSent

      David, which flood are you referring to so a Christian can answer your question?


      April 11, 2011 at 11:12 am |
    • Suzie

      "They hate having to follow rules and regulations except when something doesn't go their way. They are spoiled, unrighteous, look for any excuse not to be responsible for their thoughts/beliefs, writings or actions."

      It's why our country has rules and regulations that seem to be working, that everyone is following and when they don't they go to jail.

      April 11, 2011 at 4:31 pm |
    • The Truth

      Man, you really need a relaxing soak in a hot tub and about two hours reading up at godisimaginary. Great web site that explains things you really need to learn!

      April 11, 2011 at 5:32 pm |
    • Ricky Bobby

      Finally – someone who realizes grammar was invented by satan, and properly disregards it.

      April 12, 2011 at 10:41 am |
    • Chartreux

      Armageddon, how many people do you think you're attracting to Christianity with the anger in your words in this post? Is that what Jesus would do? Is this how He would respond?

      From your response you seem to be a Christian, but are you acting in a Christian manner?

      April 22, 2011 at 3:27 pm |
  19. gupsphoo

    I bet the cult leader named Jesus who lived a couple thousand years ago wouldn't have the necessary intelligence to understand the science behind evolution. Even many of his followers today don't.

    April 10, 2011 at 5:07 am |
    • billy Ryan

      Do you realize that Plato and Socrates lived long before Jesus? we have had the same intelect for quite some time now.

      April 10, 2011 at 5:18 am |
    • gupsphoo

      How intelligent you can also depends on how much knowledge you have. Do you actually think those Greek philosophers could possibly understand modern day science with the little knowledge they had back then?

      April 10, 2011 at 5:22 am |
    • billy Ryan

      Yes you idiot

      April 10, 2011 at 5:32 am |
    • billy Ryan

      Fictional or not.. how could you dispute the veracity of his teachings, (or made up sayings) Love Peace Forgiveness. What is the downside of this?

      April 10, 2011 at 5:50 am |
    • jaysunstar

      Jesus was not a cult leader. There was no such thing as Christianity back then. Jesus was a Jew making reformations to the Jewish religion. He did NOT want people to follow him. He wanted people to follow what he believed and follow his example. Unfortunately people are stupid and they decided to make a whole new religion about Jesus rather than follow the religion OF Jesus.

      April 10, 2011 at 3:28 pm |
    • DoubtSalmon

      @Jaysunstar Of course Jesus wanted people to follow him. "Jesus told them "Follow me"." -Matthew 8:22

      April 10, 2011 at 3:52 pm |
    • Pastafarian

      Follow the gourd!!!

      April 10, 2011 at 7:09 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      gupsphoo, these scriptures are written in the Bible:

      Genesis 2:7: "And the Lord God formed man of the DUST OF THE GROUND, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul." Surely, you don't take Genesis 2:7 seriously? Do you?

      Psalm 8:8: ". . . whatsoever passeth through the PATHS OF THE SEAS." How did David (the writer of Psalms) know, over 2,000 years ago, there were "paths in the seas"? David probably never even saw an ocean!

      Ecclesiastes 1:7: "All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again." How did the writer of Ecclesiastes know the water cycle of condensation and evaporation in 1000 B.C.?

      Job 38:19: "Where is THE WAY where light dwelleth?" How come Job didn't say where is THE PLACE where light dwelleth? Because light is always moving. How did Job know something in 1500 B.C. ?

      Ecclesiastes 1:6: "The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again ACCORDING TO HIS CIRCUITS." How did the writer of Ecclesiastes know the wind traveled within circuits? How did he know with their so-called limited knowledge thousands of years ago?

      Leviticus 17:11: For the life of the flesh is in the blood. What Moses wrote in 1490 B.C. written thousands of years ago, by men with such limited knowledge?


      April 11, 2011 at 9:56 am |
    • Richie Cunningham

      You obviously don't know Jesus or His Word. John chapter one tells us that Jesus was the one who created the universe. I'm sure His intelligence should meet your standards.

      April 11, 2011 at 2:34 pm |
    • Frespech

      Since everything was created through him I believe his grasp of reality is far greater than yours.

      April 11, 2011 at 3:52 pm |
    • The Truth

      @DoubtSalmon: That was written by some guy apparently names Matthew. He said-she said is never a good thing to base your point on...

      April 11, 2011 at 5:29 pm |
    • Rick

      Science requires testability, repeatability,and observability. All three must be satisfied at once ,or you don't have science. Evolution fails on all three counts, you can't put history in a test tube. So all your left with is a BELIEF about the past. It's far from a 'fact", no matter how many times you repeat it.

      April 11, 2011 at 8:14 pm |
    • The Truth

      @Frespech & Richie Cunningham: You folks really need to go to the site godisimaginary. Only there can you attain true enlightenment. Your indoctrination has completely blinded you and the brainwashing has, unfortunately, been successful. Go to the site I suggest and be returned to reality. You'll thank me for it later, I'm sure.

      April 11, 2011 at 8:39 pm |
    • Bible Clown

      "David probably never even saw an ocean!" Are you nuts? And you act as if it took divine inspiration for someone to notice that water evaporates, and that rain falls into the sea and the rivers.

      April 13, 2011 at 4:42 pm |
    • SouthernCelt

      Judaism is a cult? That is news to me. Jesus also did not create Science or evolution. His Father did. Do you understand everything your father did? I know my son doesn't. Why should His?

      April 24, 2011 at 1:05 pm |
  20. morsecoder

    The writer of this article is sadly mistaken.

    April 10, 2011 at 5:05 am |
    • Joseph

      The writer of this post is sadly mistaken.

      April 10, 2011 at 5:13 am |
    • billy Ryan

      Why is this writer sadly mistaken? Cause you say so? Back it up

      April 10, 2011 at 5:14 am |
    • navajocoder

      The writer of this post is mistaken, rather.

      April 10, 2011 at 5:35 am |
    • Steven H.

      The Bible is a wonderful book with many great stories, but at the same time it is grossly misinterpreted by many people...

      April 10, 2011 at 5:37 am |
    • 2011

      Dogmatically-minded people always say things .... dogmatically.

      April 10, 2011 at 10:52 am |
    • P

      We don't know what Jesus actually said. No one has ever seen the original gospels and the ones we have today have been edited by many people over the last 1500 years. Read the book "Misquoting Jesus" to get more detail.

      April 10, 2011 at 7:25 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      P, as with any book written positively or negatively about Jesus, it was all to take that buck from you and others like you. It worked didn't it (LOL)?


      April 11, 2011 at 9:50 am |
    • Suzie

      Just like churches were set up to take your bucks too and now it's a billion dollar industry. Worked now didn't it.

      April 11, 2011 at 4:28 pm |
    • The Truth

      The writer IS sadly mistaken. Visit godisimaginary and read up. Anyone with an IQ over 30 will have their eyes opened up.

      April 11, 2011 at 5:26 pm |
    • Tom

      Yes he is.

      April 11, 2011 at 6:04 pm |
    • Davethecanuck

      Can you prove that?

      I see that you still can't reason someone out of something they weren't reasoned into.

      April 12, 2011 at 12:44 pm |
    • Floyd

      When the author uses terms like “these ideas” and “The only reasonable explanation” with respect to the evolutionary process then I doubt they are really fully convinced themselves about what has happened. Is it fact or not? Nobody has definitively proven anything….either way. The Vitamin C example….it is an educated guess, nothing more.
      Christians welcome science and explorations, at least we Catholics do and for the very reason the author says, the truth. Creation and the theory of evolution can indeed interact and co-exist. Evolution is ongoing, this we know. What started the process and when, we are looking for those answers and one day humans will know. Get out your telescopes and your microscopes and look at the splendor that is the universe.

      April 26, 2011 at 5:39 pm |
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
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.