home
RSS
Survey: Nearly half of Americans subscribe to creationist view of human origins
June 1st, 2012
03:46 PM ET

Survey: Nearly half of Americans subscribe to creationist view of human origins

By Dan Merica, CNN

(CNN) - Forty-six percent of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form at one point within the past 10,000 years, according to a survey released by Gallup on Friday.

That number has remained unchanged for the past 30 years, since 1982, when Gallup first asked the question on creationism versus evolution. Thirty years ago, 44% of the people who responded said they believed that God created humans as we know them today - only a 2-point difference from 2012.

"Despite the many changes that have taken place in American society and culture over the past 30 years, including new discoveries in biological and social science, there has been virtually no sustained change in Americans' views of the origin of the human species since 1982," wrote Gallup's Frank Newport. "All in all, there is no evidence in this trend of a substantial movement toward a secular viewpoint on human origins."

The second most common view is that humans evolved with God's guidance - a view held by 32% of respondents. The view that humans evolved with no guidance from God was held by 15% of respondents.

Survey: U.S. Protestant pastors reject evolution, split on Earth's age

Not surprisingly, more religious Americans are more likely to be creationists.

Nearly 70% of respondents who attend church every week said that God created humans in their present form, compared with 25% of people who seldom or never attend church.

Among the seldom church-goers, 38% believe that humans evolved with no guidance from God.

The numbers also showed a tendency to follow party lines, with nearly 60% of Republicans identifying as creationists, while 41% of Democrats hold the same beliefs.

Republicans also seem to be more black-and-white about their beliefs, with only 5% responding that humans evolved with some help from God. That number is much lower than the 19% of both independents and Democrats.

According to Newport, a belief in creationism is bucking the majority opinion in the scientific community - that humans evolved over millions of years.

"It would be hard to dispute that most scientists who study humans agree that the species evolved over millions of years, and that relatively few scientists believe that humans began in their current form only 10,000 years ago without the benefit of evolution," writes Newport. "Thus, almost half of Americans today hold a belief ... that is at odds with the preponderance of the scientific literature."

The USA Today/Gallup telephone poll was conducted May 10-13 with a random sample of 1,012 American adults. The sampling error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.

- Dan Merica

Filed under: Belief • Creationism • evolvution

soundoff (3,830 Responses)
  1. Rebel4Christ

    Evolution is the dumbest belief on this earth! There is no proof of it what so ever!!! When you find the missing link tell then we will talk!

    June 2, 2012 at 1:17 pm |
    • veritas

      Dude....no proof of god or jesus....give me proof and I will go along for the ride.....

      June 2, 2012 at 1:25 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Your first task is to tell us the scientific definition of "missing link" and include the science website you get it from. After that we'll address the rest of the creationist idiocy you will spew.

      June 2, 2012 at 1:28 pm |
    • Hear This

      Rebel4Christ,

      The fantasy "God" of the Bible is one of the most vile, immoral monsters ever dreamed up by mankind.

      I'm willing to bet that as a 9th grader you have not studied all of the verified evidence for evolution.

      June 2, 2012 at 1:31 pm |
    • Me II

      There is plenty of evidence for evolution: fossils like tiktaalik, ambulocetus, ho.mo habilis; biogeography; biochemistry like cyytochrome c ;genetics like ERVs and human chromosome 2

      June 2, 2012 at 1:42 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      The high school dropout posts again. Reb, are you paying rent on your mom's basement?

      June 2, 2012 at 3:09 pm |
    • Rebel4Christ

      Oh Tom's back I must have made a mistake in my grammer woops!!

      June 2, 2012 at 4:32 pm |
    • BarnumEffect

      There is an abundance of evidence for evolution. Take, for example, corn. Corn originated as a small crop in Mexico called teosinte with cobs no larger than quarters. Over the past thousand years, it has been selectively bred and genetically modified, resulting in the six-foot trophy that it is today. Also consider dogs. Poodles have not been romping through the plains for thousands of years. Rather, specific dogs have been selectively bred, resulting in the diversity in dog breeds that we see today.

      June 2, 2012 at 10:04 pm |
  2. Reality

    "The basic timeline of a 4.6 billion year old Earth, with approximate dates:

    3.8 billion years of si-mple cells (prokaryotes),
    3.4 billion years of stromatolites demonstrating photosynthesis,
    2 billion years of complex cells (eukaryotes),
    1 billion years of multicellular life,
    600 million years of si-mple animals,
    570 million years of arthropods (ancestors of insects, arachnids and crustaceans),
    550 million years of complex animals,
    500 million years of fish and proto-amphibians,
    475 million years of land plants,
    400 million years of insects and seeds,
    360 million years of amphibians,
    300 million years of reptiles,
    200 million years of ma-mmals,
    150 million years of birds,
    130 million years of flowers,
    65 million years since the non-avian dinosaurs died out,
    2.5 million years since the appearance of the genus H-o-mo,
    200,000 years of anatomically modern humans,
    25,000 years since the disappearance of Neanderthal traits from the fossil record.
    13,000 years since the disappearance of H-o-mo floresiensis from the fossil record."

    Some added references:

    1..^ Moskowitz, Clara (29 March 2012). "Life's Building Blocks May Have Formed in Dust Around Young Sun". Space.com. Retrieved 30 March 2012.
    2.^ Planetary Science Inst-itute page on the Giant Impact Hypothesis. Hartmann and Davis belonged to the PSI. This page also contains several paintings of the impact by Hartmann himself.
    3.^ "Because the Moon helps stabilize the tilt of the Earth's rotation, it prevents the Earth from wobbling between climatic extremes. Without the Moon, seasonal shifts would likely outpace even the most adaptable forms of life." Making the Moon Astrobiology Magazine. (URL accessed on August 7, 2010)

    June 2, 2012 at 1:13 pm |
  3. Reality

    From the topic commentary: "Thus, almost half of Americans today hold a belief (creationism) that is at odds with the preponderance of the scientific literature."

    The cause? The Three B Syndrome i.e. Bred, Born and Brainwashed in religion especially the Abrahamic religions!!

    The cure??????????????????

    June 2, 2012 at 12:51 pm |
    • Be

      It is Gallup poll not science man, breath man, breath!

      The main question asked was, "Which of the following statements come CLOSEST to your views on origin and development of human beings?"
      For starters only 15% said humans evolved and God played no part. Latest census says only about 10% of Americans have a degree with a science or engineering back ground. So can you image the percent that actually have really really studied evolution at a college level? 85% claim God had some part rather how much of a role or not leads to those 46% with a closer view to the "Creationist" ideal.

      I could study everything ever written about Romney and Obama and still make a choice I might regret later. Education can help us but it still doesn't make us all knowing or necessarily wiser.

      "The older I get the less I know!"

      June 2, 2012 at 1:33 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      "The older I get the less I know." How old will you have to get before you figure out the difference between 'breath' and 'breathe"?

      June 2, 2012 at 3:10 pm |
  4. Theistville Dog

    The "hierarchy of individualism" begins at the bottom and triangulates upon a point whereby the individualist seeks a being of supreme authority outside individualism's boundaries. A God perhaps? Maybe? Why not?

    June 2, 2012 at 12:42 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Care to translate that from Doggie to English?

      June 2, 2012 at 12:43 pm |
    • Be

      Sorry you are having a hard time understanding Tom, that is what happens when you get too much geeky science and ignore your studies in psychology. Is psychology even science? It must not be, I mean everyone know all the hottest women on campus are seen going in and out of the psychology building!

      If you haven't noticed from my other posts I'm definitely not a English major. But I can sing 'Amercia! Amercia! God shed his grace...

      June 2, 2012 at 1:01 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Not in tune, you can't.

      June 2, 2012 at 1:03 pm |
    • Theistville Dog

      What's that Tom? Please explain your innabilities to comprehend the English language

      June 2, 2012 at 1:41 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I can't explain "innabilities" as it isn't a word, doofus.

      June 2, 2012 at 3:11 pm |
  5. TheRationale

    This is embarrassing. This is so embarrassing to the country. Half of the population is scientifically illiterate and would fail a high school biology class. You can't expect a country with that much of an anti-scientific atmosphere to succeed.

    June 2, 2012 at 12:37 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      No, you can't. No matter how many of them are "saved" or "God's children" or "Christian".

      We will indeed fail as a nation if we do not improve our science education programs and stop creationists from polluting the waters.

      June 2, 2012 at 12:41 pm |
    • Be

      I think Creationists would like to see a rise in math and science also, not sure that will rid us of our problems. Maybe you should just admit defeat? Dang that human spirit!

      June 2, 2012 at 12:48 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Defeat? At what?

      June 2, 2012 at 12:55 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Really, Be, you're simply silly. No one has claimed that a 'rise in science and math' (I'm surmising you really meant a 'rise in science and math test scores' or 'a rise in science and math mastery') will solve 'all our problems'.

      June 2, 2012 at 12:57 pm |
    • Jonathan

      I find this a little puzzling. How do you equate a disbelief in evolution with ignorance of evolution? Just because someone does not accept all the evidence of evolution as fact does not mean they fail to learn what is taught to them.

      Until we can observe an increase in genetic information and describe in detail the process(es) that allow for it, rather than simply pointing at the loss of genetic information and assuming the reverse happens as well, the concept of evolution via natural selection and mutation into more complex life will remain a scientific theory that is always plagued with doubt.

      June 2, 2012 at 1:01 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      The only folks who doubt it are morons who subscribe to creationism, dearie. Don't pixx on my leg and try to tell me it's raining.

      June 2, 2012 at 1:05 pm |
    • Jonathan

      Nice to hear your opinion, but what makes them morons?

      June 2, 2012 at 1:08 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I have no idea what makes someone a moron; I do know that those who are ignorant of the scientific meaning of theory and who refuse to acknowledge the presence of mountains of evidence of evolution's occurrence exhibit extreme stupidity. Therefore, I conclude they are morons.

      June 2, 2012 at 1:13 pm |
    • Bizarre

      Jonathan,

      Do you really think that "God" takes the time/effort to create new, mutated flu viruses all the time... to cause immense suffering and death in his pet humans?

      June 2, 2012 at 1:13 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Jonathon – there is tons of evidence for what you claim is false. It isn't out fault that fundiots choose to be ignorant. What makes fundiots morons is that they refuse to accept any evidence that disagrees with a literal genesis.

      June 2, 2012 at 1:17 pm |
    • Jonathan

      @Bizarre

      I am a little confused as to why anyone whould believe God continues to create anything, let alone new strains of virus or bacteria to plague mankind. Natural selection and mutations are more than enough to explain these occurances. This doesn't mean the organisms are achieving any new genetic material that allows them to overcome previously deadly substances. It could be a simple mutation along the receptor sites that no longer function exactly the same way. Lose of efficiency and resistance to a particular substance might be beneficial in the short run, but removal of the harmful substance will allow for 'selection' of the non-mutated strains to overcome the slower, more restistant strains.

      June 2, 2012 at 1:22 pm |
    • Rebel4Christ

      Tom what does it matter if we gain the whole wide(scientific knowledge)but lose our soul. Look at America's economy right now it's way low, Don't you think that's maybe because America is not trusting the God who found it? We need to start putting our trust in God, but instead of taking my advice you will just make fun of my advice and call me an idiot! Jesus is coming back and it's going to be too late!

      June 2, 2012 at 1:23 pm |
    • Jonathan

      @Primewonk

      If you have any sources for that claim, I would love to see them. Direct evidence of positive genetic acc-umulation and observance of this process, aside from the obvious hybridizations, would be welcome.

      June 2, 2012 at 1:28 pm |
    • Jack Simth

      Umm... right. Let's look at a few things. Not long ago, there was a report on genetic research ( http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/05/25/gene-discovery-could-lead-to-birth-control-pill-for-men/) – if you delve into the article, it tells you how they're doing the research: They're introducing mutations, looking for loss of function, and then sorting out which genes were mutated.

      The thing is: They never get new function that way. Genes are big things. Four options for a genetic letter (AGCT), Three letters per amino acid (20 amino acids used in the human body, rather than the 64 combinations that an ordered set of three would suggest when there's four options per letter; there are some redundancies, 'stop here' flags, and the like), and individual proteins can easily be five hundred amino acids long. It is demonstrable that for the most part, one amino acid out of place reduces the resulting protein to a waste of materials.

      In order for big-E Evolution (big E: Speciation, new structures – basically increased complexity of life; bacteria to worms and such – as opposed to little-e evolution, which is just a change in what genes are most common within a species, like a predominance of light coloured peppered moths vs. dark coloured peppered moths, which requires no mutation at all to pull off, as both dark and light coloured moths were present both before & after) to get a new protein that actually serves a function, you need a VERY LARGE number of very precise mutations... and until it's finished, it's just a waste of materials. Natural selection can only operate on things that are expressed, and that do something (if the gene does not meet both criteria, it cannot offer any advantage at all, and Evolution cannot select for it). So in order to get a 500 amino-acid protein, you need 1,500 mutations in a row, each of which has a 1 in 4 chance of getting the 'right' genetic letter. If we make the rather generous assumption that half of the amino acids don't really matter (aka, they're just structural, there are alternates, and so on), then we need 750 mutations in a row to get that protein's function... during which time selection must be suspended, as we can't select for it until it does something useful. 4^750 is approximately equal to 3.5 * 10^451. Genetics are quite stable; there are some transcription errors, but a human is expected to only have about two copy errors in their entire genetic code. Not only will you need an absolute minimum of 750 generations to get this new 500 amino acid protein, but the odds of getting it are approximately one in 3.5 * 10^451st. There's only thought to be about 10^80 atoms in the universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe). There aren't enough materials for random processes to have a reasonable chance of coming up with even one usable protien. Much less the approximately 24,500 thought needed to make up a human (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_genes_are_active_in_the_human_body).

      Creationism is at least reasonably consistent with the rules it lays out for itself when examined in detail. Big-E Evolution, not so much.

      TLDR: Big-E Evolution: The math doesn't work.

      June 2, 2012 at 1:31 pm |
    • Me II

      @jonathon,
      Not sure if this is what you're looking for but Lenski's team did a long term study wherein e.coli evolvedthe ability to metabolize citrate. http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

      June 2, 2012 at 1:52 pm |
    • Jonathan

      @Me II

      Thank you for sharing the link. I will take some time and give it a good look.

      June 2, 2012 at 2:20 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Reb says, "Our economy is way low."

      Wow. What insight.

      You're almost on a par with Jonathan. You analysis makes just about as much sense.

      June 2, 2012 at 3:14 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      @Reb: God "found" our country? Do tell. Explain how that happened and when. I'm sure the Indian nations would be most interested in your understanding.

      Honey, when you graduate from high school, send me an announcement.

      June 2, 2012 at 3:16 pm |
  6. Rick James

    It's truly disheartening to see creationists try and disprove actual science with their made-up science. Like so....

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504&w=640&h=360]

    June 2, 2012 at 12:31 pm |
    • ME II

      This is ridiculous, of course.
      The conditions on the Earth 4+ billion years ago were nothing like a jar of Peanut Butter, so this "experiment" tells us nothing about how life on Earth first began.

      ps The Theory of Evolution begins after life has already started, so this video clip says nothing about Evolution at all.

      June 2, 2012 at 12:54 pm |
    • Rick James

      Exactly, Me, but there are some people, like Chad, who will tend to confuse abiogenesis and evolution to make their point. Evolution is a theory that has proven to be very factual. Abiogenesis is also very plausible, but we don't know everything about it yet.

      June 2, 2012 at 1:07 pm |
    • ME II

      @Rick James,
      Oh, sorry. I didn't see your comment on top. You were posting as an example of bad science, correct? Yes, it is that.

      June 2, 2012 at 1:13 pm |
    • Mark

      Breathtaking stupidity. Astonishing.

      June 2, 2012 at 1:31 pm |
  7. Chad

    What was the first step of evolution?

    How did life on earth first get started?

    Random, spontaneous generation?

    Really?

    Virtually all biologists now agree that bacterial cells cannot form from nonliving chemicals in one step. If life arises from nonliving chemicals, there must be intermediate forms, "precellular life." Of the various theories of precellular life, the most popular contender today is "the RNA world."

    RNA has the ability to act as both genes and enzymes. This property could offer a way around the "chicken-and-egg" problem. (Genes require enzymes; enzymes require genes.) Furthermore, RNA can be transcribed into DNA, in reverse of the normal process of transcription. These facts are reasons to consider that the RNA world could be the original pathway to cells. James Watson enthusiastically praises Sir Francis Crick for having suggested this possibility (1):

    The time had come to ask how the DNA→ RNA→ protein flow of information had ever got started. Here, Francis was again far ahead of his time. In 1968 he argued that RNA must have been the first genetic molecule, further suggesting that RNA, besides acting as a template, might also act as an enzyme and, in so doing, catalyze its own self-replication.
    It was prescient of Crick to guess that RNA could act as an enzyme, because that was not known for sure until it was proven in the 1980s by Nobel Prize-winning researcher Thomas R. Cech (2) and others. The discovery of RNA enzymes launched a round of new theorizing that is still under way. The term "RNA world" was first used in a 1986 article by Harvard molecular biologist Walter Gilbert (3):

    The first stage of evolution proceeds, then, by RNA molecules performing the catalytic activities necessary to assemble themselves from a nucleotide soup. The RNA molecules evolve in self-replicating patterns, using recombination and mutation to explore new niches. ... they then develop an entire range of enzymic activities. At the next stage, RNA molecules began to synthesize proteins, first by developing RNA adaptor molecules that can bind activated amino acids and then by arranging them according to an RNA template using other RNA molecules such as the RNA core of the ribosome. This process would make the first proteins, which would simply be better enzymes than their RNA counterparts. ... These protein enzymes are ... built up of mini-elements of structure.
    Finally, DNA appeared on the scene, the ultimate holder of information copied from the genetic RNA molecules by reverse transcription. ... RNA is then relegated to the intermediate role it has today—no longer the center of the stage, displaced by DNA and the more effective protein enzymes.

    Today, research in the RNA world is a medium-sized industry. Scientists in this field are able to demonstrate that random sequences of RNA sometimes exhibit useful properties. For example, in 1995, a trio at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research reported "Structurally Complex and Highly Active RNA Ligases Derived from Random RNA Sequences" (4). (Ligases are enzymes that splice together other molecules such as DNA or RNA.) The results are interesting—they suggest that randomness can produce functionality. The authors interpret the results to mean that "the number of distinct complex functional RNA structures is very large indeed."

    There is a lot to learn about RNA, and research like this is how we learn it. But these and other similar findings arrived at in highly orchestrated experiments that start with biologically produced RNA are very far from proving that the RNA world is the pathway between nonlife and life. In nature, far from the sterilized laboratory, uncontaminated RNA strands of any size would be unlikely to form in the first place. "... The direct synthesis of ... nucleotides from prebiotic precursors in reasonable yield and unaccompanied by larger amounts of unrelated molecules could not be achieved by presently known chemical reactions" (5).
    Francis Crick himself has become much less enthusiastic about the RNA world than Watson. In 1973, he and another eminent researcher into the origin of life, Leslie E. Orgel, published a paper advocating the theory called "Directed Panspermia" (6). In 1981, Crick published Life Itself, a whole book about that theory (7). And by 1993 he says, "It may turn out that we will eventually be able to see how this RNA world got started. At present, the gap from the primal 'soup' to the first RNA system capable of natural selection looks forbiddingly wide"

    June 2, 2012 at 12:19 pm |
    • Jeanine

      Chad, you really should go make your comments on the Foxnews website. They will pat you on the back.
      Here, you face those who oppose lies and will scorn your continual babbling for the dreck it is.

      June 2, 2012 at 12:26 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      The Chard is a dolt.

      June 2, 2012 at 12:31 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.

      For some bizarre reason, ignorant fundiots, such as yourself, are unable, or unwilling, to understand this.

      Tou choose to be ignorant. But earing that ignorance as a badge of honor is just sad.

      June 2, 2012 at 12:35 pm |
    • ME II

      I'm not certain how accurate your posting is (try a link or citation sometime), but if true, so what?
      I sounds to me like they are saying, 'We don't know what happened but we're looking into it.' Nothing wrong with that.

      June 2, 2012 at 12:39 pm |
    • Be

      I don't know if Chad is dolt(A mental retard who is clueless not only about current events, but also has the IQ level of a rock. "Dolt" may be the most sophisticated insult in the English language.) or a liar and needs to be scorned. However both you seemed to brushed Chad of without any work of your own. So who told you what Chad cites is bunk and not worth your time to help him out? Of course then again I not going to either, I am going to go dolt around with my buddies in Diablo III.

      "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

      June 2, 2012 at 12:43 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      As @Primewonk said, your post is about abiogenesis not evolution and it is no secret that science does not fully understand the origin of life on this planet yet.
      Again, what is your point?

      June 2, 2012 at 12:44 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You do that, Be. It will be time better spent than posting your drivel here.

      June 2, 2012 at 12:45 pm |
    • Chad

      At the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, in 1994, Leslie Orgel observes, "Because synthesizing nucleotides and achieving replication of RNA under plausible prebiotic conditions have proved so challenging, chemists are increasingly considering the possibility that RNA was not the first self replicating molecule..." (9).

      Apparently NASA has lost enthusiasm for the RNA world as well. In the Final Report issued after the "Astrobiology Workshop" held September 9-11, 1996 at Ames Research Center, California, we read (10),

      It has been postulated that there was a time in protobiological evolution when RNA played a dual role as both genetic material and a catalytic molecule ("the RNA world"). However, this appealing concept encounters significant difficulties. RNA is chemically fragile and difficult to synthesize abiotically. The known range of its catalytic activities is rather narrow, and the origin of an RNA synthetic apparatus is unclear.

      June 2, 2012 at 1:16 pm |
    • Chad

      @Chad: "What was the first step of evolution? How did life on earth first get started? Random, spontaneous generation? Really?"

      @ME II "As @Primewonk said, your post is about abiogenesis not evolution"

      @Chad "re-read my intro above...

      @ME II "and it is no secret that science does not fully understand the origin of life on this planet yet.Again, what is your point?"

      @Chad "actually, we know a great deal. In fact the point of the posts was to show that we know that it (RNA world) is utterly improbable.

      atheists, always trying to characterize known and realized dead ends as "understandable incompleteness of knowledge" 😉

      June 2, 2012 at 1:23 pm |
    • Primewonk

      I wonder why Chad references 15-20 year old articles? I wonder why he didn't post the articles about scientists crearing sel-replicating DNA?

      June 2, 2012 at 1:25 pm |
    • Rachel

      Chad-That was a fantastic post!

      🙂

      June 2, 2012 at 1:26 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Chad/Rachel: Do you cross-dress, too?

      June 2, 2012 at 3:17 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Anyone ever see "Rachel" post anything other than azz-kissing responses to "Chad"?

      Really, Chard, you're so dumb it's sad.

      June 2, 2012 at 3:18 pm |
    • ME II

      Chad,

      You said, "re-read my intro above..."

      Yes, it talks about abiogenesis too. "first step", "first get started" Then we agree, great.
      The point of my phrasing was merely to clarify an earlier post of mine that might have been misconstrued to indicate that 'we don't know what happened...' after life first started, which was not what I meant.

      You said, "actually, we know a great deal. In fact the point of the posts was to show that we know that it (RNA world) is utterly improbable."

      I don't know what the probabilities of an RNA world are and wouldn't know if that translated into "utterly improbable" either. You might be entirely correct and the 'RNA world' hypothesis is invalid. Why does that matter?

      My question is basically why do you find it important to try to discredit one particular hypothesis on abiogenesis? A quick look on Wikepedia (I know it's not a valid source, but does provide a good starting point in many cases), reveals several hypotheses that are being investigated such as, PAH world hypothesis, Lipid world, Clay hypothesis, "Metabolism first" models, Zn-World, Radioactive beach hypothesis, just to grab a few headings. Not to mention that it might be something we haven't even thought of yet.

      And, finally, even if none of them are shown to be likely, that does not lend credence to any other hypothesis. For example, if 'RNA world' is shown to be definitively invalid, then how much credence does that give the 'metabolism first' model, or the 'Zn world'? Answer, none.
      The failure of one hypothesis deosn't give another hypothesis any more or less credence, unless they are shown to be mutually exclusive and 'collectively exhaustive', if that is the correct term, which they haven't.

      June 2, 2012 at 5:02 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II "You might be entirely correct and the 'RNA world' hypothesis is invalid. Why does that matter?"
      @Chad "odd question..
      if it's incorrect (which it is), that demonstrates it is incorrect and people shouldn't think it's correct.. fairly simple..

      Basically all I do on this board is point out that the foundations upon which atheism is built are deeply flawed, and correct misconceptions about the bible where I can.

      All of those hypothesis are grasping at straws.. trying someway to somehow convince yourselves that God doesnt exist.

      June 2, 2012 at 7:14 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      "the foundations upon which atheism is built"
      And again, I repeat, atheism (non-theism, excluding strong/positive atheism) is simply a lack of belief in god(s), nothing else. As such it really has no foundation.

      "All of those hypothesis are grasping at straws.. trying someway to somehow convince yourselves that God doesnt exist."
      Science is *not* atheism. Those hypotheses are questions and possible answers about something unknown, not an effort to convince anyone about God's existence, or lack thereof.

      Peace...

      June 2, 2012 at 8:51 pm |
    • Chad

      Perhaps you will find the definition of the word "atheism" usefull, you seem to be a bit confused..
      Always nice to know what the accepted definition is, of that which you define yourself as 😉

      Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2][3] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3][4][5] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[6][7] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[7][8]
      The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god", used as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshipped by the larger society. With the spread of freethought, skeptical inquiry, and subsequent increase in criticism of religion, application of the term narrowed in scope. The first individuals to identify themselves using the word "atheist" lived in the 18th century.[9]
      Atheists tend to be skeptical of supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence for deities.[10] Rationales for not believing in any deity include the problem of evil, the argument from inconsistent revelations, and the argument from nonbelief. Other arguments for atheism range from the philosophical to the social to the historical. Although some atheists have adopted secular philosophies,[11][12] there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.[13] Many atheists hold that atheism is a more parsimonious worldview than theism, and therefore the burden of proof lies not on the atheist to disprove the existence of God, but on the theist to provide a rationale for theism.
      wiki

      Definition of ATHEISM
      1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
      2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
      b : the doctrine that there is no deity
      Merriam-Webster

      atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable Encyclopedia Britannica.

      "atheism has no foundation"? What then is your rationale for "a lack of belief in god(s)"

      June 2, 2012 at 11:46 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Come on, Rachel, why don't you post another kiss-on-the-butt for Chard?

      June 2, 2012 at 11:47 pm |
  8. twistedphilosophy

    Seriously America? We're smarter than this. Public education isn't failing, America's intellect in general is failing. At the least, please encourage your children to be free thinkers instead of feeding them this BS. Creationism is a joke.

    June 2, 2012 at 11:36 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Children can't be 'free thinkers' when they are deprived of real science education.

      June 2, 2012 at 11:45 am |
    • twistedphilosophy

      And this is the main problem. Our education system is failing in a sense, but the main problem is the environment. With over half of Americans believing Creationism, the children basically ignore what they are taught in school because it goes against what their parents and the church told them. Just look at Creationist museums and how they brainwash children into doubting science.

      June 2, 2012 at 11:49 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      The "main problem" is that the Republicans and the Tea Baggers have begun to gut public schools in order to establish a voucher system that will support their religious agenda.

      June 2, 2012 at 11:55 am |
    • twistedphilosophy

      That could be part of the problem, but I disagree it is the main problem. Science is still taught in school, albeit very poorly until you get to college, yet children don't believe most of what they are taught because their parents, church, and other creationists' tell them it is hogwash. The government could finance the best school system in the world and children are still going to believe what their parents tell them. Instead of forcing beliefs on children, they should be encouraged to think for themselves when it comes to science and education.

      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PF6O9g6kYE&w=420&h=315]

      June 2, 2012 at 12:33 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      While you have a point, you should check out what the NCLB has done to science education in the public schools. There is NO doubt that science has taken a back seat to reading and math since NCLB was enacted and it shows.

      June 2, 2012 at 12:36 pm |
    • twistedphilosophy

      That link doesn't seem to work. Last try

      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PF6O9g6kYE&w=640&h=360]

      June 2, 2012 at 12:37 pm |
    • twistedphilosophy

      I took a look at it and you also have a point. One section I noticed is that they will only fund programs that are backed by evidence. Given that half of Americans are creationists', politicians included, they don't see any evidence in science when it comes to evolution, biology, abiogenesis, etc. At the same time, it's extremely contradicting for them to hold the view that creationism is correct as the only so-called "evidence" is the bible which also isn't proven to be correct. Basically, anything that is regarded as a scientific theory will not be taught in school because the government doesn't see it as having enough evidence to back it. This explains why math and reading seem to be the focal point.

      June 2, 2012 at 12:47 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I don't believe you "took a look at it". I think you perhaps pretended to do so. NCLB says nothing about 'evidence'.

      The fact is that NCLB has emphasized reading and math scores on standardized tests because they are easier to measure by such means than are the sciences. That reading and math are emphasized by being subject to high-stakes testing results in less time being spent on science, the arts, etc. during the school day. There is just so much time and it is spent on the subjects the government deems important. The government deems reading and math 'important' because it's easy to test those subject. The rest of the educational sphere gets ignored.

      June 2, 2012 at 1:02 pm |
    • twistedphilosophy

      It's a waste of my time to even "pretend" to do something and I would never attempt to just pull something out of my ass. I had the decency to accept your opinion and research it with the time I had. As time permits, I can research it further.

      http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/methods/science/science.html at the bottom of the page quotes, "No Child Left Behind requires that federal funding go only to programs that are backed by evidence."

      Of course I haven't read it in its entirety, I merely quoted one piece I found interesting for the current moment. Once I have completely researched it, I'm sure I will find more information to back your opinion.

      June 2, 2012 at 1:20 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      PROGRAMS means educational approaches. I think you misunderstand what the site is describing.

      June 2, 2012 at 3:33 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Evolution continues to be taught in most public schools. What you are saying is that science is being ignored because science education must deal with scientific theory. That is NOT the case. What is happening is that the government is emphasizing reading and math because they are easily quantifiable. Because THOSE are the subjects most tested, schools spend more time on them which necessitates spending less time on other subjects and disciplines. It has nothing to do with 'theory' or 'evidence".

      June 2, 2012 at 3:38 pm |
  9. Iceman6161

    The modern man (black man) has been on this earth for more than 200,000 yrs and the bible goes back um 8, 9000 at best!!! Answer that bible scholars

    June 2, 2012 at 11:33 am |
    • twistedphilosophy

      Exactly! How could anyone blatantly ignore the fact that we can trace our mitochondrial DNA through our maternal ancestry to around 200,000 years ago in Africa and then claim the world is less than 10,000 years old? 46% of Americans are basically telling their kids to not trust science and to accept everything they [the parents and the bible] tell them based on zero evidence. It's insane.

      June 2, 2012 at 11:43 am |
    • driouxcipher

      Exactly! The world wasn't created after the domestication of the dog. Wake up people. These are facts.

      June 2, 2012 at 12:39 pm |
  10. howart Dao

    BoyGeorge: The TRUTH is ONE wants us to find out things that is why he gave you a BRAIN to reason and think for yourself and not blind-fully following words of mouth beginning 5000 years ago and kept changing ever since. He is all powerful so he doesn't need us to worship him nor any one to die for our sins. The TRUTH is to Just live right and do the right things. Can iyou think about that ?

    June 2, 2012 at 10:50 am |
    • Voice of Reason

      Question everything.

      June 2, 2012 at 10:53 am |
    • howart Dao

      religion : NO question allowed. Only obedient.

      June 2, 2012 at 10:57 am |
    • camp

      VOR "Quesion everything" but don't expect a reasonable answer...on this blog anyway.........

      June 2, 2012 at 11:07 am |
    • Cq

      What are "the right things" that we should do?

      June 2, 2012 at 11:25 am |
    • BoldGeorge

      @ Cq

      Your question is by far the smartest, honestly. You see, the right thing is different with each human being. There is no true "right thing" for everyone because what is right for me may be wrong for you and vice-versa. And if we say "the right thing" we must conclude that there is such a thing as "wrong" as well. So if we have right and wrong, we must also inevitably conclude that there is a moral law. And having a moral law, we must conclude that there is a Judge who imparts this moral law, because it just can't appear out of nowhere. And if there is a Judge, than you better believe that we will be held accountable..........and this is the very reason why we choose not to believe, because we don't want to be held accountable. Accountability can be a killer (and is for some).

      June 2, 2012 at 11:37 am |
    • BoldGeorge

      ...And this Judge has given us humans His righteous standards for living. I and everyone else on this planet have failed miserably in obeying His righteous standards. That is why God came in the form of a man to live as an example, die for our sins and unrighteousness and resurrected to show us that there is victory over sin and death when we allow Him to impute in us His righteousness, as we ourselves cannot do it on our own.

      June 2, 2012 at 11:42 am |
    • Jeanine

      I see George has a messiah complex.
      George, you should try being humble and admit you don't actually know what you are talking about.

      June 2, 2012 at 12:29 pm |
    • driouxcipher

      There is an evolutionary, biological imperative for people to be good. Morality doesn't need a magical sky fairy in order to exist. Just as Christians pick and choose what they believe out of the bible, so everyone else can pick and choose what is good and what is not from the options presented to us. And if we're taught well - regardless of god - we will make the right choices. God is not a factor in morality, and - given the incredible, on-going, body count that religion is responsible for - does not have the market cornered on it in any way.

      June 2, 2012 at 12:42 pm |
    • BoldGeorge

      @ driouxcipher

      Christians don't pick and choose what the bible says. It is the so-called christian (in other words, the hypocrite) that picks and chooses.

      June 2, 2012 at 1:31 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      And you would be a case in point, BG, along with Heaven Sent and the other boobs.

      June 2, 2012 at 3:49 pm |
  11. Be

    A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question. - Charles Darwin

    While this quote had been pulled out of context from the 'Introduction to Origin of Species', it is still valuable, because it is how we hope science should work. However science is often so complex that it is rare that science can ever test a full argument from both sides, just from smaller subsets. That doesn’t mean science isn’t valid or that there is no wiggle room for opposition, at least in the larger view.

    June 2, 2012 at 10:42 am |
    • Be

      Scientific Theories are true measurable and replicable observations, however how we interpret those observations is based on the scientists current understanding and current tools, then once it become widely accepted other scientists put their stamp of sciences highest approval on those observations and call them Scientific Theory. Who has problem with that, humans doing the best they can with no ulterior motives! Oh wait you say! Only non-religious humans are capable of non-ulterior motives, because religion and science are like oil and water! Only religious humans are capable of greed and prestige! If you’re an atheists think those thoughts then it might be time for a pause, remember you look human to the rest of us.

      I am not saying, "evolution" isn't real, if you start looking a bit harder you might realize evolution is big word. You might realize what the observations where that lead to those evolution. If you already have taken the time, good for you! Maybe it is time to realize you are part of the human race and not avoid from flaws of just one kind! I am saying question everything and open your ears it won't make you a dummy, what are you so scared of?

      “The greatest of all the accomplishments of twentieth-century science has been the discovery of human ignorance.”

      June 2, 2012 at 10:43 am |
    • camp

      Thank you! At least the first intelligent response to the arguement,,,,,,,,,

      June 2, 2012 at 10:47 am |
    • Voice of Reason

      What a bunch of cr*ap!

      June 2, 2012 at 10:52 am |
    • camp

      "bunch of crap" ? so Darwin is wrong in this statement?

      June 2, 2012 at 10:54 am |
    • Voice of Reason

      @camp

      That's the "only" statement of any substance.

      June 2, 2012 at 11:06 am |
    • chubby rain

      Agree with voice of reason - this is pretty much drivel. Evolution is scientific fact. We know that things evolve, this is irrefutable given the mountain of evidence. Theories explain facts and the current theory explaining evolution is the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. That theory has led to most of the advances in modern biology and medicine. The reason we can use animals as model organisms is based on the common ancestry leading to us sharing many of the same cellular mechanisms.

      Creationism on the other hand has not improved people's lives in an way, has not lead to a significant scientific advance, and has no supporting evidence and much evidence contradicting it.

      June 2, 2012 at 11:15 am |
    • Cq

      Be
      What would be the ulterior motive behind scientists fudging their results in favor of evolution, as you seem to be implying? Are the big Pharma companies selling some kind of miracle "evolution pill" that you're skeptical of, or something?

      June 2, 2012 at 11:29 am |
    • Be

      Rather the fact is that Evolution is a Scientific Theory or Evolution is factual Scientific Theory doesn't mean we are done. There is more to learn about evolution, else why do so many scientist continue studying it. There is no end to learning if anything has proven that this is true it has been during your lifetime for sure.

      When you state evolution is a fact like 1+1=2, then I believe in my personal scientific testable opinion that you don't really know Evolution Theory or Darwin!

      "Authenticity is the alignment of head, mouth, heart, and feet – thinking, saying, feeling, and doing the same thing – consistently. This builds trust, and followers love leaders they can trust."

      June 2, 2012 at 11:40 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Be says "we are not done."

      No kidding. Science is NEVER 'done'.

      That is one fact that sets it apart from religious belief.

      June 2, 2012 at 11:42 am |
    • Be

      Cq, your error in assumption because you perceive that I am religious. Which I will now perceive to assume from what you just said that you are not and will possibly error in mine.

      That being said, when I said, "ulterior motives" I mean that humans are cable of error and deceiving themselves. I admit that I could be and that you could be. However that doesn't mean that I don't believe you should not continue to support evolution theory because you have some ulterior motive or would I imply that scientist as a group should not either, but am pretty sure many do have ulterior motives for they are human and incapable of perfect reason not unaffected by the influence of others.

      There is room for discussion is all I am saying and many here appear to rather murder and strangle that discussion by cutting off the heads of everyone who opposes them or professes a relation to some one that opposes them. INSANITY...

      "By annihilating the desires, you annihilate the mind. Every man without passions has within him no principle of action, nor motive to act."

      June 2, 2012 at 11:57 am |
    • Be

      Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son, I agree with you 100% as person of faith who tries to devote my life over all to the Being who orchestrated human existence. I do not believe God has given man the understanding of everything. In fact I believe he left us with an imperfect knowledge for our own good. I find no fault in the humans searching for spirituality and find no fault in the human search for Scientific Theory. Any religion, church or person that thinks knowledge about God is complete is as finished up as the idea that the world is flat. If some think that the last word of God on how old the earth is comes from the Bible and he doesn't expect us to not continue to observe the world around us with the best we can do, so be it. I do not have to think less of them in order to believe they should open their eyes a little more. Telling them their eyes are shut completely is a little naive though.

      June 2, 2012 at 12:22 pm |
    • Jeanine

      Be, you said, ""By annihilating the desires, you annihilate the mind. Every man without passions has within him no principle of action, nor motive to act.""
      Whether these are your words or someone else's the fact remains that this statement is completely false.
      You don't like having your head chopped off? Don't say crazy bs and you won't find many who will oppose you.

      June 2, 2012 at 12:23 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You don't agree with me in the slightest, Be, as I don't believe in a supreme being who created all and condemns its imperfect creation to hell for being imperfect. I have no time for creationists or anyone else who lacks even a crude understanding of scientific processes.

      Get bent.

      June 2, 2012 at 12:26 pm |
    • chubby rain

      Be, you obviously do not know what a "scientific fact" is if you are comparing to a mathematical equation. As one of the scientists who does research relating to biochemistry, I have a pretty good idea that there is much we don't know. I also know that there is much evidence that supports evolutionary theory. You seem to be trying to undermine that fact.

      scientific fact – an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final)
      from free dictionary dot com

      June 2, 2012 at 12:27 pm |
    • Be

      --
      Tom, I did not state I believe in a God "who created all and condemns its imperfect creation to hell for being imperfect." you did.

      Chubby I did not compare 1+1=2 to a scientific fact, I reread what I said and think I explained it, do a search and you will see who is saying that, but it isn't me.

      Kind of sad you continue making assumptions about me.

      June 2, 2012 at 3:00 pm |
  12. Rick James

    I love America, but I don't believe in the notion of "American Exceptionalism" that many people seem to have. Looking at this data only confirms that. We are behind the nation of Cyprus in the terms of the percentage of people that accept the truth. For America to truly start to be exceptional, we have to start putting more emphasis on math and science that unlocked the code of life and put people on the moon, not being the world's police. We have to quit believing the notion that we are on a 10000 year old Earth and accept the fact that everything on the earth changes and has a history.

    June 2, 2012 at 10:41 am |
    • Rae

      Excellent comment.

      June 2, 2012 at 11:12 am |
    • Dave

      Agreed.

      The only thing about America that seems to be exceptional anymore is the exceptional need to believe that we are still exceptional.

      June 2, 2012 at 11:41 am |
    • Rick James

      Dave, you obviously get what I am saying. We need to be the world's example in terms of educating it's citizens to know and find out about the truth of life.

      June 2, 2012 at 11:59 am |
  13. BoldGeorge

    Oh no! Not this subject again. Boy, CNN can't get enough of creationists debating evolutionists (or everyone else for that matter). Some moderator in here is either really confused and wants to make up his mind by reading some seriously convincing argument posted by a commenter or they get a kick out of the almost useless debates or maybe even the bashing that goes on in here.

    For the record, I only use this forum to reach out to those who are honestly seeking the truth which can only be found in Scripture and to help those that are being led astray by the so-called know-it-alls in here. I am never here to debate, to argue or much less to be bashed/bad-mouthed all in the name of being persecuted. In other words, I want to reach out to the unbeliever who is willing to humble him/herself and remove all pride and recognize that our sinfulness will never let us come to know God and come into a relationship with Him through Jesus Christ our Savior who is the only way, the TRUTH and the life. Evolution is the total opposite of that: it is NOT the only way, it is never the truth (because all is relative) and it most certainly never life, as it is all based on death after death to try to come up with a superior species.

    June 2, 2012 at 10:13 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Why don't you post your "success rate", BG? How many people here have EVER 'reached out' to you and converted?

      June 2, 2012 at 10:15 am |
    • Voice of Reason

      @"I only use this forum to reach out to those who are honestly seeking the truth which can only be found in Scripture"

      What truth can be found? And you better have proof to back it up or don't bother to answer.

      June 2, 2012 at 10:16 am |
    • howart Dao

      BoyGeorge: your truth does NOT come from THINKING from within your own BRAIN. You simply repeat blindly words of mouth that had been passed on with embellishment an lot of updates.

      June 2, 2012 at 10:54 am |
    • BoldGeorge

      @ Tom Tom

      My dear friend, God's success is not measured in numbers. We cannot measure spiritual success with "how may people convert" like if it were a sales product. Godly success is measured within each individual's life-testimony. Again, success in Christ is not the same as success in numbers. Even the Bible states that MANY are called but FEW are chosen; few enter through the narrow gate but many enter through the broad gate that leads to destruction. Numbers is a devil's game to be quite blunt with you. The Bible itself predicts that the gospels won't see success in numbers but will see success in the fruitful spirit of every individual who is converted to Christ. I know for sure that I am a successfully saved believer not by anything that I've done other than giving myself to Him, but of what He did and continues to do in my life.

      June 2, 2012 at 10:55 am |
    • BoldGeorge

      @ howart Dao

      So do you. You repeat everything that has been taught to you. You've never actually experienced anything in terms of science other than that fact that you are living and breathing. We are all taught, indoctrinated and brain-washed. The question really is WHO is it that you are allowing to do the brain-washing.

      June 2, 2012 at 10:58 am |
    • howart Dao

      so there is QUOTA for total number of people that can get in heaven. I am sure that number has already filled. Why is BoyGeorge trying to recruit more people to get in a line with no chance of getting in 🙂

      June 2, 2012 at 11:02 am |
    • howart Dao

      BoyGeorge: I read all sides and give considerations to all sides. You just read 1 book and ONLY one version of that book 😉

      June 2, 2012 at 11:04 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      In other words, George, you haven't convinced anyone.

      June 2, 2012 at 11:18 am |
    • BoldGeorge

      @ Howart

      ~ "Why is BoyGeorge trying to recruit more people to get in a line with no chance of getting in"
      The very fact that you were born and are still breathing should be convincing enough to you that you still have a chance to be redeemed. God is still giving you a chance while you are breathing. Believe in Him, repent from your pride and sinfulness and turn to Christ to be saved, all this while you are still alive.

      ~ "I read all sides and give considerations to all sides. You just read 1 book and ONLY one version of that book"
      And who says I haven't read all or most of all sides??? Your assumptions amaze me. I have read and was only convinced by the Bible, God's word. I found it to be the source of Truth, wisdom and hope. There is no other book nor belief system that offers anything close to it.

      June 2, 2012 at 11:29 am |
    • Bobby

      @BoldGeorge
      I can't help but notice that you're selling yourself as a know-it-all regarding scripture. 🙂

      June 2, 2012 at 11:33 am |
    • Cq

      BoldGeorge
      Most of us atheists were once believers and have seen both sides of the issue. I've read the Bible probably several times over by now, but I've also read most of the other ancient myths and discovered that there isn't much original, or unique about the Bible. It's just the same expression of belief that all the ancients had. The same basic kind of stories and the same legendary building of a grandiose history of a people. It's typical of what people wrote at that time, nothing more.

      June 2, 2012 at 11:41 am |
    • BoldGeorge

      @ Cq

      I don't know what to tell you other than that many lives have been transformed and have been renewed by God's word, giving people a true hope. I am sorry to know that this has not been your case. But I know of atheists and unbelievers alike having been transformed or redirected back to God and His righteousness. There are countless testimonies about conversions by unbelievers in the form of: drug-addicts, mur.derers, prost.itu.tes, gays, bullies, agnostics, other religious affiliates, etc. The Bible has the power to transform and give hope and no other book or myth or belief system offers anything even close to it as Scripture does. I've never heard of someone being transformed and renewed to a life of righteousness by the belief in Zeus, Hercules or Medussa, or a leprechaun, or by the prophet Mohammed to love thy neighbor even if they are unbelievers. Jesus preached to everyone to hear and did not condone violence whether they believed in Him or not.

      You're right, many other myths and belief systems may seem similar, but they are all fundamentally different. You said that you have read the Bible a few times now so you may have noticed that the devil is the prince of deceit and has always wanted to be exalted over (and even above) God. He will spring out counterfeits and weaker duplicates of God's doctrines. You may also have noticed that the Bible teaches to test and question everything and search. Remember, ask and it shall be given, knock and the door shall be opened...You are solely responsible for what you choose to believe in and who you follow (even if it is your own self). Notice this, every other, I mean EVERY other belief system denies the deity of Christ, except the Bible itself. Some other systems may acknowledge that Christ existed but they deny His deity. The bible stands alone on this. So, I urge you to again, read your Bible, test the spirits and learn to accept God's truth. See bible verse below:

      1 John 4:1-3 - Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.

      June 2, 2012 at 12:11 pm |
    • BoldGeorge

      @ Tom, Tom

      You ask if I have or have not convinced anyone, right? If I told you that out of 10,000 people I've preached to I have convinced 9,998, would you be convinced then? Are you looking to be convinced if many others get convinced? [Please answer this if you can]

      I will however, answer your question. It is not my job or any other Christian's job for that matter to do the convincing. The word of God and the Holy Spirit is what does the convincing, depending on the response of the listener. I am just a messenger, not the convincer. I have talked to some people and a few have stayed in the faith. That is enough convincing for me. And I know that many will not respond to the Word. Many will reject it. But my duty is to see beyond that. Like Jesus Himself said: For the Son of Man came to seek and to save that which was lost. (Luke 19:10)

      June 2, 2012 at 12:26 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Provide stats, BG. How many?

      You made the claim. Back it up or retract.

      June 2, 2012 at 12:28 pm |
    • BoldGeorge

      ...and If you don't think you are lost, then salvation is not for you.

      June 2, 2012 at 12:28 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      And if you think you are lost, you're probably dumb enough to believe anything.

      June 2, 2012 at 12:29 pm |
    • BoldGeorge

      @ Tom, Tom

      I think you are not looking for stats, answers or solutions. You are just looking to argue and debate. What stats are you looking for? What is it that you want to see in the form of stats? I just told you that many reject and few accept. The same stats that you are thinking of are the ones that I am thinking of. I'm with you on that. Many are the unbelievers and few are the believers. I know that just as much as you do. But you did not however answer my question:

      If I told you that out of 10,000 people I preached to I have convinced 9,998, would you be convinced then? Are you looking to be convinced if many others get convinced? If you don;t understand the question, then let me pose it this way: If the vast majority choose not to believe because they are not convinced of lack of evidence or any other excuse, would you join that group?

      June 2, 2012 at 12:34 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Poor BG. Do you really think you're going to fool anyone? Either answer or give up. How many converts can you claim? What's your success rate? You're the one who said you're here to present what you consider the truth to those who are seeking it. What kind of return have you achieved?

      June 2, 2012 at 12:38 pm |
    • Thomas

      @BoldGeorge. Thanks for speaking the truth in love and standing firm.

      June 2, 2012 at 12:41 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      What "truth"?

      June 2, 2012 at 12:42 pm |
    • BoldGeorge

      @ Tom Tom

      I don't keep count (maybe I should) but here's my success rate for you (very successful): Out of probably 100 people I have witnessed to, 4 have stayed in the Faith.

      @ Thomas

      Thanks for your encouraging words, but I don't stand firm. The truth of God's word stands firm, and I stand right beside it.

      June 2, 2012 at 12:50 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      So you claim a 4% success rate? Not terribly impressive. If what you are selling was worthy of buying, you'd be boasting a far bigger profit.

      Sorry, BG, but you're simply not terribly convincing or effective as a salesman for jee bus.

      June 2, 2012 at 3:51 pm |
    • Cq

      BoldGeorge
      Many people's lives have been transformed and renewed by watching Oprah on TV too. The rest of daytime TV and the self-help, biography and poetry sections of a bookstore will do the job as well. So would other religious traditions, so don't argue that there is only one source in this.

      Nobody takes the Greek myths seriously anymore, but why wouldn't people back in the day not have been inspired by the heroism of Hercules and Perseus, and the craftiness of leprechauns? People admire Mohammed for his message and Jesus for his. As far as teachers go you could do a lot worse than Jesus, but he was not the family values guy that everyone makes him out to be, nor was he absolutely non-violent as the turning over of the money changer tables indicates. Gandhi wasn't completely non-violent either. He advocated it in Indian's resistance to the British, but dropped it in their relations with Pakistan. Even MLK had his faults in womanizing.

      Point is, no single role model is perfect to base your entire life upon. That's why the rich polytheistic systems, with their wide array of positive and negative god and human behaviors is actually superior in many ways to the very idea of a "perfect" God. Not that God, or Jesus, is perfect in the Bible. God is vindictive, jealous, and otherwise flawed, and Jesus falters in his faith, shows anger and frustration. It's absolutely idiotic to think of either of these characters as "perfect", right? Besides, any "perfect" literary character would be too boring to be interesting, and the Bible is an interesting read.

      Maybe it's Loki, Coyote, Raven, or some other trickster villain who is responsible for deceiving humanity? Why prefer one mythology's archetype over the others? Each is equally likely in the absence of evidence. The Bible says to test all ideas except what it contains. It want's the reader to trust only it, but doesn't offer any logic to demonstrate why it is supposed to be so trustworthy.

      June 3, 2012 at 12:45 pm |
  14. camp

    "A man eats another mans face off" Some guy sends a body part in the mail, yeah our morality has sure evolved for the better.........

    June 2, 2012 at 9:57 am |
    • Voice of Reason

      All the while they were thanking jesus for the food they were about to receive.

      June 2, 2012 at 10:08 am |
    • camp

      Again I thought your world of reason and logic would have figured out by now that this is counter intuitive to a progressive society

      June 2, 2012 at 10:10 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      "Our morality"? How many atheists and agnostics do you imagine would believe that such an act was good? Moral? Acceptable?

      You idiot.

      June 2, 2012 at 10:11 am |
    • Voice of Reason

      @camp

      I have no clue what you are attempting to prove, please expand.

      June 2, 2012 at 10:14 am |
    • camp

      yep just the same old vitirolic reply from ttps when faced with an opportunity to clarfiy AGAIN how reason and logic and science explain this issue, care to respond or just be reduced to insults?

      June 2, 2012 at 10:18 am |
    • Voice of Reason

      Morality has not one iota of interaction with the acts of these people. They are merely mentally disabled at the time of the events took place. You don't need a lot of thought to figure this out do you? I can use the case of people murdering saying god told them to do it. Would you say god and religion were to blame for that?

      June 2, 2012 at 10:26 am |
    • camp

      I am not proving anything I am ASKING how does reason, science and logic, solve this issue of society going crazy and damaging one another. I hear plenty of snarky comments about how horrible Christians are but how do atheists explain, the human element devolving into eating each other, survival of the fittest at its best?

      June 2, 2012 at 10:39 am |
    • Voice of Reason

      @camp

      It is apparent by your answer that you really do not have a clue about evolution and or psychology / psychiatry. Please read and educate yourself as you will find reasonable answers.

      June 2, 2012 at 10:43 am |
    • camp

      I have read quite a bit, just finished "Darwin and Human Evolution" By Randal Keynes. What amazes me on this blog is that when asked a direct question about your camp all I get is insults, rarely any dialouge or answers. I have other forums to communicate and debate, but I rarely find any respectful response ( present company VoR have been respectful in the past) What I was trying to drill into is what is the case for a evolution of morality based on this week's headlines, how is this explained?

      June 2, 2012 at 10:53 am |
    • Voice of Reason

      @camp

      I just do not see any correlation between morality and mental illness, as a mental illness or breakdown of this sort finds oneself in the absence of reality. All rationale is gone, it's called insanity.

      June 2, 2012 at 10:58 am |
    • Primewonk

      Camp – there are whole fields of evolution devoted to the evolution of morals. You simply choose to ignore them. Additionally, morality is not limited to humans. Many of the other animal species we study exhibit morals.

      June 2, 2012 at 11:07 am |
    • camp

      Ok then VOR " we have the defention" of this dilema it is insanity. How does science solve the issue of insanity in order to preserve the progression of man?

      June 2, 2012 at 11:10 am |
    • camp

      Good to hear primework, can you give me an example of morality in the animal world, or a specific resource where I could read about this for myself?

      June 2, 2012 at 11:12 am |
    • Jeanine

      camp, all morality is relative.
      We consider ourselves morally good according to our culture, our ability to feel empathy and sympathy, and our ability to think things through. Even you do this thing, yet you are one of the indoctrinated and can barely think for yourself, having had it burned into your head that you must follow your religious text without question. That is your relative morality, part of your culture.
      If you had been born in Iran, you would be a Muslim. Or born in ancient Greece you would believe in Zeus.
      Had you been born in a witch-doctor's hut you would probably be an animist or whatever the witch-doctor wanted your tribe to believe.
      Your morals in each of these cases would depend on your personal physiology, your personal levels of sympathy and empathy, and your morals would be channeled by your culture to either conform or be outcast in some way.
      Culture is a psychological group-ident..ty sort of thing. You fit your individuality into your surroundings as best you can out of primitive instincts like wanting to belong to a group, and using other mental emotionally charged instincts like empathy and sympathy to determine a great many of your perceptions and motivations.
      You want politeness, yet you aren't even trying to think how you would like us to do that. Can you even articulate what you would prefer in terms of dialogue with atheists? I doubt it.

      June 2, 2012 at 11:16 am |
    • Primewonk

      Camp – google is a verb as well as a noun. Are you not able to construct a valid MESH query in PubMed?

      Anyway – one to get you staarted http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=jailbreak-rat

      June 2, 2012 at 11:16 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Why bother, camp? You're not capable of understanding anything approaching reasonable argument and you're not here to engage in debate. You're a troll. And you post under multiple handles, including Mark the Piddler.

      June 2, 2012 at 11:20 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      There you go, Piddler. Haven't figured out how to spell "dialogue" yet, have you? Pity, all those books you read seem to have zero impact on your literacy.

      June 2, 2012 at 11:22 am |
    • camp

      Primewonk- – thanks for the reference I will look it up. and ttps, reply – unlike you I am seeking more information, using u even hear you reason logic resource available to make an informed decision, Do you even hear yourself? You answers are continually bromidic and offer nothing to the conversation. It is laughable and has no real bearing on what I am trying to ask. My inquiry is not predicated on your insults, and fortunately, there have been others that have given me some great resources to consider, you are just angry and pathethic

      June 2, 2012 at 11:35 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Oh, get over yourself, camp Piddler. You can't even figure out the rules of capitalization, much less understand anything more complex. If you are so irritated that I ridicule and scorn you, then don't post and don't read my posts. Simple as that, dumbaz.

      June 2, 2012 at 11:39 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      To wit: camp Piddler says:I am seeking more information, using u even hear you reason logic resource available to make an informed decision, Do you even hear yourself?

      ---

      Did that make sense to you when you wrote it, honey?

      June 2, 2012 at 11:40 am |
    • Primewonk

      Camp – why are you trying to get scientificinformation on the theory of evolution from an internet message board? Wouldn't your time be better spent enrolling in a remedial level biology class at your closest Community College? Failing that, why do you nnot read the evolution websites at Berkeley or Talkorigins?

      June 2, 2012 at 11:41 am |
    • camp

      Primewonk – what an interesting assumption that you think this is my only resource, and yes I have taken biology in undergrad and grad work....... I found this site an interesting place to ask for outside resources, to see what the pedrestrian is reading and expositing upon, and commenting on.........thanks for the additional sites!

      June 2, 2012 at 11:56 am |
    • Primewonk

      Camp – you claim you've taken biology courses in grad school, yet you demonstrate profound ignorance about the theory of evolution.

      Sorry, but I'm gonna have to call bullshît on this one.

      June 2, 2012 at 12:06 pm |
    • camp

      How ironic....I am getting graded on this blog for typos, now I know how my students feel.............

      June 2, 2012 at 12:07 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Grad work? Balderdash. Any idiot that can't even manage to compose a simple grammatically correct sentence never set foot in a legitimate graduate school, you lying sack.

      June 2, 2012 at 12:08 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      The Piddler has no 'students'. Stop lying about your credentials, you little fraud.

      June 2, 2012 at 12:09 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      It's beyond laughable that anyone who claims to be a 'grad student' would think a blog is a great place to look for 'outside resources'.

      What a fvckin' moron.

      June 2, 2012 at 12:11 pm |
    • camp

      I haven't made any personal statements on evolution, only inquiry regarding others views on the evolution of morality, based on Keynes book on Darwin and Human Evolution. Just asking a rhetorical question to mine for more information.....Funny how quickly it lturns to peronsal attacks and assumptions and insults, Again I thank you for the resources you suggested..........

      June 2, 2012 at 12:13 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Camp reminds me of the cretins taking classes from môrons like Bill Dembski down in Texas. One of the requirements in his anti-science grad and undergrad classes is for these îdiots to go onto internet message boards and post anti-evolution lies.

      June 2, 2012 at 12:16 pm |
    • camp

      BTW – I am takiing your advice ttps and will not respond or follow your tirade anymore, not much substance there, and far from a worthy opponent...........see ya!

      June 2, 2012 at 12:16 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Nice breeze you make with all that back-pedaling, you little weasel.

      Why is it you need to consult a blog that requires no registration to find resources, you little phony?

      June 2, 2012 at 12:17 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I win.

      June 2, 2012 at 12:17 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Camp Piddler folds like a cheap suit. Sayonara, little fake.

      June 2, 2012 at 12:18 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Primewonk, I wouldn't give campy that much credit. The dolt never got past a high school diploma.

      June 2, 2012 at 12:20 pm |
    • camp

      So amusing primewonk, clearly you are not listening to your own rhetoric, I am getting villifyed for choosing to look outside academic world for others opinions, and what they are reading. What makes you so angry at that? Isn't that what your camp is asking to use reason logic to make an informed decision?

      June 2, 2012 at 12:20 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Didn't make the first cut for the National Spelling Bee, did you, campy?

      June 2, 2012 at 12:21 pm |
  15. Voice of Reason

    There was no god, there is no god and there never will be a god. Keep your god and your religion away from our children and our government. Tax all religions.

    June 2, 2012 at 9:48 am |
    • At death atheists believe

      Lol funny you say that..because you have NO proof.

      In fact you have faith.

      June 2, 2012 at 9:51 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      The one who has no proof is you, simpleton.

      June 2, 2012 at 9:56 am |
    • Jeanine

      I agree with you except for one thing: there are no gods so saying something like "keep your god away" literally makes it sound as if you believe in a god and that you want other people to keep that god away from you.
      Why would you use such a silly statement when you are saying there are no gods?
      I agree there are no gods, therefore I suggest you try harder to be consistent within your statements and avoid giving voice to words you do not mean.

      June 2, 2012 at 9:57 am |
    • Voice of Reason

      @Jeanine

      If you are married I sure feel bad for your husband, poor guy.

      June 2, 2012 at 10:07 am |
    • camp

      I thought Morality based on "for the greater good" would solve these kinds of issues............

      June 2, 2012 at 10:09 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You don't "think" at all, camp.

      June 2, 2012 at 10:12 am |
    • camp

      yep ttps never an intelligent response from you just insults, how predictable....................

      June 2, 2012 at 10:41 am |
    • camp

      ...asking you to explain your side and all you have is insults, what you can't defend this moral issue using your reason and logic???

      June 2, 2012 at 10:42 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Why waste my time trying to teach a pig to sing, camp Piddler?

      June 2, 2012 at 11:23 am |
    • Jeanine

      Voice of Reason, I did my best to avoid being insulting, merely wanting to point out the internal inconsistency in your post.
      The rest I leave unsaid out of respect for your laudable efforts in other areas. I am as nice as I can be to those I love as best I can under all circ.umstances. You are free to be a dork. I have better things to do than to get you, "Voice of Reason" to see reason.
      I suggest you change your name to something more appropriate, like "Dorkus Majorcus" or "Mr. Can't-be-bothered-with-proper-speech".

      June 2, 2012 at 11:33 am |
    • Voice of Reason

      @Jeanine

      Whatever oh righteous one! Do enlighten me on my shortcomings.

      June 2, 2012 at 11:42 am |
    • Voice of Reason

      @Jeanine

      Oh Yeah, I almost forgot...go f*uck yourself and your pious ego! You are a moron who loves everyone and everything. Again I feel very sorry for the man or woman that has be around you on a daily basis!

      June 2, 2012 at 11:46 am |
    • Jeanine

      Somebody sounds mad. LOL
      What's wrong, little fellah? Did someone step on your toes on the internet? LOL

      June 2, 2012 at 11:59 am |
    • camp

      cracks me up that the end of the arguement is reduced to accusation and vugarity, Two things that Stephen Douglas claimed formed the weakess form of debate..................

      June 2, 2012 at 12:00 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      It's ARGUMENT, you witless ass.

      June 2, 2012 at 12:06 pm |
    • Jeanine

      I think some people only come here to be abused so they can feel like "martyrs" or something.

      June 2, 2012 at 12:32 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      They like seeing their names in lights....

      June 2, 2012 at 12:33 pm |
    • ME II

      @Voice of Reason,
      I hope someone has hijacked your name, because you're being an A$$ and irrational too. While I agree that there is likely no god(s), you cannot know that, as there is no conclusive evidence either for or against god(s).

      ps. Jeanine is right. "Keep your god ... away..." is inconsistent with your position of there being no God.

      June 2, 2012 at 1:22 pm |
    • Jeanine

      Me II, I have often found that those who claim there is no proof one way or the other to be woefully ignorant people who have no proof of the ignorance of others.

      Their own ignorance is enough for them to be biased in favor of ignorance.

      There are no gods as described in the major religions and no indications whatsoever that there is any sort of supernatural being that interacts with this universe at all in any way at any scale.

      June 2, 2012 at 2:07 pm |
    • Voice of Reason

      @Jeanine

      So sorry I missed all your intellect I had other things to attend to. By the way....go f*uck yourself!

      June 2, 2012 at 4:57 pm |
  16. jamest297

    Since this group of goobers does not think it permissible to believe in only certain parts of their holy scriptures, but have to believe literally in every bit of it, why do they not all handle snakes, stone to death those who wear two fabrics at the same time or grow two different crops on the same farm? Is it because they are mentally ill or ignorant or both? How is it that they do not give their daughters over to stranger male travelers who have appeared at the front door? How is it that they no longer beat their slaves (that right there is technically known as a twofer) or their wives. All we can know for sure is that the whole bible thingy is a real mess.

    June 2, 2012 at 9:45 am |
    • camp

      agree SciGuy" nothing new under the sun"

      June 2, 2012 at 10:46 am |
  17. madmaninthemiddle

    When America is no longer the leader in innovation and technological development, I'm sure that there will be those who believe it's just another punishment from God for "turning our backs on Him.". But the real reason is, we don't accept science. It's very much like a country trying to develop a space program when the majority of its people believe the earth is flat.

    June 2, 2012 at 9:34 am |
    • BoldGeorge

      But there WAS a time where the majority of people believed the earth was flat...and it was called 'science' back then. This is tangible proof that science can be wrong and will be wrong from time to time. Uh, let me rephrase that: It's not that science is wrong, but scientists are the ones that are wrong from time to time. Science is science and the bible is never against science.

      As a matter of fact, there are many scientific statements made in the bible that affirm scientific laws that we know of today. But what many have done today in the name of 'science' is theorize by removing what God has said and done in terms of creation and we have added hypothesis, theories and unsubstantiated fables replacing biblical truth.

      June 2, 2012 at 9:49 am |
    • Voice of Reason

      @BoldGeorge

      Keep deluding yourself as it will comfort you beyond your wildest imagination.

      June 2, 2012 at 10:11 am |
    • Primewonk

      No George, it wasn't. Educated folks (the ones who understood things) as far back as 800BCE said the earth was spherical. It was the ignorant religious dolts who said otherwise. Just like they said the earth was immoveable. the sun went around the earth, and the earth was the center of the universe.

      And you fundiots haven't gotten much smarter.

      June 2, 2012 at 10:15 am |
    • SciGuy

      Darwinists are today's Ptolemaists.

      June 2, 2012 at 10:22 am |
    • ME II

      @SciGuy,
      What's a Darwinist?

      June 2, 2012 at 10:29 am |
    • Jeanine

      BoldGeorge, science is a method of using epistemology to discover facts.
      Those who assumed the Earth was flat did so because they assumed and did not use an unbiased method to arrive at that ridiculous conclusion.
      Had they been able to imagine a flat surface so large that it could be turned upon itself to form a sphere while retaining properties like gravity and weather, they would have also had to imagine that sphere turning beneath a sun or a sun flying around the sphere of the earth.
      Even the stars in the background, if they took any time to check, can be seen to change only slowly over the course of a year.
      Using this data, they would have had one of two basic guesses to make: either the Sun went around the Earth or the Earth somehow went around the Sun, but being on a spherical surface is another step that many could not grasp and so they thought the Earth was flat and had an edge somewhere where the Sun could drop down behind it and come up the next day from the East like clockwork.
      Anyone can see that the Moon is a sphere with no clouds. It's face does not change, yet it's spherical qualities can be seen in how the sunlight hits it.
      So to someone thinking the Earth was flat and that the Sun, also round but too bright to easily see if it is a sphere rather than a circle, flew around in a great circle, would be making unwarranted assumptions in thinking the Earth was flat, yet they could be excused for not putting the idea to the test and seeking the edge of the Earth when the oceans always bar the way in one direction or another.
      Had there been a world-spanning continent, where one could travel all the way around the Earth on foot, the idea of a flat Earth would have been dismissed once anyone could do something like that and prove that walking West for years would eventually have you arrive at the place you left from an Eastern direction.
      Now consider science. It is a method at coming to a verifiable proof only limited by testing ability and avoiding all assumptions that have no basis in logic, reason, or in the available facts themselves.
      Extrapolation, hypothesis, testing, and careful record-keeping are tools we can use to understand the universe around us at any scale small or large.
      Your Bible, on the other hand, is demonstrably false and we can see a definite lack of any suggestion in the universe around us that your tribal god and cult magic do not exist in any way whatsoever.
      You say your god exists? Interesting as it might sound, your claim can be examined and put to the test using scientific methods to see if your claim holds any water. It doesn't. Your god does not exist as described.
      This is not some lack of imagination here, it is the intrusion of delusional and demonstrably false ideas put forth by religious people as fact when they can be proven false quite easily.
      Religious people are intellectually dishonest when they avoid any science or any intelligent way of coming to an understanding of the universe around us, preferring, instead, to use extreme bias and delusion in "understanding" the universe around us, having been indoctrinated to do so by their cult – often growing up warped by religion so that they are almost useless as adults in any intellectual capacity.
      Taught to believe that you have a "soul" that lives on beyond your death and taught a deliberately bewildering array of untrue things about your religion that you have been indoctrinated to believe in, you are also taught to avoid questions, to accept only what has been told to you, to swallow whole the lies of your religion without thinking.
      Such a scenario does not encourage problem-solving ability. You are taught to feel helpless and to rely upon your religion, your perceptions are deliberately warped to provide your ignorant mind with enough bias to overcome any fact to the contrary and to rationalize everything away in terms of your beliefs.
      Do not equate religion with science. Religion holds to falsehoods and warps every thought to conform to those falsehoods.
      Science seeks to understand how things work. If you sought to understand how your religion worked, you would quickly become an atheist the more you examined your religion and saw how it is all based upon brainwashing and lies.
      You cannot examine your religion dispassionately using logic, reason, and actual knowledge.
      You cling to false knowledge, to lies, and are handicapped by your ignorance and biased and warped thinking.
      Religion dies under the clear light of truth and honesty. Science does not.

      June 2, 2012 at 10:49 am |
    • Primewonk

      ME II wrote, " What's a Darwinist?"

      I guess I'm also a Newtonist? And a Faradayist, and a Einsteinian, and an Turingist...

      June 2, 2012 at 11:02 am |
  18. Colin

    Oh my creationist friends, proof of evolution is all around you. Now, before you declare me “stupid,” “evil” or part of a worldwide conspiracy to deny the truth of your talking snake theory of life on Earth, please take five minutes to read this.

    The classic definition of a species is that two members of the same species can breed and produce fertile offspring, but cannot mate with members of a different species. A human of any race can mate with a human of any other race, but none of us can mate with a chimpanzee, for example. So, all humans are in the same species, but we are all a different species to chimpanzees. Easy stuff.

    Indeed, it is often easy to tell that two organisms are of different species just by looking at them. Compare, for example, a dog to a horse. Where it gets a little complex, however, is where you have two organisms that look very similar, but are of different species, or two different species that look very similar. Dogs are a great example of both. Compare a lighter-coated German Shepherd to the wolf. They look very similar, but are of a different species. Likewise, a Great Dane looks very different to a Corgi, but they are of the same species, Canis lupi.s familiaris, the domestic dog.

    Why are Great Danes and Corgis considered to be the same species (along with German Shepherds) but wolves and German Shepherds not? Same reason as humans. Great Danes, German Shepherds and Corgis can and will mate and produce fertile offspring, but none of them can mate with a wolf. However, and this is where evolution kicks in, all breeds of dog alive today descended from wolves. In fact, it is likely (but not certain) that they all descended, ultimately, from a small pack of wolves that were domesticated in the Middle East some 10,000 years ago. Some research suggests Manchuria as the location, but I digress.

    What happened was that humans noticed that certain, less aggressive wolves were handy to have around. They ate pests and garbage and alerted the camp when predators lurked nearby. So, humans began to intentionally feed and try to tame them. The tamer, less aggressive wolves were less afraid of human interaction and less likely to harm their human hosts. They, therefore received more food and protection, which gave them a breeding advantage, and they passed on this favorable trait, call it “tameness,” to their offspring.

    The tamer offspring were constantly chosen (probably unknowingly) for care and support and the wilder, more aggressive members of the litter discarded, perhaps for biting or avoiding humans. After hundreds or thousands of years of inadvertent selection for “tameness” the camp wolves started to become dependent on their human hosts and to even look different to their still wild ancestors. They lost the extreme aggressiveness that helped them in the wild, became less streamlined and tooled for the kill and had less adrenaline that causes aggression. In other words, they slowly became, in a sense, fat, dumb and happy. Dough-boys. Girlie-men compared to their wild cousins, still red of fang and claw.

    These first domestic dogs were so popular with humans that their “use” spread and humans all over the globe – from Australian Aboriginals, New Zealand Maoris and other Polynesians, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans all began to use dogs. Then something else happened. Humans actually noticed that, if there was a specific trait you liked about your, say male dog, you could breed it with a female with the same trait and the offspring would inherit that trait. If, for example, a hunter-gatherer only ever allows the fastest male dogs to breed with the fastest female dogs, after many years of such selective breeding the resultant dogs would differ so much in body shape, leg length and, perhaps, lung capacity from their ancestor as to be considered a separate breed.

    No one set of offspring would differ greatly from its parents, but it will differ a little more from its grandparents, and even a little more from its great-grandparents etc., until we go all the way back to the original dog, which will be quite different in appearance.

    Bang – dog breeding was born. Humans selected for speed, resulting in the Greyhound, smelling and tracking ability (Bloodhounds) ability to herd sheep (Collies and Australian Shepherds) appearance (Dalmatians and Po.odles) size (Chihuahuas and Great Danes) and a host of other traits.

    As with most human activities, as our knowledge increased, dog breeding improved and exploded in the 1900s, with the current 600 or so breeds of dogs all descendent from the original wolf. Many breeds of dog alive today evolved over the past few decades and did not even exist as late as 1900. But, every last domestic dog, from the Teacup Chihuahua in Paris Hilton’s purse to the Great Danes of European car advertisements, are the cu.mulative result of selective breeding down different paths from the original wolf.

    They can no longer breed with wolves for a variety of reasons, including basic s.exual physiology, mating rituals and genetic compatibility of the spe.rm and egg. Not only that, but put any domestic dog in the wild and it would not survive a week. A wolf is much more likely to eat a Shih Tzu than bonk it. They are separate species. In the struggle for life, the domestic dog species originated through means of selection as a favored race from the original wolf. If this last sentence sounds familiar, that is because it is. It is essentially the full ti.tle of Charles Darwin’s seminal work: “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”.

    So there you have it, my Bible-cuddling friends. Evolution in motion. Undeniable, living in every suburb, licking our face, fetching our sticks and po.oping on our sidewalks. Macro-evolution. A well recorded, docu.mented, DNA mapped and uncontroversial case of evolution of one species – Canis lupus lupus, the Eurasian wolf, into another, Canis lupus familiaris, the domestic dog.

    There are many, many others examples of evolution all around us by the way. Even the most cursory of research into any branch of horticulture or animal husbandry quickly reveals that the size, variety, health, longevity and resistance to disease of most of our domesticated plants and animals were the thing of dreams as recently as 100 years ago. Indeed, biotech companies like Monsanto would quickly fall behind the competi.tion if they did not spend millions each year on Darwinian selective breeding programs. Why do you think horse breeders spend thousands of dollars to have a fast racehorse mate with their mare?

    Wheat is another great example, as are gra.pes. The species of wheat that we in the West use for bread only developed in the last few thousand years as a result of two epi.sodes of sympatric speciation (different to selective breeding, but an agent of evolution none the less) and the various Shiraz, Char.donnay and Pinot Noir gra.pes we enjoy today, in the form of wine, were all developed and perfected in the last 100 years or so.

    So, Adam or Eve, the next time you kneel down in your church and take your weekly dose of the body and blood of your dead Jew, you might like to reflect on the fact that you are actually eating proof of evolution and washing it down with proof of evolution.

    “Body of Darwin” Amen!

    June 2, 2012 at 9:08 am |
    • SciGuy

      Thank you for your humorous "just so" story. We are familiar with many such from Darwinist fantasizers.

      June 2, 2012 at 10:17 am |
    • Primewonk

      @Sciguy – you, or one of the other ignorant fundiots are welcome to refute the information provided. But for some reason, you folks never do. Why is that?

      June 2, 2012 at 11:36 am |
  19. Leo

    Watch the following animation by Harvard. This is just one single white blood cell working in harmony with the other 100 trillion cells all of which were started from a single fertilized egg cell.

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJyUtbn0O5Y&w=640&h=360]

    June 2, 2012 at 8:59 am |
    • Leo

      Romans 1

      18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

      20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

      June 2, 2012 at 9:01 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You continue to post these videos as if they proved the existence of God, Leo. They don't. I ask again, in the vain hope that you'll actually answer: Why do you jump to the conclusion that simply because we don't yet know how the universe began, goddidit? Why do you imagine that simply because our bodies are complex, an invisible being 'must' have created them?

      I doubt you'll answer, or your answer will be some iteration of the usual "When I see a complex car engine, I know there must have been a designer."

      Have at it, Leo. Surprise me.

      June 2, 2012 at 9:55 am |
  20. Richard Conley

    I weep for the future of America. "Science still doesn't have all the answers, therefore Bronze Age fairy tales about an invisible man who lives in the sky and supports slavery, genocide and had a zombie son." Terrific logic, USA USA!

    June 2, 2012 at 8:51 am |
    • SciGuy

      Weep for yourself and your children. You are the deceived one.

      June 2, 2012 at 10:19 am |
    • Wrath of Lucifer

      Any who believes in a god is deceiving themselves. Sciguy is a deceiving name, it should be DipSht.

      June 2, 2012 at 10:49 am |
    • Iceman6161

      The modern man (black man) has been on this earth for more than 200,000 yrs and the bible goes back um 8, 9000 at best!!! Answer that bible scholars...

      June 2, 2012 at 11:34 am |
    • BarnumEffect

      Creationists love the fallacy of ad ignorantiam: because it can't be proven that there is no god, they assume that there must be one.

      June 2, 2012 at 10:10 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
Advertisement
About this blog

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