Evolution goes to church

steve smyth — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 19:57:07 GMT

is this 2008 AD, or BC?

Evolution goes to church

Jeff, Vancouver, Washington — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 20:33:12 GMT

This is a great thing that science and religion are getting together like this in a polite dialogue. A lot of clergy don't understand evolution, and a lot of scientists don't understand the real crux of creation either. There is no point in building an artifical wall between religion and science, all truth comes from God.

Evolution goes to church

Mike Baker, St. Louis, Mo — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 20:33:43 GMT

These perfect ideas are pulled from our perfect minds.
Religion with no proof. (need to see to believe, and understand)
Math that is not correct. (cheats=pi)
Science that has no understanding. Gravity?
Bebate all you want, we're too stupid to figure it out

Evolution goes to church

Darron Sands, Plano, TX — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 20:57:57 GMT

I'm all for a presidential debate specifically focused on Science and Technology. Maybe Huckabee "isn't running to write 8th grade science textbooks", but I think most will agree that all presidential candidates should at least be able PASS 8th grade science. Any candidate who says "Evolution is just a Theory" obviously does not understand the definition of a scientific theory, and should be forced to wear a t-shirt every day for the remainder of the election cycle which reads: "Gravity is just a THEORY!"

Evolution goes to church

a p garcia — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 21:26:55 GMT

As a student of Cell & Molecular Biology and Genetics, I can tell you that both of these diciplines reinforce each other when the topic turns to evolution. You forgot to mention in your article that the laws of Genetics were formulated by Gregor Mendel, a MONK, a religious man. Charles Darwin just put Mendel's laws to animals and not peas like Mendel did.

Evolution goes to church

Sergio Bianchi,Downers Grove, IL — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 21:31:36 GMT

How can these scientists be "promoting good science"?
Since when is an unproven theory "good science" They must have a different definition for the word "Science". My observation of these "scientists" is that they believe the theory, and will fit all observations into that theory no matter what. So church is not a bad place for them since there too, you must be a believer, the “scientists” just believe in a different "god"

Evolution goes to church

Joseph, Birmingham, AL — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 21:44:31 GMT

I like that it sounds more and more like the Church and Science are starting to come together in some ways.

I am so sick and tired to the pointless debates I see on God v. Evolution.

To me, it's just too simple... the Bible tells WHO did it, not HOW He did it. The Bible's purpose is to reveal the Truth about God, not the Truth about science.

When God wrote Genesis, it's purpose was not to reveal science but to reveal Himself. So assuming Evolution is correct, God couldn't very well start Genesis with something like "In the beginning there was an amoeba...", because then it becomes a revelation on science, not God.

Evolution goes to church

Marty, Carson City, NV — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 21:59:23 GMT

I never saw why there is such a conflict between religion and Darwinism. I believed in both at one time, as many people do. Besides, we see examples of evolution today: strains of bacteria resistant to antibiotics. This is a minor change, but that's because they only have months or years, instead of millions of years.

Evolution goes to church

Jason Bennett, Memphis, Tennessee — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 22:32:51 GMT

Science is the study of nature. Nature was created by god. Seems to me like science is an affirmation of our positive relationship with our creator.

Evolution goes to church

Mark McKeown, Stroudsburg, PA — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 22:40:44 GMT

I believe Martin Luther's instruction to take the wording of the Bible literally a mistake in this instance. He was well-intentioned, but I always took Biblical creation to be a parable. Noah's Ark was a parable to me at every stage of my life, and I just turned 49.

Evolution goes to church

Brian Pearce, Ft Worth, TX — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 23:10:34 GMT

Interesting idea, but I think that it takes more FAITH to believe in evolution that creation. Evolution so far has had so many hoaxes and lab results demonstrations are in fact...intelligent design since the scientist forced the change.

Evolution goes to church

James Aden — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 23:15:07 GMT

I personally find the debate between naturalism and teliology fascinating. I have long ago abandoned the fundamental teachings of my youth. However, I do beleive there is a greater puropose to things, something we can't seem to grasp, but a pupose no the less. It is good to see people willing to start a bridge between the natural world and the supernatural.

Evolution goes to church

Karl Detrich, Chapman, KS — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 23:26:16 GMT

My comments on the above are best summarized in a song, "Evolution Redefined" by Geoff Moore and the Distance. See it on YouTube, don't mind the poor lip synch... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gwIDSIOEFo

Evolution goes to church

William, Seattle — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 23:28:01 GMT

Well, it's interesting how religious groups update their immutable and eternally true positions whenever faced with undeniable evidence that refutes what they've been preaching for hundreds of years, and yet are unwilling to reflect upon the other shortcomings of their beliefs. Remember that evolution was heresy until the religious were forced to acknowledge it's sensibility after 100 years of scientific acceptance. They only play nice when allowed to fill in the blanks with 'the god of the gaps.' For them, what science doesn't have an explanation for (yet) will always be a convenient place to continue marketing superstition.

Evolution goes to church

Rocky, Rochester, NY — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 23:32:03 GMT

Religion is loosing their audience so an effort must be made to get them back. The whole though of evolution going to church is nothing more than if you can't beat them join them.

Religion is always looking to legitimize their position, they are not looking for the truth and answers. Just read some of the sermons.

There is no common ground between creationism and evolution, none.

Evolution goes to church

Tim R., Golden, CO — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 23:33:19 GMT

Read Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion", which references Darwin's theory of evolution extensively.

I suspect Dawkins would be appalled at this gathering, as there is no reason to bring religion into it. One might just as well include santa claus and the tooth fairy.

Evolution goes to church

Bear Wilson, San Mateo, CA — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 23:42:34 GMT

Personally, I think the so called "war" between science/evolution and religion is ridiculous. The two are NOT and I repeat NOT mutually exclusive. They're just two ways of looking at the same thing which is the miracle of life. Much of the Bible is teaching in parables, or using a story to convey a message or idea. Did God create the Universe, the Heavens and the Earth and Man in His own image? Of course he did, but since we can't prove that scientifically, those are facts that we simply have to accept on faith. However, why can't the Big Bang and evolution be the scientifically verifiable methods by which God's ultimate plan, the dominion of Man over the Earth, be achieved? Einstein said that his sense of God was his sense of wonder about the Universe. To be familiar with science, to see the intricate complexities of space, time and most importantly, life in all its myriad forms and to see the long, sometime bumpy road that we took to get to where we are, that to me shows how wondrous and miraculous a place this Universe is with which we have been blessed.

Science doesn't seek to disprove religion, all science does is try to explain why things are the way they are and how they got that way based on the evidence we can see and by methods that are provable according to the Scientific Method. The rest? Well, I guess we just have to take that on faith...

Peace.

Evolution goes to church

Slam, Simi Valley, CA — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 23:50:41 GMT

It is hard for me to understand that after all this time some people still believe in evolution. The most brilliant minds around including Steven Hawking cannot prove the origin of creation. The entire universe was created from nothing (creatio ex-nihilio) Creation from nothing. There wasn't any cosmic dust that bumped into each other that started a chain reaction that caused the whole entire universe to be created. It was created by GOD. That is the only explanation. We are not descendants of apes. Our DNA is close but different. Other creatures have DNA similar to each other. They are not descendants of each other either. Science will never be able to prove that GOD didn't create the universe.

Evolution goes to church

--- — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 23:51:20 GMT

Anyone interested in this subject should also read "The Varieties of Scientific Experience, A Personal View of the Search for God", Carl Sagan" Edited by Ann Druyan.

Evolution goes to church

idough layton utah — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 23:54:37 GMT

Science has a lot of the pieces of puzzles put togeother and
religion (god did it all) has no pieces of the puzzle. Now they are looking at science to see how it was was done.

Evolution goes to church

Greg Stamper, Columbus, Ohio — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 23:59:16 GMT

For anyone who doubts that evolution is a firmly established scientific theory, or misunderstands that when science uses the term "theory" it's not meant in the same vein as the vernacular meaning of "guess" or "idea", let me point out that there are mountains of scientific evidence from multiple branches of science that support evolution.

The people most qualified to judge the validity of evolution, biologists, have spent years studying science in college and graduate-level classes, and with few exceptions, the vast majority of biologists embrace evolution as a scintific reality.

It wasn't always this way; at first many bioligists found the idea repulsive. However, after decades of examining the ever growing body of evidence, they could not reasonably draw any other conclusion.

The only reason why evolution is seen by some as a controversial idea is because some wish to consider it a controversial idea, and this mindset exists almost exclusively in the US. Evolution is as widely accepted in other countries as germ theory, the theory of gravity, and nuclear theory - things most people consider incontrovertable facts (and that many would be surprised to learn are "only" considered theories as well).

Evolution goes to church

Bryant Lister, Gresham, oregon — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 00:05:45 GMT

Trying to combine science and religion is a fool's errand. Religion starts with what people want to believe and then uses fairy tales and myths to claim that it is true. Science comes up with a hypothesis and then conducts experimentation, discovery and analysis to prove or disprove the hypothesis. Even when a theory is established, it is still under constant review and open to new discoveries and experimental findings. So, to claim that religion and science can achieve harmony on any subject is to ignore one or the other. Usually it is science that gets ignored, especially when the topic is supernatural deities. Claiming that something, in this case, a deity exists with no proof, logical reasoning or facts denies scientific thinking. Using scientific rationale to explain the know universe is the only mature way to deal with unknowns, making up fairy tales to explain them is immature and illogical.

Evolution goes to church

Paul, Orlando, FL — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 00:10:48 GMT

It amazes and saddens me how the religious right has managed to twist the idea of what a scientific theory is, and manipulate simple-minded people with fear, and made-up terms like "bad science." The only bad science is made-up science, aka religion. I understand that some people need religion and god to give meaning and hope to their lives, and don't begrudge people their beliefs, but can't tolerate when they try to tell me and others—who have studied science and the world rather than blindly accepting what religious and political leaders have told us—what we should believe.

Evolution goes to church

Jessica, Las Vegas, NV — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 00:11:53 GMT

I have one word, and one word only, for non-believers in Evolution. That word is FOSSIL. And if God put fossils on the Earth for us to find, and made them as old as some have been proven to be, doesn't that make him/her the greatest comedian of all time?

Evolution goes to church

Greg Stamper, Columbus, Ohio — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 00:11:57 GMT

Slam, I just want to address one very common misconception. First of all, the creation of the universe is covered by a branch of science called cosmology, a branch of astronomy. That has nothing at all to do with biology.

The Big Bang theory states that the universe was created from a super dense ball that contained ALL the matter and ALL the energy in the entire universe. I would hardly call that nothing.

You may have a personal belief that man and apes did not share a common ancestor, but you certainly haven't given the matter as much time, thought, and study as most biologists, especially those with advance degrees.

Considering they and you don't agree, and they are MUCH more qualified in this area than you are, who has the better chance of being correct? Amajority of scientists who are experts in the subject matter, or one person with no real qualifications but who finds the idea distasteful?

Finally, science is not attempting to prove or disprove God at all. God, by definition a supernatural being, is not within the scope if science, which is the study of natural phenomenon.

Evolution goes to church

Megen Q, Milwaukee Wis — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 00:17:57 GMT

Since kindergarden we are taught that knowledge is power and that as we grow, we not only expand our knowledge but we can also challange or knowledge to gain a better understanding of the world around us, so it seems silly that we take the words of a book that has only changed to suit the society that it is in, and not because the ideas are challanged. I will say that the bible and religion do provide a good moral example of how to live ones life, it does not provide more complex answers. Science is a study of the physical world that surrounds each and everyone of us and though the relevence of science has recently increased, we must remember that the idea of science pre-dates that of the bible. And we must also remember what happened when the achievements of the of the Roman Empire were discarded, I beleive it was called the Dark Ages. So the bible can be useful to an extent, but it is Science that makes the world go round.

Evolution goes to church

ER, Chico, CA — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 00:20:40 GMT

The best information on this topic I have ever read actually were 2 books put out by Jehovah's Witnesses: Is There A Creator Who Cares About You? and Life - How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or Creation? So thorough in an intellectually honest examination of both sides of the issue. No dogma or preaching, just clear, logical reasoning. Ask the next one who comes to your door for one or both of these excellent publications and you won't be sorry.

Evolution goes to church

Steve Oman, Littleton, Colorado — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 00:22:18 GMT

The underlying conflict is that evolution implies Man ultimatly evolved from a single organism and therfore is not special or unique to Earth. God created Man different than all other things with a special purpose that only God himself can truly explain. Evolution puts man on the same playing field as monkeys, which is in conflict with Gods word. Evolution is a rationalization for people to disbelieve God and his teachings. Evolution explains Gods system to keep the strong survivng and adapt to environments and situations, not how life originated on Earth.

Evolution goes to church

Ricardo R. Orlando, Florida — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 00:25:49 GMT

It's funny, Darwin himself, before he died, said that he may have made a mistake in regards to his theory of evolution. The entire universe was created by an intelligent being. That is God. That's what faith is all about, believing something you can't see but knowing it's there. How else can you explain how the universe works so perfectly. It can only come from a supreme being. Science will never prove their theory of evolution and will never prove that God didn't create the universe.

Evolution goes to church

Carlos Gutierrez, Cave Junction, Oregon — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 00:26:10 GMT

I have always considered the miracles that Jesus performed while on earth to be indisputeable facts. He did cause the blind to see, the lame to walk, the deaf to hear, the dumb to speak, and yes, the dead to come back to life. But, He also did one other thing that causes me to think very seriously about the power He possessed which has never been denied except by the foolish. He took some DEAD fish and some bread and caused their lifeless forms to multiply. It didn't take Him millions of years, but only a few minutes of time. This couldn't be a make believe story because there simply were too many witnesses who saw Him do it. He had no controled experiment and no scientific lab. Since He was able to do all He did in such a short amount of time, why do people find the creation account so difficult to believe? It is because we are trying our best to describe an incredible and infinite God using a limited and very restricted resource---our minds. No, we don't know how God is able to simply speak things into existence, but I would much rather put my stock in a God who has proven Himself over and over again to me than in some man (scientist) who doesn't have a clue how life came about. Evolution is mere speculation. It doesn't even qualify as a theory. Those who proprogate evolution only serve to prove the scripture correct that the day will come when people will turn their backs on God and put their faith in man, even if it means their own destruction.

Evolution goes to church

Doug Taylor Ventura California — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 00:47:43 GMT

Evolutionary Science is written in the fossil record, organic chemistry and molecular biology. It operates the same way whether God is or isn't. But Natural Selection is a poor design due to so much imperfection and ELEs. God could do MUCH better. (So much for ID).Nontheless, when I read about Scientific Evolution, I see that the only possible way for the incredible diversity of animals and plants to have occurred is through natural selection.Like it or not, it is what it is.
The world may or may not be flat, but I would have an easier time believing that than the round peg square hole idea of Creationism. Religion needs to take care of the business of religion. Science needs to take care of the matters of science.

Evolution goes to church

Alan Boyle — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 01:06:47 GMT

Ricardo brings up the story of Darwin's deathbed conversion ... which has been pretty much debunked. Here's the reality check from TalkOrigins.org, which along with TalkDesign.org serves as a good resource for background information.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hope.html

There's a Wikipedia article that delves further into Darwin's views on religion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin's_views_on_religion

And that article includes a link to the Google Books version of "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Part I," including long stretches of Darwin's own writings on religion starting on page 274. Makes for fascinating weekend reading and reflection.

Evolution goes to church

Don Anderson — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 01:17:22 GMT

Where are the transitional fossils? Who wrote the genetic code in DNA?? If you found a newpaper you realize there was inteligence behind it. In the same way, we see the code in DNA that cannot have evolved (it been attempted)and we know that there is the fingerprint of our creator.
People will not address these issue because they cannot be explained.

Evolution goes to church

mel Hudson, WI — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 01:26:37 GMT

Poor, poor Slam (above) and others: When we read Darwin's work (and apparently many have not), there is no mention of how the universe or life was created. Rather, Darwin's work is focused on how living things CHANGE and how new species arise. The CREATION of life and how it EVOLVES over long periods of time are two different questions with different answers. Therefore, as both a scientist and Christian, I am perfectly content with the ideas that God created the world, and that Darwin explained how all living things evolve through the forces of natural selection and spontaneous mutation.

Evolution goes to church

Shannon, Lockport NY — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 01:27:22 GMT

Blah blah blah . . .talking heads who think evolution makes any sense. Darwin was a racist! Simple truths like that should make one think twice about following his "phantasy" as he himself put it when he questions his findings in his own diaries. SIGH

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/

Evolution goes to church

Jasmine Warne Rowe — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 01:36:19 GMT

It's interesting that even though backers of evolution have all this scientific reasoning and physical evidence, creationist feel that all they have to say is "God made everything" without any sort of explanation in order to be considered a credible source of educational information. The only reason anyone believes in the "evidence" of the bible, is that they are told to by others who were told to believe. If you want to learn more about the physical, real, universe, then it makes sense to use scientific research, instead of going on religious beliefs that pride themselves on having absolutely no proof.

Evolution goes to church

David Shadoin, Crete, Nebraska — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 01:45:18 GMT

I agree with Bear and disagree with Bryant in allowing science and religion to overlap. Yet, I think this discussion is missing one key element, and that is it is focused on the ideas themselves and not their origins. I believe both come from, in some way shape or form, the human mind. That in itself links the two. Both are based on human witnesses as no other species has really been able to communicate with us. Both must concede the factor of human error in the recordings. The bible has its witnesses....that are human. Science also has its witnesses....that are human. In a more personal sense, I think God exists and that science is right. Science in itself could be caused by a slight action made by God. After all, being an effective ruler or leader is allowing your subjects/followers to succeed when they haven't noticed that you have actually done anything at all.

Evolution goes to church

Marv, Minneapolis, MN — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 02:18:48 GMT

"Faith" is the result of being brainwashed as a child to believe in fairy tales. Nothing more.

"Creationists" twist fact and NEVER supply hard scientific evidence to back up their nutcase claims. Ignorant statements such as "We are not descendants of apes" is misrepresentation of Natural Selection made by people dumbed down by religion.

Believe it because the bible is "god's" word? So much of the bible has been put to shame by scientific discovery. God must be pretty stupid.

Enjoy your fairy tales! I prefer to say "I don't know how that works...YET" rather than be so feeble minded to invoke a concept like "god". FEH!

Evolution goes to church

Gerald Lyannas — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 02:27:09 GMT

I've studied the debate since 1992. Frankly, I believe there is a huge amount of evidence that suggests the universe is young, say 10,000 years or less, which leaves zero room for the theory of evolution. At the same time, depending on whereone was located in the universe, the creation of the universe could literally been 6 days. We know very little. Science continually learns, and usually finds the discoveries of the previous generation were false. The Bible, on the other hand, I've found to be the complete, perfect Word of God, and was meant to be taken literally without fear. Science will eventually figure out how God made the universe if mankind exists long enough. Another argument against evoulution is lack of a fossil record. For example, the theory suggests millions of evelotutionary changes took place over millions of years. Between just about every known genus today, there would have been hundreds of thousands of changes, and therefore lifeforms. But, there is virtually zero evidence that any transitionary life forms ever existed. For evolution to be true, millions, perhaps trillions of life forms would have to have existed, and yet vanished without a trace. I find that quite ludicrous. I believe the fossil record speaks for itself.

Evolution goes to church

Ed Neal, Frankfort, Ky. — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 02:29:15 GMT

I am a student of the field of geology and ancient socities. In all that I have seen, held in my hand and studied, I have found many things that are amazing. I then wonder, "How did that happen"? Always, if I am willing to search hard enough, I find the answer. The simple becomes the complex in it's effort to survive. I see animals that adapted to a changing environment or died. I see peoples that changed or died. Some have commented on the DNA string. A part of the string can be found in every living thing on this earth, both present and past. We are all linked together. Since you pass your DNA on to your offspring, you have continued the evolution that was began millions of years ago.
There is not one word in the bible that was written by a supreme being called god for lack of a better name. All words in the bible were written by some man. They are his words, nothing more, nothing less. They are stories ment to give some direction to other people. It is an effort to control the thought and actions of others. The thinking is that the writers better know how you should live than you do. It is a book written on fear. The loving words so often quoted are misleading. You are constantly told what will happen if you do not believe. That is intimidation and fear. The bible most people read isn't the complete series of writings, just the ones chosen to be included for shock value. All of the religions follow the same pattern. Rule by intimidation and fear. That is whay they are called organized religion. That is why they are similar. This universe is so huge no one knows where it starts or ends. There are billions of galaxies like the Milky Way we are in. There are billions of stars in our galaxie. There are billions of planets around those stars like our solar system and our sun. Go out side any day or night and point at god. You can't. Because it has never been seen or heard and never will be.

Evolution goes to church

Greg Robinson, N. Saanich, British Columbia — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 02:39:01 GMT

Dr. Francis Collins headed up the team that decoded the human genome and is the director of National Human Genome Research Institute. He is certainly one of the world's leading biologists.

He is an evangelical Christian. He has written a book called "The Language of God", which is how he views genetics and evolution. He has no problem with evolution, which is also true of arguably the greatest Christian apologist of the last century, C.S. Lewis.

Here is an interview with Dr. Collins.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/october1/2.42.html

Evolution goes to church

Jason, Columbus, Ohio — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 02:43:14 GMT

If evolution is such a tight scientific theory were are the millions of transitional fossils? How did a partially developed heart work? The idea that we developed from nothing is impossible and takes more faith than to belive God spoke it all into existence. God has revealed himself to the world in many ways and many times but man chooses to turn away in disbelif and destroy themselves in their wickedness. Jesus Christ holds the whole universe togehter turn to him while you still can.

Evolution goes to church

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 02:45:18 GMT

It's all a complete waste. These type of christians want it both ways. Well, sorry but you can't.
Darwins evolution by it's most basic premise is a process that happens and works solely on it's own without a God. The notion of a God using evolution is ludicrous. This implies that a God has nothing to do other than let evolution progress by it's own devices without any intervention. People really need to read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins to get the truth about all of this.

Evolution goes to church

Brian Myres, Carlisle, KY — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 02:58:51 GMT

If this were 700 years ago or so, people would be arguing against the "theory" that the earth is not at the center of the universe. They would be using all the arguments that you see in these paragraphs, including biblical "proof." People even died for suggesting otherwise, or like Galileo, were relegated to prisoner status. Today, the argument is over evolution, and it is hard to imagine a topic where so many people who know nothing about the subject matter are so willing to make statements. It is discouraging to me that so many don't understand how science operates; the overwhelming mound of evidence supporting evolutionary theory means nothing to them, because it interferes with their preconceived philosophy. It is also disconcerting that creationists and IDer's continue to use the same, tired old "proofs" that have been laid to rest many times over, or can't seem to come to grips with the fact that biology and cosmology are two different realms of study. Meanwhile, the country clamors for good science education, as if that's somehow divorced from movements that tell us that the earth is only 6000 years old, that humans and dinosaurs lived together, or that faith should be introduced into science classes. They are badly damaging the country's ability to compete in science, and yet they are the biggest pseudo-patriotic flag wavers. I would suggest they go to a library and take out a text on evolution, so they can see the data right in front of them. There's nothing quite like knowing something about a field of study before opening one's mouth.

Evolution goes to church

john sid — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 03:00:38 GMT

I think I have finally figured it out: The entire struggle between secularism and sectarianism comes down to one thing - security. If everyone in the US becomes religious, I would be fearful that I would be discriminated against because I am not religious. Conversely, if everyone becomes an atheist in the US, those who are religious would fear discrimination. Now if I could only figure out the answer to the delemma.

Evolution goes to church

Jack Livingston — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 03:04:39 GMT

This reminds me of the likely discussions of 400-450 years ago regarding Capernicus's theory, and later, Galileo's observations of planitary rotation. The Catholic church (power player at the time) was extremely threatened by this and moved resolutely to abolish such 'heresy'. Gee, when was the last time a modern Christian argued about whether the earth revolved around the sun, or vice versa, and/or whether the earth was the center of the universe? Knowledge marches forward, doesn't it? Why is it so threatening? As a Christian, I find it embarrasing that my friends feel so threatened. 'The Christian Right' is painting itself into a corner on this one and will eventually have to concede that good science is simply that. As we gain understanding, the bogus parts will fall away and truth will march forward. Who knows exactly how God chose to create?

Evolution goes to church

Grog, Hayward, CA — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 03:06:25 GMT

Believing in Creationism is intellectually lazy. If you can't understand Evolution, don't give up. Think outside that box the church put around your mind...

Evolution goes to church

Timothy Johnson, Columbus, OH — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 03:09:10 GMT

A well know historical figure in the Holy Scriptures, namely Jesus makes reference to the Genesis account in the Bible book of Matthew chapter 19 and the 4-6 verses. In those verses Jesus explains to the Pharisees that it was God who created man and woman and not evolution. So if anyone who has a belief in Jesus, you cannot believe in the teachings of evolution. If you do, you would actually be saying that Jesus is a liar, and anyone would be hard pressed to find another person on earth to say that Jesus was a liar.

The Prophet Isaiah at was inspired to write at the Bible book of Isaiah chapter 40 verse 22 that the God dwells 'above the circle of the earth.' How could Isaiah right about this scientific matter when he did not have access to the modern technology that we have today. The answer in short has that God told him so. God was the creator of the earth and so he knew the what kind of shape the earth was in (no pun intended.

A true statement: The Bible is not a scientific textbook, however when touches on matters of science it is always accurate and trustworthy.

Evolution goes to church

J.R. Westfield, Ind. — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 03:12:43 GMT

Bit by bit, religion loses ground with individuals that can reason and have studied enough history to know that it separates us. How many different Bibles are there, different denominations, theologians not agreeing on any interpretations of the Good Book. Scientists were imprisoned or put to death because a discovery, they made, proved a certain belief wrong.(Galileo). It seems to me the very thing religious people are trying to disprove will ultimatly lead to their decline.EVOLUTION! Churches are more and more watered down with ministers sounding more like motivational speakers. Young kids from a very religious upbringing, don't just automatically accept what their parents believe. Why? They are evolving! Personally, I believe we aren't intelligent enough to grasp how we got here, or if there's a creator or not. Religion gives people a crutch, but look whats been done with it, Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, 911, suicide bombings, protestants vs. catholics, even the wonderful Apostle Paul was a mass murderer of Christians, when he was Saul. Isn't it possible to be kind, giving, loving to all human beings without having the dogma associated with a religious group. I would think so and hopefully EVOLUTION will bit by bit ,get us there. Just take some time and THINK!

Evolution goes to church

David Anderson, Ellicott City, MD — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 03:13:24 GMT

For the interested, the most scientifically sophisticated treatment of evolution is in a book by Dinesh D'Souza "What's So Great About Christianity" published by Regnery Publishing. It is available at Barnes and Noble.

Evolution goes to church

David Anderson Ellicott City MD — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 03:19:52 GMT

To Darren Sands: Evolution IS just a theory! A theory is a conceptual statement that can be submitted to empirical test. It is difficult to prove the validity of events that happened when no one was around to observe them. In a courtroom, it is a theory that person A killed person B. The jury gets to see the evidence, and make a decision, but the standard of proof is only beyond a reasonable doubt. They could still be wrong. Likewise with evolution, it will remain a theory until someone shows up from out of the past who was there to see it happen.

Like God.

Evolution goes to church

Keith, Westfield, IN — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 03:24:36 GMT

It saddens me that so many of my fellow Christians are anti-evolution (for want of a better phrase). If one's faith in Christ and desire to live as He wants us to is weakened by a 4.5 billion year old earth and the knowledge that humans descended from earlier beings, then that faith may have always been on shaky ground. God Bless those churches that are observing Evolution Weekend

Evolution goes to church

Reformed1, Richmond, Va — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 03:41:37 GMT

I have questions both on Evolution and Creationism. (1)If I adhere to Evolution, the Big Bang as for creation of the uinverse (many Planets/ many Galaxies) and all life, then does that mean Aliens exist? If I take Evolution to its full conclusion as being the genisis of creation I would have to believe intelligents or non-intelligents beings (Aliens) exist in other solar systems. If I deny this, then I deny the supposed fact of Evolution. (2) If you say that intelligents beings (Aliens) do not exist, I would ask how do you know this and why would Earth be the only planet with intelligents beings out of all the other planets and galaxies?

Evolution goes to church

Scott, Atlanta GA — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 03:43:19 GMT

Let me ask the biologists who who believe evolutionary theory to be undisputable...were you there when it happened? Has anyone actually observed macro evolution taking place before his eyes (or before the eyes of man in written history)? I understand that different species may resemble one another and seem like one came out of another, but has anyone witnessed the transition?

As some scientists have already posted here, there are indeed many scientists (who attended the same universities with the same kinds of degrees) who believe there is sufficient evidence supporting creation. They may not be the majority, but they studied the same things you did and find it highly plausible.

I agree that Genesis wasn't written for scientific proof of creation. But for those who believe in God as He is revealed in the Bible, the process of macro evolution is wholly inconsistent with God's character as He reveals Himself: death did not become a part of the creation order until Adam & Eve sinned against God. But if God created the world through evolution, life and death would have been the norm for millions of years prior to Adam & Eve (before sin entered the picture).

Evolution goes to church

Grant Miller, Hopkinsville, KY — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 03:47:11 GMT

Here is a simple fact: science AND religion can and should coincide with each other, building upon each other and not detracting from one another. It wasn't until the Scopes trial that science and "religion" as some of you are calling it began to split apart. Just to be clear, I would call it faith and belief more than religion-which is a man-made institution.

Creationism and evolution are not compatible, but there is some common ground between the two! First of all, the creation account in Genesis begins with, essentially, God speaking light into existence. Stephen Hawking himself has speculated that the universe began from a single point of origin. Combine that logic with the notion of the existence of God and science and religion support each other.

Another speculation: who am I to speak for God, but this makes sense! According to the Bible, Adam was created from dirt: minerals/water etc. Everything that science has proven that our bodies are composed of. Wouldn't it have been reasonable to take a basic foundational genetic structure and tweak it for each species? Micro evolution has been proven so this would not be totally implausible or impossible.

Another instance in which science supports the creation theory: the fossil record. I would love to hear an explanation for why, after over a hundred years of searching for viable "missing links", we have not been able to produce a SINGLE REAL LINK! Each of the supposed links that has come to the forefront of scientific research has essentially been debunked as a fraud. If evolution is true, why have we not been finding true missing links and why must scientists take it upon themselves to create FAKE links?

Another dilemma that "modern science" faces is the "fact" that evolution happened by GRADUAL mutations. The fallacy lies in the speculation itself-attempted mutations will only produce either an unaffected offspring, a severely mentally/physically retarded offspring, or a dead offspring. How then, did we MUTATE from cosmic dust? If you believe this, then you believe in miracles which would validate the Scriptures...

Hopefully, these thoughts will give you something to ponder on as you continue your quest for truth and meaning in the Universe. The bottom line is this: we ALL have faith in something, we all just choose what to put that faith in...

Evolution goes to church

Ron, Ashland, Ohio — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 03:47:31 GMT

Uh, Mark, where did Luther say to take the Bible "literally?" I believe Luther felt the Bible was true, yes, but "literally" like we understand that word today? I'm not familiar with all his writings, and would appreciate knowing the quote you refer to. Was he perhaps talking about the care he took to translate the Bible from Latin into German, which was widely criticized by some in his day? (See his 1530 letter) Thank you.

Evolution goes to church

Gary Dirks, Port Orchard, Wash — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 03:48:20 GMT

As a Christian I believe God created the universe. When we examine our universe, we find evidence it has existed for millions, even billions of years and evolution is clearly found in the records of fossils and rock formations. Darwin simply put into ideas and words what he found evidence of in our earth. The wording of the Genesis creation account was not intended as a scientific statement, but to explain to people thousands of years ago that God is the creator in a manner they could understand.

Evolution goes to church

Lisa Ellen Hasher, Minneapolis, MN — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 03:54:03 GMT

The more I study for my Chemistry and Physiology classes, the stronger my faith in God becomes.

Evolution goes to church

Agnostic, Indiana — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 03:57:06 GMT

Carlos, do you believe everthing in the Bible as true? People lived to be 900 years old, Jonah swallowed by a whale and burped up! The Noah story and the creation story existed in Syria thousands of years before the Bible was written. Most of the biblical stories are adopted myths, embellished folk tales. Christmas is an adopted pagan holiday not Jesus birthday. These people were great story tellers because to create a following, there had to be miracles, larger than life events otherwise who would be captivated by an ordinary person doing uneventful things. How can you ignore science and believe the Bible as factual!! Unfortunately the embellished stories continue with books like Left Behind and evangelists taking one quote from the Bible, and making a whole mini-series out of it! [...]

Evolution goes to church

PJ, Frederick MD — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 04:06:48 GMT

One day the leading scientists decided that it was time to tell God that He was no longer needed and they wanted him to leave us alone.
God said "Okay, let's have a little contest and if you win, I'll go away."
They agreed. God said," Let's each create a man, the good old fashioned way."
The scientist said, "no problem" and he bent down and scooped up a handful of dirt.
God said, "no, no ,no....you don't seem to understand...GO GET YOUR OWN DIRT".

Evolution goes to church

N F. Wilson Lehi, Utah — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 04:08:14 GMT

If man evolved from the ape, when and why did that evolution stop? Wouldn't it still be going on or did someone say "that is enough"

Evolution goes to church

Alan Boyle — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 04:13:35 GMT

A couple of folks have asked about transitional species... Here are some standard references:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2004/06/21/taking_the_plunge.php

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12168265/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22493865/

Evolution goes to church

madthom, New Albany, IN — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 04:17:45 GMT

I became a Christian my senior year of College. What class? EVOLUTION! It, and embryology required to even take this class, do not speculate. Only the people ignorant to a true scientific education, or just refuse to even listen, are behind Creationism. I am a LDS-Mormon and have seen the proof of evolution. My faith works only one way-Blind Faith. If you were to put evolution and religion side by side and try to prove one or the other religion wouldn't stand a chance. Religion is A BELIEF SSTEM. Not a FACT. Stop arguing and go to school. And, I do believe in a Creator. The argument something is so complex it cannot be explained by science so it can only be by a Creator's hand is just foolish. If we thought that way we would still think the stars were pin holes in the firmament. One-Hundred years from now science very well will explain the subject a Creationist believes is only possible by God.
God gave us intellect. Not using it is the greatest sin. I have a simple explanation that links evolution to creation hand in hand. When God said 'let there be light' that was an instant in His perception. In ours, the scientific explanation of billions of years of chemistry, physics and all the natural sciences to produce that light. Now. Where is the argument?

Evolution goes to church

Robert Michael, St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 04:34:48 GMT

Scientists, environmentalists and others have been attempting to organize the natural world into a very linear form, when this is simply impossible. The natural world is a complex system, and it is impossible, no matter what length of time is involved, for such a complex system to have started from non-living matter. It is clear now after 150 years of searching that it is impossible to substantiate the theory of 'biological evolution' by findings in nature. However, we should all have great respect for the power of rationalization.

Darwin was by no means the first scientist to propagate this theory. But like any other theory that attains to the lofty status of fact, there must be power and overwhelming evidence to support this theory. However, Darwin's and many other scientists predictions regarding the theory of evolution have not been met. Those who believe that life began from non-living matter need to examine to actual hard science of this theory.

Evolution goes to church

Nurse — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 04:38:54 GMT

I too am a science major & supporter of evolution. I'm a master's prepared reg nurse, have practiced for >30 yrs in nearly every aspect of the human condition & am also an associate professor at local college.
I used to have much more tolerance for those whose religion provided them with personal comfort & strength until I lived in So. Cal for 10 yrs and finally became sickened by the whole ridiculous fantasy & rhetoric swallowed hook, line & sinker by grown (supposedly intelligent & responsible) individuals who then turn around & try to push their fairy tales & "moral code" on others!
I hold the greedy religious movement leaders responsible for most of the serious issues we now face - from dumb religiously provoked wars to human suffering, current environmental devastation, the horrendous sense of entitlement resulting from the basic American lifestyle - promoting lethargy, obesity, disease, arrogance, ignorance & waste.
There's likely no way the religious & science communities will ever bridge the enormous gap between them - it's just not possible to truly believe in both things simulateously. The funniest of all the bantering is when the religious folks get backed into a corner & can no longer quote bible verse or otherwise support their legends & myths, they pull out the ol' "Well, that's not for us mere humans to know!" ha ha! Yeah, that's actually quite comical!!!

Evolution goes to church

Sam, Birmingham, Aalabama — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 04:42:37 GMT

Religion today is in clear conflict with science. There is no doubt about that. But still... The immense peaceful feeling and sense of protection I get when I go to church is remarkable. I am a Physician and I had spent the past 4-5 years of my life pondering over this very question of Who Am I? What is the ultimate target?!?!?!? It all started when I decided to take on the challenges of Neuroscience as my career... In other fields of medicine... there is a clear direction... goal directed effort. Like in Cardiology - it simple - increase the pumping activity of heart. In infectious diseases - again its about finding the infectious agent and the target is to get it out of the body. But Neuroscience - there is a lot of progress... but we dont have a target ... we dont have a direction like the above... so it lags behind in research and neurological (and I may say Psychiatric) diseases still pose the biggest challenges today.

***I might seem here to be wandering off topic... but actually its all very interconnected ... just take a moment to reflect upon and think about it***

I see religious teachings as codes of conduct in accordance with "HUMAN AWARENESS" of that time. While human awareness makes progress... Religion also needs to evolve... and come up with newer codes of conduct in accordance with the current level of awareness. Imagine ... had there been no bible 1000 years ago or no Bhagvad Gita or there were no spiritual leaders like Buddha... what would have been the fate of humanity!!! Might be more like wild animals. Therefore... I am of the opinion that religion needs to be constantly updated because as human awareness increases, through science or otherwise... I see it just as - Man used religion to know who he is... and as soon as he came to know about Himself... he doesn't need the old religion anymore... BUT he still needs a direction... a meaning... a purpose - The feeling remains the same (such as the same peaceful feeling in a church)... and a new religion needs to be constructed... which would help him advance further!

Thats how I see it.

Evolution goes to church

Riley C. — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 04:48:58 GMT

Many prominent creationists apparently have the same view of truth as political radicals: whatever advances the cause is true, whatever damages the cause is false. From this viewpoint, errors should be covered up where possible and only acknowledged when failure to do so threatens greater damage to the cause. If colleagues spread errors, it is better not to criticize them publicly. Better to have followers deceived than to have them question the legitimacy of their leaders. In science, fame accrues to those who overturn errors. In dogmatic systems, one who unnecessarily exposes an error to the public is a traitor or an apostate.

Ironically, creationists make much of scientific errors. The "Nebraska Man" fiasco, where the tooth of an extinct peccary was misidentified as belonging to a primitive human, is ubiquitous in creationist literature and debate presentations. So is the "Piltdown Man" hoax. Indeed, creationist propagandists often present these two scientific errors as characteristic of paleoanthropology. It is significant that these errors were uncovered and corrected from within the scientific community. In contrast, creationists rarely expose their own errors, and they sometimes fail to correct them when others expose them.

Evolution goes to church

W Andresen Richland Washington — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 04:58:55 GMT

I see no reason that the two ideas cannot live together. THE CALENDER AS WE ALL KNOW ONLY GOES BACK SO FAR. AND GODS DAYS PROBABLY WERE NOT OUR 24HOUR CYCLE. THUS CREATION DID NOT HAPPEN IN 2004BC AS AN 1872 BIBLE THAT I RECENTLY OWNED SAID. BOTH THEORYS HAPPENED AT THE SAME TIME. yOU MIGHT EAKE A LOOK AT
A COPY OF " The Universe vol 1, By Stephen Hawkings
that suggests that thy are the same thing.

Evolution goes to church

Michael, NY, NY — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 05:05:53 GMT

Timothy,

Apparently, if the Bible is accurate on scientific matters, it needs a better editor. The circle is a round, flat, two dimensional object. God should have let Isaiah know the earth is more correctly a "sphere."

Evolution goes to church

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 05:19:40 GMT

Evolution goes to church? Church should be going to evolution and realizing all the centuries of it's wrongdoing.

However, I must say, the process of evolution has laid to waste more life in the history of the earth than any miniscule (by comparison) holy war or religiously motivated killing ever has. The only difference is, evolution replaced another form with what it did away with and on no thinking terms either!

Evolution goes to church

Mother Nature or ?, Kingman,Az. — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 05:22:38 GMT

As the years roll by man will come to better understand the intertwining relationship between evolution, a creator, physical life and the habitat. Man will come to realize the limitations of earths life supporting abilities and the fragile make up of the planet that is ever evolving and constantly self mending. While it appears god remains a theoretical entity created to foster hope there is a purpose for every thing that happens and life after death, the same evidence that proves evolution is factual also proves there is a supreme intellect and architect that created and maintains it all. The factuality of evolotion lies within and all around. And the interdependence of all life forms is undeniable. Each specific life form preforms a specific function for the health and wellbeing of all other, as well as the habitat. Vegitation inhales carbon dioxide and exhales oxygen, while mobile life forms inhale oxygen and exhales carbon dioxide. And all life forms are ever evolving, all begin from a seed (egg) and constantly evolves over the duration of a lifetime and each species leave behind offspring that are unique unto themselves as were their parents. Evolution is the most useful tool of the creator. It is the tool the creator employs to maintain a healthy balance of interdependent life forms within the habitat and the life supporting necessities to support whatever life forms. The great misconception held by most religeous sects is that life on earth is about behavior, sin and forgivness, demons and messiahs, but in fact life upon earth is all about education, knowledge and wisdom attained through witness and experience, an eventual comprehension of all that is about and within. And if life upon earth is in fact all about education, that in itself proves there is a here-after after all. GOD BLESS ALL, GOD DID WHEN EACH WERE PROVIDED THE GIFT OF LIFE

Evolution goes to church

John Dammann, Cincinnnati, OH — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 05:31:38 GMT

Let's flip this dicussion for a bit and place the burden of proof on the defenders of creationism. We already know that Creationism can't be given any scientific credit because nobody can scientifically proove a creator exists (no, the Bible cannot prove it either. The bible cannot prove the bible. The would be a circular reference).

Aside from that, can any of the stories in the bible be supported with any artifacts mentioned in the stories? Was an ark ever found? Shroud of Turin? (proven hoax). If the Euphrates river flowed through the garden of Eden, then I should be able to find the locked gates. Where are they?? Were Adam and Eve black or white? If white, then where did all the black people come from? Who was Cain's wife? Was there truly a global flood? If so, where did all the water go? All I'm asking for is some REAL EVIDENCE to backup these stories. The first guy to hold up a bible as evidence is disqualified. Again, the bible cannot prove the bible. Ok creationists, you're on!

Evolution goes to church

Gerald Lyannas — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 05:36:48 GMT

Lisa Ellen Hasher:
I believe everything in the Bible is true. The Bible does not say Dec 25 is Jesus' Birthday, lol. No one believes it's Jesus' birthday. Because of our ways, God allowed us to fall in the garden, and punished us with the flood. Prior to the flood, conditions were different. Some scientists have generated theories based on taking Genesis literally that would account for man living hundreds of years. We don't quite understand it all yet, but the atmosphere may have been different because of the upper firmament. I don't have the luxury of explaining it all now, but I have found and now believe with all my being that the Bible is the complete, flawless Word of God. You might find it interesting to check out the scientific theories supporting creation, and how it was discovered through the literal study of the creation story in Genesis.

It's possible Neanderthal just could be the bones of those that lived before the flood when man lived hundreds of years, even if they aren't.

Evolution goes to church

S Moore, Fort Worth, Texas — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 05:43:04 GMT

Bringing up the "pre-U.S. education system" past does not help this debate. There are several postings that imply that scientists study evolutionary theory in depth in college and that this study brings them to the conclusion that evolution is a sound example of good science. This is far from the truth. I am in my 30s, and have been spoon-fed evolution from Kindergarten through my last year of college. It was not a debatable subject that I could tell - until the semester that I took Historical Geology with a preacher's son in a course that was taught by an atheist college professor. I did not go to church in my childhood, so I didn't have a clue that other theories existed. It wasn't until late in my college career that I began exploring religious ideas along with my daily courses in science (majoring in Biology and Geology) that I realized how poorly evolution theory addressed so many issues such as a lacking fossil record, irreducible complexity, and other matters that I now only read about in Christian publications.

If any of you are truly scientists, then you know that even laws of science are NOT infallible. In a scientific light, both creation and evolution are flawed theories that may never be proven...until physicists develop some time travel capabilities...OK I'm digressing.... On the other hand, for people of faith, there is more at stake when aligning your beliefs with something that contradicts God's Word.

For the record, I'm not on the fence. I'm 100% a believer in God's creation. Trying to sort out the scientific reason that we walk upright does not bear any significance for my life, and I doubt seriously that anyone other than geneticists TRULY will be affected by the outcome of this debate. They would spend their time better studying what exists now, and how it works now. Oh yeah, they're already doing that! Silly me.

Evolution goes to church

Ralph Garner — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 05:48:32 GMT

We have a world full of religious zealots and look at the shape our world has been in for the hundreds of years of religion. How many more young highschool kids must die for religion, God and politics. Get rid of religion and politics, replace blind faith with unproven theory and perhaps we can spend our time searching for scientific truth instead singing offtune in the chapel and replace corrupt politicians with intelligent citizens who are subject to the same laws we citizens are.

Evolution goes to church

Des Emery, St. Thomas, ON, Canada — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 05:51:39 GMT

Good show, as usual, Alan. Can I toss in a few ideas, please?

Science says that it is impossible to "prove" a negative. How come so many then say that God can't exist?

Why do so many accept the "fact" that an observer can determine either the location or the speed of a certain "particle" but not both together? At the same time, they reject the idea of God because they cannot "see" Him or "feel" his presence.

We live exclusively in a three-dimensional universe, but science postulates, without qualms, at least 11 dimensions to explain string theory, and accepts that "impossibility" quite readily.

I think it was G. K. Chesterton who famously said "They denounce Christianity, saying it has been tried and found wanting, but I think it has not been tried at all. Period."

Evolution goes to church

David Collier Anderson — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 06:05:20 GMT

According to the early texts of Christianity, Jesus speaks to someone, saying, "If you don't believe me when I tell you earthly things, how will you be able to hear heavenly?"
Science is earthly things and religion heavenly.
To love God with your whole heart and mind and strength and soul is religion; loving your neighbor as yourself is politics.

Evolution goes to church

Futzman — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 06:25:01 GMT

This melding of God and evolution is plain silly. God is belief supported by superstition and evolution science supported by facts. The two have nothing in common. Got it?

Evolution goes to church

MIKE G. ST. CHARLES MO. — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 06:43:22 GMT

TO SUGGEST THAT BECAUSE EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE WORKS AS IT DOES PROVES THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IS RIDICULOUS. LOOKING AT THE RESULTS OF SOMETHING AND JUDGING BY WHAT IT IS IT MUST HAVE BEEN PLANNED? THE GRAND CANYON WAS CARVED BY WATER AND IT IS SPECTACULAR. BUT IT IS THE RESULT OF THE WATER NOT A PLAN. FACE IT PEOPLE WHEN FORKS WERE INVENTED THEY WERE CONSIDERED A SLIGHT AGAINST GOD WHO HAD GIVEN YOU FINGERS TO EAT WITH. COLUMBUS HAD TO PRETEND AMERICA WAS INDIA WHILE THE CHURCH DID DAMAGE CONTROL, THE POSSIBILITY THAT YOUR RELIGION GOT SOMETHING AS COMPLEX AS A CREATER OF EVERYTHING 100% RIGHT IS LAUGHABLE AT BEST. AND AS I REMEMBER GOD NEVER PUT PEN TO PAPER IT WAS MEN. AND THE BIBLE HAS BEEN REWRITTEN MANY MANY TIMES AND GONE THROUGH AT LEAST 3 LANGUAGES TO GET TO ENGLISH. TAKE 1 PARAGRAPH,WRITE IT IN FRENCH AND HAVE 5 DIFFERENT PEOPLE TRANSLATE IT. I GUARANTEE IT WILL NOT BE WORD FOR WORD AND YET YOU TAKE THE BIBLE LITERALLY? THE HEBREW LANGUAGE DOESNT HAVE ANY VOWELS. FROM THAT TO LATIN TO GERMAN TO ENGLISH. ITS EASIER TO PROVE EVOLUTION THAN TO FIGURE OUT THOSE TRANSLATIONS. THE QUEST FOR KNOWLEDGE SHOULD NOT STOP BECAUSE IT MAKES YOU UNCOMFORTABLE TO THINK YOU MIGHT BE WRONG.

Evolution goes to church

Brendan, Seattle, WA — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 06:49:17 GMT

Nothing produced by Dinesh D'Souza could remotely be considered "scientific" or "sophisticated." He's a shill for a right-wing publisher, and is most assuredly not a scientist of any bearing.

Unlike Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, or Sam Harris, D'Souza has never studied or, more importantly, published anything peer-reviewed on evolution (or any other scientific premise). It's highly disingenuous to suggest that his book has anything reasonable to say on the subject.

Evolution goes to church

dan — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 06:53:07 GMT

n.f.wilson:
Evolution has not stopped, the problem that many people have with it is the timescale involved.
evolution can happen more quickly within a small population, but it still takes many generations for any significant change to take place(that means that any significant change to the human race will take place long after you and I are gone).
this is easy when the timescale is millions to billions of years, but impossible to understand if one thinks the Earth is only 10,000 years (or less) old.

the greatest problem with those that take the "great flood" literally, is that it actually requires something like "super evolution" to account for all the species that now currently exist.

Evolution goes to church

Mother Nature or?, Kingman, Az. — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 06:55:46 GMT

To add to my earlier comments. No one could possibly know that man was created in the image of god as some religeous texts profess. It is far more likely that man created an image of god in his own likeness, complete with his emotional deficiencies such as prejudice, discrimination, vengence and anger. In attempting to envision an unfamiliar being, man cannot envision an entity without a body or face, cannot envision purity of emotion void of handicap, so he envisions god in a near likeness of himself.... It would seem far more likely that a soul, not man is gods particular life form, and far more likely a soul is more in the likeness of god, for a soul is a unique form of energy that is concsious of self and surroundings, is a form of energy equipped with a personality and demeanor that makes it unique from all others, and is a form of energy that is ever lasting. The body of man consists entirely of matter and is subject to damage and the errosive elements that surround it. A body (whatever type) is merely a vehicle, whereas a soul is the operator, the operator that pushes the buttons,pulls the levers and operates the throttle to make the vehicle preform whatever task. But a some point when a vehicle becomes damaged beyond repair or simply wears out, the operator must vacate and go in search of another vehicle in order to continue the journey. When a body ceases to function and is nolonger operable however, it is not the end of life and experience, it is but the end of one of many chapters in the journey of a soul in search of total comprehension and home

Evolution goes to church

John Doe — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 07:08:34 GMT

Hmmm. let's turn it around shall we?

Perhaps no individual has had such a sweeping influence on so many facets of social and intellectual life as Jesus of Nazareth. No other first-century man had Jesus' impact on the structure of modern Western societies.

In the past 2 millenia, Jesus' ideas have inspired powerful images and insights in science, law, humanities and the arts. Meanwhile, countless pretenders ignorant of his meaning have twisted his teachings to plump their own chickens — from the Crusaders to Jim Jones. Jesus has been invoked as the demon responsible for a variety of perceived heartless ills of secular society, including charity, mercy, grace, opposition to abortion, homosexuality, stem-cell research, same-sex marriage, and the abridgment of all our unnatural freedoms. One can scarcely imagine the horror that Jesus would feel at the misunderstanding, misappropriation and vilification of his ideas in the 2000 years since his death and resurrection. ...

Evolution goes to church

KJ — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 07:21:10 GMT

I find it incredible that we are still having this debate. I argue with my sister all the time. She believes that Noah had dinosaurs on the Ark. I have moved past the bible fairy tales that I was forced to listen to as a child. Evolution happens every day. Just look at the different breeds of dogs, they all may have started out as wolves, but through human intervention and 'Directed' evolution (read selective breeding) we have created the Chinese Crested dog which is so far away from it's wolf ancestor that it's hardly recognizable as a canine.

Evolution goes to church

KEN, AUBURN, WA. — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 07:38:31 GMT

TO ME BELIEF IN EVOLUTION IS BALONEY. HOW IS IT THAT THE FOOD WE EAT AND THE AIR WE BREATH CAME ALONG AT JUST THE RIGHT TIME TO SUPPORT LIFE. THEN TOO,HOW COME THERE ARE TWO SEXES AND NOT JUST ONE. WHAT ABOUT THE ANIMAL/BIRD/FISH,ETC.KINGDOMS? DID THEY TOO DEVELOP BY EVOLUTION? IT IS A GARBAGE THEORY!!!!!!!

Evolution goes to church

Agnostic, Indiana — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 08:03:08 GMT

To N.F.Wilson, evolution has not stopped! If man evolved from an ape or whatever, it was over a very long period of time. Recent changes in mankind is our size. We are constantly getting taller and taller. Look around you. Its very slow but happening. Archeological findings slowly put pieces together because our recorded history only covers a very short span of time. Is God playing a joke on us by burying all these fossils we dig up!

Evolution goes to church

Jean Cheyenne, WY — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 08:31:25 GMT

God is the Creator of all things and so is the system he put in place for survival to occur. Evolution is just an extended theory of God's system. Usually changes are brought about through changes that occur outside the norm. Man has done the most damage to our survival by wiping out a whole species and damaging the environment that He created.

Evolution goes to church

PJ — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 08:56:37 GMT

Theories do not persist without evidence. Religions thrive in those areas for which we lack evidence. But, as our knowledge grows, our gods shrink, or morph into something that fits better into the current gaps of our knowledge. The only way for the two to avoid conflict, is for science to remain our pursuit of knowledge and religion to remain a personal belief system that helps some cope with the unknown using arbitrary explanations. And the arbitrary nature of belief systems is why no government should ever institutionalize a religion or its beliefs.

Evolution goes to church

Logan Longview, Washington — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 09:17:56 GMT

First of all, if scientists would just look at the FACTS and I mean FACTS, they would see that evolution in its entirety is a fraud. Let's use Jean Baptiste Lamarck's theory of evolution. Lamarck proposed that once giraffes had long necks, but then a drought came and all the little bushes and low-lying plants were eaten by the smaller organisms, at this point giraffes then stretched their necks to get the leaves on the trees. So, when one not-so-long-necked giraffe gave birth she would give birth to another giraffe with the same not-so-long-neck, this process repeating over and over again until we got modern giraffes. First of all, since the drought has ended, where are the short-necked giraffes? Secondly, it was a custom of Chinese mothers to bind the back of their daughters with the front, causing them to be crippled but to have "beautiful" small feet. If Lamarck were right then why did the chinese mothers have to bind their daughters feet? Shouldn't they have been born with them extremely small and crippled after all those generations of binding? Now to Hugo De Vries Evolution Mutation Theory. De Vries proposed that for biological evolution to take place a major mutation would have to occur.Ok. Well, a cell can divide 10 million times before a mutation occurs. Also, almost all mutations are Somatic, having no effect on the offspring. And even when the mutation is genetic, it would have just double or subtract one from the chromosome count. In De Vries theory an entire new gene would be made. We're talking hundreds of thousands of mutations occuring in just the right order.Can anyone say impossible? yeah I think so. Now to Neo-Darwinism, today's modern evolution theory. Here, evolutionists have combined De Vries Mutation Theory with Darwin's Natural Selection. Have you ever heard of the example of the rat being the common ancestor of the bat? They say that the rat eventually evolved into the bat. But, the rat-bat would eventually reach the stage where it couldn't run or fly. I think it's really weird that an environment similar to those of rats back in the time that these supposed mutations were taking place would EVER favor a creature that could neither run nor fly.

Evolution goes to church

Agnostic Indiana — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 09:49:59 GMT

Try this on for size! Science studies, observes, records data and repeats the process over and over and over. This process may arrive at a definitive answer to a problem or a possible theory. Religion, on the other hand, already has every thing figured out. God sends the message through his pastors, ministers , bishops, evangelists etc. to the flock through the church, books, cds and TV. If all of this is coming from God, why are there so many different ideas, interpretations coming from the so-called anointed ones! If its coming from God, wouldn't they all say the same thing! My point is that science doesn't rely on blind faith for support of its ideas. Religion on the other hand, demands you follow or else, you may end up in the lake of fire for eternity! I must go now, I need to find a fire retardant wet suit!

Evolution goes to church

Rhea, Plymouth. MI — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 09:51:26 GMT

My question to people whom believe in evolution is U can say we evolved but something put that there U can't just appear outta nowhere that's ignorant to think that way something had to create the animals & the planets they don't just form outta thin air so I don't see why this is so hard for people not to believe in a higher power sure we can't see God until we get to Heaven ok I get that fine so be it but U know what I do see I see everything on this planet that's beautiful & wonderful & I believe that something bigger & more powerful then we can ever imagine to create all of this it's amazing when I look at the mountains from being up in a plane I cry cuz they're breathtaking I know that something created it & to me he doesn't get enough credit for his masterpiece cuz we try to make up all this stuff to deny what really happened soo many years ago cuz our minds are tini & we only use so much of our brains & if we did we'd then be able to see God but we can't while on earth his beauty is reflected in all that's been created for us to see on a milder plane our eyes are adjusted to see it all & take it all in but God is even moreso then that & our eyes would literally pop out from his sight he's just too big but U know what he did for us he sent Jesus & then we could see through him cuz he's in human form & that we can understand & adjust to right away there's your prove God exist through him no doubt about that AMEN!

Evolution goes to church

JR Westfield Ind. — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 10:12:52 GMT

To Mike G, In support of your blog about different translations of the Bible, get the book'Misquoting Jesus' by Bart Ehrman. He is a world-class biblical scholar that was startled to discover the multitude of mistakes and intentional alterations made by early translators. His study of the Greek manuscripts caused him to abandon his ultraconservative views of the Bible.

Evolution goes to church

richard Skelling Elliot Lake Ontario Canada — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 11:03:09 GMT

I believe that, creation came first and
than evolution followed.

god is man made, it comes from paganism.
Pagans had gods and godesses.

Religions are also man made, just to control people.
It is My beliefs, I am not a religious person.
Not being religious doesn't mean I'm a bad human being. Religions killed millions of people,
more people than wars have killed.

Evolution goes to church

Linda D. Kirk, Scarborough, Maine — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 11:10:31 GMT

The poetry of studying evolution:
Float, decade to decade, with an idea of the earth, the universe past and future, as a pencil sketch. Decade to decade, bursts of fact fill in fantasies, coloring the sketch. A kaleidescope emerges, crystallized images of deep history to distant future, millenia contained in one mind, one life. It is complete. Linda Kirk, 2008

Evolution goes to church

Wayne Brumley, Fort Wayne, In. — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 11:39:08 GMT

I would argue that those who believe in creationism not only do not understand evolution, they do not understand the reality of their own faith. 1) They do not understand that the King James Version of the bible represents only a small percentage of all the books of the original writings. That the vast majoritity of those writings were censored. (i.e. The dead sea scrolls, the writings of the Gnostic, The books of the Egyptian, etc.) This was not an act of God but an act of man. 2) What is now referred to as the bible is the product of unnumbered revisions of the original text, each one altered by men to have God say what they wanted him to say and simply bad translations. Again, an act of man, not God. 3) The writings of the bible and the words of Jesus were intended for people who had no understanding of how the world really worked and had to have these ideas put in a way that illiterates, as most people were then, would be able to comprehend the ideas in a way that a toddler of today would need to frame it so they could relate them to there own limited lives. 4) Finally, you must include the present day misinterpretations and misrepresentations of what the text says in the King James bible, again as represented by men, not God. The best that can be said is that you have been lied to! If you believe that God created a perfect world you must believe that the methods science uses to,say, date fossils are as natural and as perfect as He made them. Yet you chose to believe that after all the corruption by men of God's word that it is God that is lying. That although God provided evidence that man and dinosaurs did not coexist the corrupt word of man says they did. Using the method God provided for man to prove such as this it is God, not man, that is lying to you. I say this unto you: Until you understand the word of God and how men have corrupted it you cannot understand your own faith. If you cannot understand your own faith you can understand nothing. Until the WHOLE bible is given to you with proper translation you cannot know the will or the word of God. It would be far better for you to adopt a humanist approach to understand God's will rather than to blindly follow those who only want to have power over you. Although huminists do not atribute being good and doing good to a supernatural being the intent, in the end is the same and would provide a better understanding of creation, evolution and life in general whether your own or Gods will. But whenever I hear the someone going on that creationism trumps science it is obvious that person understands neither.

Evolution goes to church

Steve Gunawan , Australia — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 12:02:26 GMT

The human mind is so powerful or delusive that they can choose to believe or otherwise by ways of reasoning.
The fact remain that in this world , they are so many religions who claimed that by only believing in their god, it's the only way to reach heaven ! The logic being that either one of them is true or all of them are delusions.The human being due to part of the evolution process never want to let go their fear and accept death as part of natural selection. With religion this eliminate their fear cos heaven is awaiting them all.
The evolution theory is based on overhelming evidences and explain how we all come about and Sir Darwin should be awarded a noble prize for it.

Evolution goes to church

Jory — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 12:10:27 GMT

Humanity has been around for THOUSANDS of years before the bible. I for one belive in evelution. Feh, god, please. We only created him because we do not understand the true complexity of the universe and how it runs. we are young, we still have much to learn. We learn more every passing year through science. So for the belivers of faith, you keep beleiving that your god created the planet or humanity/ life in general or whatever in 6 days. I for one say millions of years through evolution is the only truth for our dominance on earth.

Evolution goes to church

Branimal — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 12:19:12 GMT

Why is it that the people on here screaming the loudest about God, christianity, and their anti views on science and evolution always have misspellings in their rants? Being able to quote the bible chapter and verse is NOT the same as having a REAL education and a college degree, and a good grasp of english!

Evolution goes to church

Prakash, London.UK — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 12:43:14 GMT

1) The argument that all creationists use is apes evolving into man. The reality: Apes and Humans share a common ancestor. Research on Chromosome 2.

2) The creationists argue that darwinism is racism and resulted in genocide. The reality: Darwinism is when a species evolve (or mutate) to survive their environment an example is bacteria and its resistance to medicine. The bible was used for slavery. Hitler said he was doing gods' works, the vatican were supporting him.

3)The creationists argue about how god created everything and the bible is gods word (if one is a christian obviously). The reality, the contradictions of the bible of all forms and demoninations, including and especially the Watchtower cult. There is no evidence of a worldwide flood, the gospel accounts are fictious and conflict with each other. The alleged disciples of an alleged jesus did not write the gospels, it was someone else. Plus the whole history of HOW the bible was put together and translated is another story.

4)The bible is not accurate on scientific matters, rather a cultural, and plagarised account. It deals with what the men who wrote the old testament decided. including embellishments such as a massive kingdom of david when archaeology proves it to be a tribal village. Plus no jews in egypt! A bat is not a bird. There are no unicorns. Bible is pornographic [...] 2 kings 18:27 amongst others!!

5)Creationists argue that there are no transitional fossils. The reality: They have no idea on how a fossil is made, they have no idea that the earth is contantly changing-volcanic activity etc. They have no idea that transitional fossils have been found are and are well documented.

6)The creationists argue that there are evolution hoaxes etc. The reality, even desperate religious bigot fanatics, also make hoaxes to get credibility, such as the turin shroud:fake, biblical texts and gospels:fake and copies, the watchtower cult with their new light.

7)The creationists argue that darwinism and atheists have no morality. The reality: read every religious scripture and you will find more pornography that in an adult book store. Religious enjoy relying on faith and have vicious arguments when their faith is being challenged. The religious enjoy putting their beliefs on others, but plays the victim when someone calmly tells them to keep their beliefs to themselves. Also like to preach hell, and enjoy scientific technology.

8) Last point. They deny the existance of other gods, I go one (or three or how many they have) god(s) more than them. The EVO/god debate might end in the next 1000 years, if jesus has not arrived or armegeddon has not happened, or if the world is taken over by the religious fanatics.

Evolution goes to church

Prakash, London.UK — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 12:54:29 GMT

oh I didn't read the 2nd page of comments:

9) Creationists argue that evolution is a theory. a) COMMON usage is NOT PROPER USAGE. b) have they any idea of scientific ideas and methodology? do they even learn science at school? Also if jesus EVER returns like he said, I think that will sort everyone out. I'll be waiting.

10) Using CAPS to show their opinion. common sense: 'there are two sexes', snails are hermaphrodite that is male and female, fish can change the gender, 'virgin' sharks (female offspring only) and komodo dragons (male offspring only) can have babies without a male. The bible said that all females shall have pains of birthing but it seems that god messed up because male seahorses give birth.

thankyou for reading.

Evolution goes to church

Aiken, Monmouth, Wales — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 13:01:50 GMT

In answer to the first post; this is 2008 CE for some of us. It seems to be about 1808 AD for a lot of the other posters though. Seriously, it is an uphill struggle to achieve meaningful education against such a mountain of ignorance.

Evolution goes to church

Chuck, Davenport, FL — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 15:51:09 GMT

It is sad for me to read these messages from people who have put their faith in evolution, a religion of its own, and one that does not offer any hope of happiness, only decay. I wonder if anyone writing here actually understands carbon dating of fossils? There are many assumptions that have to be made for the dating method to be accurate. Where is the "science" in the assumptions of another "man"? A man assumed that light could be used to calculate the distances of stars in our universe, but now "science" is confirming that light does not travel in a straight line through space. How accurate can the measurements be if the yard stick is "bent"? Most of the writings here denounce God and ridicule those who believe in Him as "non-thinkers". I challenge them to use their "open minds" to look at the evidence closely. Read the results of the RATE project on radiometric dating. I dare you... Respectfully.

Evolution goes to church

ross — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 15:53:37 GMT

I have to agree with Dr. Zaius about Man. It is irrelevant that man and ape sprang from a common ancestor. God set us apes up in the garden and man according to his nature was thrown out. How do you account for the disasters that plague us now?

You (humankind)have always turned paradise into a hell with your actions.

Evolution goes to church

Tony Miller, Virginia Beach, Virginia — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 16:42:04 GMT

There is NO such thing as evoulution! That is the enemies plan is to have everyone confused and arguing about how humans evolved from apes and how we started as organisms from gas,oxygen, carbon, etc... There is no way church and evolution can be on the same page because as long as scientists keep believing in evolution and not referring to the bible(yes the bible) then there will always be an argument somewhere! Moses was the first author of the bible and he was given what to say through holy spirit! Yes later on the bible was translated by man but if you did your research you would know how the bible was translated! I dont know about you but I would rather be with God and His word than be against on my way to hell!

Evolution goes to church

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 18:25:00 GMT

Alan, this link and interview with Bill Nye http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12168265/ is right on. He pretty much succinctly sums up evolution and corrects human misunderstanding about the definition of evolution. He did fail to mention however that evolution proceeds exclusively on its own without any "help" from above but did debunk a quote from genesis.

Thanks!

Evolution goes to church

David H. Partington, Ph.D., Dalton, NH — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 19:07:07 GMT

For me the problem lies in the verb "to believe." Is to believe in religion/God the same as to believe in science? Belief in religion is a guess based on wishful thinking; belief in science is based on demonstrable proof. Any conference composed of religious persons and scientists will fail unless there is a prior agreement on the terms of debate.

Evolution goes to church

Mallory, Olympia, Wash — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 19:40:17 GMT

I'm a college student, and I find it sad and depressing that people still don't believe in the Theory of Evolution. Yes it may be a theory, but I challenge you to drop a pencil, and let me know when it flies up instead of falling down.
I wish people would come to understand, as I have, that religion was made to explain things, back in the time when people had no other explaination.
Now that we do, religion has become a way to control people, who are too scared to face the fact that we are not the only being in the universe.
How egotistical is it, to believe that the purpose of the universe is for humans to exist, as opposed to the fact that we are just like every other organism, that we evolved by chance. That idea, is the same as the belief that white man is superior to other races. We gave up that terrible misconception, why can't we get past this one.
I find it sad, and pathetic, that our country seems to be moving backwards, when you don't hear other countries disputing scientific theories like evolution. We claim to be the most powerful and influential country, but really we're just like a small immature child, who's too stubborn to believe the truth.

Evolution goes to church

Jeff Wunder, Tucson AZ — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 20:47:56 GMT

Just reading the comments on this blog is a depressing experience for any one who loves science. Evolution is as much of a scientific fact as anything. How so many people can believe in such nonsense as a 6k year old earth, Noah's Ark, talking snakes, 900 year old guys, etc, in this day and age, is hard to understand.

I'm sorry, but the bible is incompatible with evolution. In fact, due to it's numerous contradictions and absurdities, it's also incompatible with itself. Christianity is based on selfishness and shamelessly exploits your naturally selected-for desire to continue your existence. How many Christians would there be if it didn't promise them immortality in heaven? And what is the most selfish thing you can possibly with for? A billion dollars? 72 virgins? No, immortality is the most selfish. When a Christian does good deeds, he expects a reward in heaven. When an atheist does them, he is genuinely altruistic and empathetic.

I'm fed up with religion. It has caused so much misery in so many lives (including my own), it manipulates the credulous and it distorts truth on a massive scale. From now on, I will attack this nonsense whenever I can.

Evolution goes to church

Pastor John Miskimen, Jim Falls, WI — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 21:03:16 GMT

"In the beginning....", so begins the book of Genesis, and it goes on from there. What was "in the beginning"? Nothing! From nothing, God created all that is. "Scientists" have invested billions, or perhaps trillions of dollars in trying to prove that all this came about by the "Big Bank theory". I don't have a problem thinking that God could have started His creation with a big bang. So I ask this question: If everything began with "something" that went "bang" - then obviously "something" had to be there - where did IT come from?
John Miskimen - Jim Falls, WI

Evolution goes to church

Zach Young, Denver, CO — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 21:55:55 GMT

Several Points:

1. Creationists (and most people in general, including some scientists) COMPLETELY fail to grasp the VAST amount of time that has passed, not only since the Earth coalesced from the disk of gas and dust surrounding the new born Sun, but since the Big Bang itself! Recorded human history goes back between 6,000 and 10,000 years. There is plenty of evidence that shows that early man was at least drawing on the walls of caves in Europe as long as 32,000 years ago, and various tools and artifacts date even farther back than that. DNA and fossil evidence suggest that current modern Homo Sapiens arose in Africa around 200,000 years ago. The age of the Earth is around 4.5 Billion years, which is roughly 22,000 times longer than the most amount of time that humans could have existed! The universe itself is approximately 13.7 Billion years old! Human existance is only a tiny sliver at the end of that timeline. In fact if you made a timeline of the history of everything in which the 200,000 years of humans were 1 foot long (long enough that all of recorded history at the end is a little under an inch long) the timeline would stretch 155 miles! That's about the same distance between Washington, DC and Philadelphia! It's a LOT of time! Plenty of time for random changes to happen.

2. Creationists argue that there are too many "transitional" fossils missing from the record. This might be true to some extent, however, using it as incontrovertible proof against evolution demonstrates a profound lack of understanding.
First: Fossils require a very specific set of circumstances to form in the first place. An animal must die or get killed in a place where the bones will be quickly buried. Bones exposed the the sun, wind, and other living creatures will decay and disappear. Fossils can only form if the animal dies in a moist environment (lakes, rivers, marshes, bogs, etc) or a very dry sandy environment (dunes), gets caught in tree sap (bugs in amber), or are caught in a volcanic eruption. This naturally limits the number of fossils that CAN form very drastically.
Second: Geological processes have destroyed a lot of the historical record. Plates move around (proven geological fact) and when they run into each other, one of two things happen, they either crunch together (like the Himalayan Mountains) or one slides under the other (ocean trenches). If one goes under, all that rock (and any fossils within it) are melted and recycled in the lower crust and the Mantle of the earth. If they crunch and crumple, all that rock (and all the fossils within it) are compressed, deformed, and their original state becomes unrecognizable. These processes have destroyed large portions of the fossil record.
Last but not least: We only find the fossils that remain in places that are either exposed by erosion (cliffs, valleys, etc) or exposed by our own digging (mining, construction, etc) If wee wanted to find ALL the fossils EVERYWHERE, we would have to dig up ALL the rock EVERYWHERE! That's an expensive (and stupid) thing to do, just to find some old bones.

3. Regarding the remark about the yardstick that we measure the universe with, light, being bent, it really doesn't matter. It doesn't matter how far or how straight a beam of light travels, what's inmportant is how LONG it's been travelling. Since light always travels at the same speed in a vacuum no matter what, it doesn't matter whether the photons traveled in a straight line for 13.7billion years, or in a curvy, zig zag, loopy pattern for 13.7billion years, it traveled for 13.7billion years either way. If the oldest light we can see is 13.7 billion years old, then the universe must be about that old, since light from things farther away wouldn't have had enough time to reach our eyes.

4. The universe is HUGE. There IS alien life out there somewhere. Probably intelligent life. We just don't know how far away they are, and if we can even hear them if we tried. So far, we have detected 270 planets orbiting other stars! Some of these systems start to come close to looking like our own solar system. Although, at the moment our technology only allows us to detect large planets and those that orbit too close the their star. However, it seems more and more likely that planets are EVERYWHERE! Just our own galaxy has up to 400 Billion stars, many of which likely have solar systems. From our own fossil record, it seems that life sprang into being almost as soon as the crust solidified, so we can assume that if among all those planets a smallish rocky planet existed in a place where liquid water was present, it has a decent chance of having life.

One problem we have in detecting other intelligent life, is that unless they are making an effort to be heard, it's not likely we will be able to pick up their signals among all the cosmic noise out there. We do have our ears pricked though, if someone decides to say "hi" we stand a nice chance of hearing it, especially if they keep their massage going for a while.

5. People claim that evolution in humans has stopped. I would think that this might be somewhat true, but not because we are created different. Homo Sapiens is a remarkably successful species! Whereas all other species in the past have had to adapt physically to changing environments, humans first learned how to adapt to new environments on a very short term basis. We did this with clothing (as we moved into extremely hot or cold environments) tools to hunt and gather a variety of new foods wherever we moved to, and gradually through a long process of trial and error, we learned how to change our environments to suit us!

Modern medicine might also be slowing down human evolution. If weak people no longer die out, and instead are kept alive to pass on their genes with surgery and medicine, does that effectively kill natural selection in humans? Maybe for now. What is likely going to happen in the future is that medicine will restart human evolution, but this time we will be the ones directing it, instead of it being a string of random occurances.

There are more points to make, but my point is this: don't make judgements or claim that evidence proves or disproves evolution unless you really understand what you're saying. I've mentioned points from sciences such as Biology, Physics, Geology, Astronomy/Cosmology, Anthropology, Paleontology, and Archeology, and this shows that in order to grasp the vastness of these issues it helps to have a grasp of many different disciplines. However you'll notice that none of what I said precludes the existence of God. God is most likely unprovable, but also un-disprovable.

Also, on a personal note, the more I understand about the world, the MORE wonderful and MORE miraculous it gets!

Evolution goes to church

Rocky, Rochester, NY — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 22:20:42 GMT

It is amazing to see all the illogic in the support of creation.

To answer a few points made, Darwin did not state near the end of his life that maybe he had made a mistake on his theory of evolution. I read a book called "Ten Commandments Twice Removed" by Danny Shelton/Shelley Quinn where in, it states (in the third person, Page 14) "It has been reported he disclaimed much of his supposition in his later years". Darwin never made such a claim in writing he however did discuss with his peers how he initially made some errors in his initial assumptions (suppositions) but in the final analysis he withdrew nothing. This assertion is just a devious way of placing a dark cloud of doubt over Darwin’s work by some unethical people.

With regards to the claim that we cannot prove evolution think about the breeding of dogs, cats, horses and cows where in we can develop certain traits beneficial to our needs. This is evolution in over drive, in a hundred years we have developed new characteristics in animals, if that is not evolution then I guess it does not exist.

Science is not a journey to prove there is a God but I suspect if there is one then eventually it will be discovered by scientist. And with regards to Jesus raising the dead, making the blind see etc. there is only one source for that information, even if it were witnessed by thousands there is only one person telling that story, there is no other witnesses to that tale.

Evolution goes to church

GrandpaNate Raqlins, Wyoming. — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 22:43:49 GMT

I have news for the World. Scientist's portrayal of Earth History, as being taught in our schools and universities, [and by extention. thier theories on evolution] are nothing but a modern myth. Neither the Bibical account of Creation, nor the Theory of Continental Drift, are conguent with the truth. If you really want to learn the Earth's true history, check out: Http://PlaneyEarthRevisited.blogspot.com/
I will without doubt, throw both sides of this war of isms, into a terrible rage, for neither side can admit, that they just might not have "The World All Knowed up."

Evolution goes to church

Rob, Whidbey Island, WA — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 22:51:37 GMT

As I've read this article and the following comments (as many as I could stomach), I've been fascinated by the passion on all sides of the issue (there are more than 2). For my part, I believe in God (not religion) and I believe in evolution. Creationists seem to like to insist on things just being created as they are now, more or less. God is eternal. He wasn't born yesterday! So maybe in our inability to grasp infinity (thus far), He's letting us work up to the Truth, as slowly and painfully as such lessons are bound to be learned. Evolution, science and religious philosophy (not religious dogma) are the tools of the student in this search for Truth. The scientist may well be closer to God than any of us realize.

Evolution goes to church

Dave, Stillwater OK — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 23:12:43 GMT

As for Darwin being a racist, I am sure he was. Almost everyone practised racial discrimination in Darwin's day and time. If we disregard the great contributions to our society that were made by racists, we don't have much left. We can and should discard racist beleifs. Racist people hold erroneous beleifs. All people subscribe to erroneous beleifs. Some cling to beleifs that have been utterly debunked by very strong evidence. We all have our favorite misconceptions. Is it not possible that a person can be right about one thing and wrong about another? Very few people who know anything about DNA, biology, or evolution put any stock in racist theories, yet they almost all believe in evolution. Retrospective character-based arguments against Darwin's detailed scientific work are completely worthless. Dr. Watson, one of the co-discoverers of the DNA double-helix is still a racist to this day, but that doesn't change the fact that he opened the door for us to use DNA to find out that we are really more alike than we are different, though we are more different (as we are no finding out) than we had originally believed based on the human genome project. Yet, the hypothesis that race is predominantly a social construct has been tested. Study after study has concluded that one race is not superior to another, and that race is not a biological fact. The hypotheses are tested based on the facts (i.e., the data). When we find enough evidence in the form of statistical test, we then have an established theory that is supported by the facts. Seldom are these theories ever completely debunked, though they do change as more evidence comes in. I certainly put a lot of stock in scientific discovery, including evolutionary theory. Perhaps, one day when we have ALL the evidence we'll be able to explain everything and find God scientifically. Yet, can we ever really have ALL the data? Science can never prove God exists becasue we do not know everything. What a conundrum! I beleive there is a God, and I don't plan on having any statistical evidence for his existence, nor any to the contrary. I also beleive that evolution is a theory supported by the facts. Real sience doesn't bother trying to tell us that life did not originate from God or that God is not involved in our lives. Real science admits to being unable to answer these questions. Anyway, no matter what you believe, your're wrong about something, perhaps even about the belief to which you adamantly cling, whether those beliefs are based on statistical inference or gut instinct.

Evolution goes to church

Troy Warren — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 00:25:53 GMT

It seems strange to me that such an easily proved scientific fact as evolution has requred so many frauds to be perpetrated on the world. From the very beginning of this factual science, there have been many people who have claimed to be scientists who have discovered the definitive proof. Only later was it shown that they had wanted so desperately to find the proof, they were willing to fabricate the whole thing themselves. This is not a single event, but an ongoing pattern. These people were not interested in truth, they had an agenda. You know who they are and what they did, but you ignore it if you have an agenda. Gluing moths on trees. Drawing inaccurate pictures of embryos to show similarities between different species. Buildiing whole museum exhibits of ancient prehistoric peoples on the basis of a single tooth, which turns out to be a pig's tooth. The list is long. Many of these fraudulent proofs are still used in textbooks for children to prove evolution, when the authors know they are not real. When confronted about it they often say that it doesn't matter because they know evolution is real and this is better proof than anything they could show. Showing variations in a species and claiming that this proves the evolution to another species is fraudulant science. Changing long-standing definitions of what a species is, because the old definitions didn't allow their proof. I don't have a problem with true science, but this is the next best thing to witch doctors and shamen. This is religion with a belief in the revelation of another god. The majority! No academic can hope to get tenure on a major university unless he is willing to subscribe to this mess. Talk about mind control!
The mini Grand Canyon created by the Mt St Helens eruption with strata that would pass for millions and millions of years old, if we didn't know they were created in a short time. Trees stuck upright in the strata, debunking the time element of the strata. This is one of many occurrneces which brings the 'old earth' theory into question. There are many more, but this is all there is time for now.

Evolution goes to church

Gerald Lyannas, GA — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 01:57:11 GMT

There is a movie coming out soon to theaters that will discuss part of this issue. Unfortuantely, real science is not being taught these days. When discoveries are made that debunk evolution, they are shunned. If a scientists publishes evidence debunking evolution, he is shunned. Evolutionists are afraid. It's all about money, and if you have a spiritual I.Q. you understand we have an enemy who would rather have people believe in anything that is secular. Anyway, the move is called Expelled. Ben Stein will challenge some scientists and the evolutionists propaganda. Bottom line, it is a shame that we don't allow pure science to be taught. That's the only way we'll truly learn. Be prepared though, 150 year old evolutionary ideas do not fit well with real science or many discoveries of the last 15 years.

Evolution goes to church

Jesus, Heaven — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 02:06:31 GMT

To those who think religion is jumping on the band wagon of science, tell me has science proved that God doesn't exist yet? NO!!! You are quite happy to say that because natural selection by random mutation has not been disproved yet is a good model to go on scientifically, but yet you have yet to disprove the existence of God but look down on those who believe in Him. Hello??? You need to check yourself.

Evolution goes to church

Gerald Lyannas, GA — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 02:08:44 GMT

I wonder how many of you that believe in evolution would still after seeing evidence supporting the other side? The problem is, most of you either are exposed to very little science or that which only supports evolution. This is why many are fighting to open the schools to all the evidence that is available. If the data supports evolution, then no one should be afraid of all the data. If there is data that suggests the earth as well as the universe is young, so be it. If there is proof that the common dating methods are flawed, so be it. If there is evidence to suggest our atmosphere was different before the flood, and other factors that could be throwing off the dating methods, so be it. We have recently discovered the speed of light is not a constance, althought that has been taught for at least 50 years. That discover alone throws into question the age of the universe. I say, let true science be taught. Let all the facts out, and let the facts speak for themselves.

Evolution goes to church

J.R. Westfield,Ind. — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 02:24:49 GMT

After reading Tony Millers blog ( there's no such thing as evolution, it's the enemies plan to confuse us). Just who is the enemy and who is really the confused one? Also, I've personally studied religions for 24 years to gain a better understanding of human thought, and why we act the way we do. Don't view science as attacking you or confusing you, they are just searching for answers much like Galileo, who was imprisoned for his confusing science by the church. If I remember , Galileo was proven correct. Gee, imagine that the church was wrong! The same things are happening today but fortunately the church doesn't have the power it used to exhibit. As far as the translations of the Bible,you mentioned, please read 'Misquoting Jesus' by Bart Ehrman. He is the head of Religious Studies at Univ. of N. Carolina. He won't bite , attack or confuse you just educate.

Evolution goes to church

mengan, stockholm, sweden — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 03:16:55 GMT

I got to say, by reading everyone's comments here. it makes me sad that so many adults in the US still believe in this fairy tale called religion.

I once considered your country and people something to strive for in regards of reason and science, but all that's utterly gone now.

I will not be suprised that the US, in 50 years will become an underdeveloped country ran by religious extremeist by the way it's going.

Please, come to your senses and stop with this nonesense!

Evolution goes to church

Des Emery,St. Thomas, ON, Canada — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 04:55:14 GMT

In the Bible (keep reading, please) the religious zealots of the day conspired to confuse Christ by asking him if he could justify the Hebrews paying tax to the conquerors, the Roman Empire, instead of to their Temple.

Christ looked at the coinage they showed him, pointed out that the image on the coins was that of Caesar,
and said to them "Then pay Caesar what is his, but don't forget to give God what belongs to Him."

A lot of posters here, on either side of the issue, ignore that good advice. Probably they have forgotten that, whether from evolution or from creation, they have been blessed with that most precious birthright, Free Will. They use it themselves but seem to have no qualms in denying it to anyone else whose opinions may differ.

Evolution goes to church

Thomas Ashby. Calgary — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 06:52:13 GMT

Rob, Whidbey Island, WA: " God is eternal. He wasn't born yesterday! So maybe in our inability to grasp infinity (thus far), He's letting us work up to the Truth, as slowly and painfully as such lessons are bound to be learned."

The fallacy of your statement is in the first and second sentence. You, like most, have this notion that God was "born" before the universe. A thinking entity that exists outside of the universe and nature. Don't you see the total irrationality of this whole concept? For one thing, to be a creator or designer of anything, you have to be more complex than the thing you are designing because YOU CAME UP WITH THE IDEA in the first place.

So people really do have to come to terms with this very bad "philosophy" of God and all that it implies.

Evolution goes to church

Peter Laine, Trinidad West Inidies — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 13:51:49 GMT

the way this debate is " evolving " it will only be a few more years until creationists claim evolution was their idea all along

Evolution goes to church

David Bailey, Pickering, Ontario, Canada — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:23:58 GMT

I see that the red herring of transitional fossils has predictably been trotted out. If evolution works (and it does), it means that every single species alive, or that has ever lived, or ever will live, is a transitional fossil; transitional between what it was, and what it may become if evolutionary pressures continue to work on it.

Besides, we don't even need a fossil, just look at a living group, the monotremes, with the best known species being the Platypus. It has a reptilian pelvic girdle, lays eggs, has a rather unrefined internal thermoregulatory system, is covered with fur, and provides milk for its young. Sounds pretty transitional to me.

Evolution has so much evidence going for it that it would take lifetimes for one person to learn it all. All the Bible has are some archeological remnants, but nothing to prove its central theme. It is a loose collection of works, many of which are of doubtful authorship, provenance, and veracity, and since it has a supernatural underpinning it can never be proven or disproven scientifically.

Evolution goes to church

TheFallibleFiend@hotmail.com — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 22:24:53 GMT

Sergio wrote:
'They must have a different definition for the word "Science".'

EXACTLY! You are using a comic-book understanding of what science is. There is nothing unusual about theories being "unproven."

Evolution goes to church

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 22:31:22 GMT

" Has anyone actually observed macro evolution taking place before his eyes (or before the eyes of man in written history)?"

In fact, yes, they have. We have witnessed speciation (the definition of macro-evolution). However, creationists being the poor scientists they are move the line yet again by saying that macro-evolution is a change not between species, but between "kinds."

It's irrelevant, though, we don't need to see a thing to know of it's existence. All we need is sufficient evidence. Creationists often assert that they are not trying to change science, but that they just want to get rid of evolution. This is stupid. They ARE trying to change science by throwing out inference - and with it they would be throwing out almost all of science. Make no mistake creationists are DANGEROUS because they pathologically misrepresent science.

Evolution goes to church

Ryan, Rochester, NY — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 22:32:28 GMT

I think we are all missing the point. Religion was "created" to explain unexplainable things and events. This was done in a relatively ignorant age. Since then we have made scientific discoveries that have started to and will keep on giving us reasonable explainations for these events. We as an intelligent species must come to terms with the fact that there is no God or being that "created" us. We evolved from primates in an amazing way. Science can "prove" this. It is not a theory. We have a chronological record of our evolution. Anthropologists are slowly filling in these gaps. It is time for the Human Race to wake up and realize that we a lot to learn about the universe. But beleive me, they are not going to find any evidence of GOD or any other explanation for humans other than evolution.

Evolution goes to church

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 22:42:15 GMT

David Anderson says that evolution is "just a theory." No theory is "just a theory." Theories are not "just theories" until they get proven. Scientific theories
will always remain theories.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Un-I0mRq8Dw

Evolution goes to church

Ryan, Rochester, NY — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 22:43:59 GMT

One more point:

It has already been provn that God does not exist. When the bible was written, God was beleived to be in the heavens (the clouds). hmm we currently have the ability to see almost all the way across the universe and guess what. NO GOD! He's not hiding behind the sun. He doesnt exist. Now dont tell me that he is this elusive being or he exists on another plane of existance or whatever. Because if he exists we would have located him already.

Evolution goes to church

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 22:44:14 GMT

Scott,
We don't have to witness things to know they have happened with great certainty.

Evolution goes to church

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 22:50:57 GMT

Gerald wrote:
"You might find it interesting to check out the scientific theories supporting creation, and how it was discovered through the literal study of the creation story in Genesis."
There is no "scientific theory" supporting creation. Creationism is inherently non-scientific. It is pretend science.

"It's possible Neanderthal just could be the bones of those that lived before the flood when man lived hundreds of years, even if they aren't."

No. It's not possible. There was no Biblical Flood.

Evolution goes to church

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 22:59:01 GMT

Chuck from Davenport,

Yes. I do understand carbon dating. I understand it well enough to know that it's not used for dating fossils. Yes. There are assumptions - very reasonable assumptions, just like EVERY OTHER THEORY (including gravity and germ theory of disease) uses assumptions.

[...]

Evolution goes to church

Delmar Fairchild, Barron, WI — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 01:08:29 GMT

You can't have pure science without conscience. There is always another side for balance. It must be or there will be chaos. The entire Universe is the same. Same elements, same laws, same time frame. Religionists and scientists; the duality that must be to keep stability.

Evolution goes to church

Luis Villnueva — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 07:04:21 GMT

Evolution is when Darwin was confused and find himself in an island full of living things. Like what i said, he was a confused narcisistic indidividual.
Read the Bible and you won't go wrong. It's ok too to believe on something that the missing link can't be found so you won't get confuse like Darwin. God Bless the confused and the misguided.

Evolution goes to church

Betty Agnew, Virginia Beach, Virginia — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:18:43 GMT

Why can't we just accept the fact that we evolved from monkeys? It's not a big deal. Monkeys are very intelligent and sometimes cute. Why are we debating? WE EVOLVED FROM MONKEYS!!!

Evolution goes to church

Mike, Baltimore MD — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:15:41 GMT

I just wanted to make one point that has been hinted at but not said outright. A major distinction between science and religion is that science is flexible. Science changes and accepts new facts and evidence. Religious change often requires drastic if not violent upheaval. Science can admit it was wrong when presented with enough evidence, religion by nature cannot.

Evolution goes to church

GrandpaNate Rawlins, Wyoming. — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:50:44 GMT

THE REAL TRUTH IS: The Biblical account, and the Scientific view of Earth History, are both only partially correct. Neither side are justified in believing, they have the "World All Knowed Up." And I can prove it to any open minded person. Check out: HTTP://PlanetEarthRevisited.blogspot.com/ I have an article above, but mistyped my web address. Please forgive me for any annoyance my negligence may have caused.

Evolution goes to church

Wayne, Alamogordo, NM — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:06:35 GMT

This debate is really about faith. I have faith in science, but I also have faith in God. My faith in science is due to the facts (not theories) presented before me. My faith in God is due to what I feel in my heart. If we are not created, then everything that makes up our existence as a human being is just reaction to stimuli. There is no hope in such an existence. Belief in God gives us hope that we are all individual's who have been gifted with an organic computer (brain) that allows us to make our own decisions (freedom of will) during our short time on this earth. So, in reality, who is trapped by their beliefs? A belief in God gives you freedom to choose, while a belief in say "Richard Dawkins" is a one-way road. The next time you see a beautiful sunset or see the miracle of a baby being born, let your heart decide for you. As for me, I choose freedom.

Evolution goes to church

Rocky, Rochester, NY — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:20:19 GMT

It is just amazing that people keep saying science has yet to disprove the existence of God. Logic and reason just keeps going right over their heads.

How does one disprove something that does not exist?

Science searches for answers to our existence, to the things we observe etc. if the search for answers leads to the discovery of God so be it but until then don’t create fairy tails to fill the pot of ignorance and illogic because it will lead us down a dead end path.

Evolution goes to church

Young Catholic, PA — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:58:46 GMT

Ok, whoever thought of this idea probably had good intentions, but i think they're playing with fire here. People are usually not open minded and not really into having their beliefs rattled by facts. We tried this at my church. It failed miserably! It was mostly because of the older folks. After every point was made, there was a counter point of well god can do anything, so how do we know he didn't just make a new speices? It was horrable. We had a breif break for comments afterwards, and the backlash that the younger crowd had with the older crowd was bad and the church is still kind of recovering. Most of the younger group was saying that if this was a person showing them that indeed there was proof of god and he creates everything and this is how we know, we would be very open and observant to the speaker. But this wasn't the case and our simpler parents (most of which went to the catholic shool at my church) couldn't handle not having creation when the bible clearly says creation is the only way. Props to the preists for trying to bridge the gap and props to the science professor who clearly stated that the laws of physics and evolution itself helps strengthen the idea that the universe has a creator with unthinkable brilliance and power. But i was ashamed of the older folks who just thought he was attacking Jesus and the truth. It was with good intentions, but when you have a very influential organization like the church telling their followers that the bible is truth, you're closing the door on anything else that has merit. If the church was to make a statement saying something like the bible is here to give us guidence instead of pure truth with assured everlasting life, this whole science and church thing might work, but there is no way people or their "god" is ready for that and they probably never will be.

Evolution goes to church

Chris, Boise Idaho — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 17:40:19 GMT

Know/believe - theory/faith
Will any of us see the light? I can only hope that the light that helps us see gets brighter and brighter. For those that aren't aware of the "Theory of Knowledge", google it or check out these links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

http://www.theoryofknowledge.info/

Evolution goes to church

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 18:08:57 GMT

GrandpaNate: That website of yours proves some people really do have a lot of time on their hands.

I am certainly glad that people with that mindset form a misguided and brainwashed minority.

Evolution goes to church

Lorraine Taube Brockway Township, Michigan — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 18:33:08 GMT

I am a seventy-eight year old woman brought up in a very religous Catholic family who had no choice but public school because I was born with Cerebral Palsey and Catholic schools at the time had no elevators. So I have delt with this all my life. I believe in both. God created the matter from which all life evolved. He also did have something to do with that. Therefore you can believe in both. End of argument. I believe in an all powerful God who gave those scienctists the brains to figure it out

Evolution goes to church

R. Cooper — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:08:21 GMT

Don't forget the Pastafarians.

Evolution goes to church

Tom Carter, Chicago — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:11:56 GMT

Being both a believer and a bioinformaticist I really don't see any reason for one not to embrace both god and science. Like man others have said here, science is the study of natural phenomena, which god is by definition, not. It only gets ugly when religion tries to overstep it's bounds back into the natural world.

Also there are plenty of churches which are completely reasonable about the whole creation debate. My childhood parish participates in Darwin day, and has always considered evolution as the truth of the matter. Then again we are a crazy denomination who call themselves episcopalians and tend to fight for common sense in the face of literalist bunk.

As a bioinformaticist we can clearly see evolutionary processes throughout the genome and furthermore we can calculate the likely path of evolution.(see: Computational phylogenetics) The only place for god's hand in evolution is in the the randomness of mutation and reproduction.

Evolution goes to church

John D, cincinnati, OH — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:15:55 GMT

In response to ross:

ross, natural disasters have plagued mankind and planet earth since it formed. Earth has already seen climate change, massive tsunamis, supervolcano eruptions, etc. Truthfully, man has been living in a rather calm period these last few million years. We've yet to witness / record any of these natural disasters on a global scale.

I don't need a 'creator' to account for these disasters occuring. They're going to occur whether mankind is here to sin or not. Put the bible down awhile and try doing a little research into geology and paeleontology. Once you've read the material, even YOU might be able to account for these natural disasters using common sense and reason rather than supersition.

Evolution goes to church

David Onder — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:32:09 GMT

It is sad to see how derisive the comments can be from both sides of this argument. Those who believe strongly in either side will likely be unconvinced by the arguments of the other. What bothers me most in these discussion is when people who support Evolution say things like "'Creationists' twist fact and NEVER supply hard scientific evidence to back up their nutcase claims" (Marv) and people who support Creation say things like "It was created by GOD. That is the only explanation" (Slam). The first is obviously false based on the number of scientists currently doing research from a Creationist viewpoint (See Institute for Creation Research, The Creation Research Society, and Answers in Genesis for current research being done by people with PhD's from traditional programs). The second is doing exactly what the first claims. It is not sufficient, nor is it convincing, to say that "It was created by GOD. That is the only explanation."

While it may be true that God created the entire universe (which I believe), science (true operational science) can be done to show that the universe is young in the same manner as it can be done to show that it is old. We cannot prove in any way that the world was created by God any more than we can prove that the world was created by a big bang (or by a flying spaghetti monster for that matter).

What we have is an assumption from the beginning that the world was created by God or the world was created by a big bang. These assumptions guide every other decision and conclusion we make with regard to the science being done. What assumptions are made when scientists date a rock? That decay rates are uniform and that there was no contamination in the sample? How do they know those are true? What if it can be shown through operational science that one of those assumptions is false? These are questions that Creation scientists are willing to ask and study but traditional science has stayed away from.

Evolution goes to church

Andrew F., Cincinnati, Ohio — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:46:47 GMT

[...] We KNOW the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. This is the result of experimentation and analysis of countless samples. He also for some reason believes that all life becomes fossillized once it dies. For an organism to become fossillized, there have to be very specific conditions under which it can be preserved. Just like wind and water have and continue to weather the rock of the Grand Canyon, weathering occurs with the bones of the dead as well. So of course there is no step by step record of “trillions of life forms” lying all around. If you are able to ignore the scientific method, you need to stop going to hospitals, taking any kind of medication, or eating just about any food in the grocery store. The scientific method is what lead to all of these discoveries. IT IS ALL THE SAME PROCESS! Non-biased scientists, open to interpret the evidence presented through experimentation, are what make science what it is. No preconceptions, no ignoring evidence to support your belief, only analyizing the data. As you continue to study this debate, you should incorperate some peer reviewed scientific journals in addition to the church published materials you have studied thus far.

Evolution goes to church

Andrew, Cincinnati, OH — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:25:59 GMT

We are all Atheists… I just believe in one less god than you do.

Evolution goes to church

Mike, West Chester, PA — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:59:41 GMT

Please check out http://www.answersingenesis.org/
There is plenty of VERY scientific evidence to support a young universe, with the God of the Bible as its creator.

Evolution goes to church

Cindy Millines — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:34:52 GMT

This age old debate always amuses me. Either the Bible is the "truth" or our scientists know the "truth"! What if they are both wrong? Maybe the reasons they can punch holes in each others theories-is neither is correct. Let's throw another perception into the mix. If followers of either side dare...

http://planetearthrevisited.blogspot.com/

HTTP://GrandpaNate.com/

This ought to get real interesting--real fast...

Evolution goes to church

Todd Baker — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 22:38:23 GMT

The degree of conflict between creation and evolution depends largely on one's definition and understanding of "evolution." Even the most ardent young earth creationists recognize that species and organisms do change and adapt over time via mutation or genetic recombination. But when "evolution" is used by scientists to call the God of the Bible a "liar," that's where we have a BIG problem. Study Jesus' own teachings on the subject. Was He lying about the fact of creation, or Adam's son Abel, or Noah and the flood? Is Jesus Christ a liar? Many scientists seem to think so. THIS, my friends, is where much of the conflict arises from.

Evolution goes to church

Todd Baker, Stockton, CA. — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 02:00:11 GMT

I have a question. Why is it that so many "evolutionists" seem to be so obssessed with forcing their anti-creationist views on people who believe the Bible? It seems that many "evolutionists" are actively trying to prostylitize Bible-believing Christians, in an attempt to convert them from Christianity to their way of thinking. Why are "evolutionists" so intolarant of people who don't see things "their way." Richard Dawkins seems to have become the "Jimmy Swaggart" of the "evolutionist" movement. Both Dawkins and Swaggart seem to be completely intolarant of anyone who "dares" to disagree with them. Dawkins seems to have a lot of disciples these days. Many of them are posting online, trying to force their anti-God, anti-Bible beliefs on people.
Can any "evolutionist" out there explain to me why it is so important to you people to convert Christian into "evolutionists?" Is it true that your end game IS the complete destruction of all religion?

Evolution goes to church

JWeikle — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 02:55:10 GMT

Evolution or the Theory of Evolution is inclusive within the Natural Sciences. One does not have to 'believe' in Evolution, as Evolution does not require social dogmatic guidelines. Faith, religion, and God, is believing in the unknown, the unseen. Humans live in a three dimensional world, which exists in the forth dimensional reality of time. God, or The Creator can exist beyond that reality.
It is better for one to learn and apprieciate all the possibilities, even living their life as if there is a God, only to awake one day to discover that God does exist or does not exist. At least, in the case that God exist, one believed. In the case, that God does not exist, then they have still believed and their 'spirit' can be happy with having believed in an illusion.
Evolution is about the genetic changes that occurs over geological time, and the changes within species and speciation. Even the demise of species, through extinction events, opens the oppurtunity for other species to evolve and adapt to new environments.
On a higher level of thought, What was the evolutionary history leading to God or Godhood?
That is my question I will ask when I get to Heaven.

Evolution goes to church

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 05:07:26 GMT

Maybe it's been said here already but at least the church is in the initial stages of realizing the millenials old mistakes it has made and is warming up to the truth about every living thing on the planet. The problem is, the church has no recourse but to embrace the complete truth just like in Galileo's time.

Evolution goes to church

Des Emery — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 06:45:29 GMT

One of the basic tenets of science is that a "negative" can not be proved. Ergo, one cannot just make the blanket statement that 'God does not exist.'

Evolution is a "positive" and therefore can be proved. And it has been, to the satisfaction of many though not to the comfort of others.

Those who put their unremitting faith in science should remember that it is science which says that light can be observed as a 'wave' at times and as a 'particle' at other times, two mutually exclusive states of existence. And science also provides mankind with two mathematical concepts whose essence cannot be grasped by the human mind. Just try to visualize or imagine the volume of zero quantity in your hand, or holding onto the edge of infinity. Yet we use both concepts all the time for computations.

All of us need to believe in something, whether in science's hope or in religion's faith. We also need to season our viewpoints with a good sprinkling of charity towards each other.

Evolution goes to church

Dan W, Kennett Square, PA — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:59:08 GMT

Scientists and Clergy together, what an idea. Anyone want to throw in the FACT that religion didnt exist until people "fell" into different class structures. Religion was created to control the masses. What more effective way than fostering the belief that an all powerful, unprovable entity said this is the way to do things. go figure. AND this same God made all those fossils and intentionally messed with the radioactive decay rates of isotopes just so we could waste our time thinking all these things are really soooo much older than they really are - since the world was created something like 4000 years ago, right? So dinosaurs etc. were all made up for our amusement. Gee what a sense of humor this "God" has.

Evolution goes to church

Nick Larsen,Lubbock,Texas — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:52:30 GMT

A man once told me the following:"Religion is based on faith, Science is based on the facts, I have faith in the facts" I am a firm believer in the scientific theory of Evolution. Despite the obvious differences between each group, ( Evolutionists vs Creationists) the individual should be allowed to decide for themselves how they wish to believe.

Evolution goes to church

Bryce, Teaneck — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:22:55 GMT

Jessica, Las Vegas, NV, writes: "I have one word, and one word only, for non-believers in Evolution. That word is FOSSIL. And if God put fossils on the Earth for us to find, and made them as old as some have been proven to be, doesn't that make him/her the greatest comedian of all time?"

Unfortunately, Jessica wastes her one word. Did Jessica forget that there are many, many people who disbelieve evolution (errr, certain types of evolution, that is) but do not believe that God planted fossils?

Evolution goes to church

Mark Luce, Fort Collins, Colorado — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:56:44 GMT

Jack Livingston asks: "Gee, when was the last time a modern Christian argued about whether the earth revolved around the sun, or vice versa, and/or whether the earth was the center of the universe? Knowledge marches forward, doesn't it?" Sadly, knowledge does not always march forwards. The head of the Banking Committee of the Texas legislature is a man (a Republican) who insists that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and he wants that idea taught in science classes. Evolution is not the only scientific idea the religious right objects to.

Evolution goes to church

Gerald Lyannas — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:01:54 GMT

I have a question for the evolutionists: How many authentic fossils of an earlier form of man do you think exist? Hint: you cannot use any of the following:

According to modern science:

Neanderthal-modern DNA analysis concludes we did not evolve from him.

Heidelberg Man-Theoretically constructed from a single jawbone that is no different from yours and mine.

Nebraska Man-Theoretically constructed from what later turned out to be the tooth of an extinct pig.

Piltdown Man - Same as above, later evidence of fraud was found which is a common practice for evolutionists trying to make a name for themselves.

Peking Man - did he ever exist? Supposedly the evidence vanished.

Cro-Magnon - any of us could be classified as Cro-Magnon as there are no differences to modern man. This was obviously quite a scientific find.

There are still textbooks today, regarded as valid science, that teaches these characters actually existed.

Evolution goes to church

Meta Evenbly, Southlake, Texas — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:32:12 GMT

Talking about the European thinkers Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud the author says: "Neither man had Darwin's impact on the structure of empirical knowledge."
Knowledge is not material. Darwinian Theory deals with the material only, while all (material) life is accidental.
Therefore the words "empirical knowledge" make no sense to true Darwinian theorists.

Evolution goes to church

*Pixie* Utah — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 23:45:47 GMT

Gerald,

you don't understand evolution at all, do you? There are numerous "authentic" early forms of HUMANS (I'm not a man, but I am human) found in the fossil history.

You need to define what you mean by "earlier" though.

So, I've got one for you:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12168265

and yes...it *IS* an earlier form...just pretty early.

Evolution goes to church

Michael, Edmond, OK — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 00:46:08 GMT

The Bible is not science. It was wrong about the origin of species, the "Great Flood," the center of the universe, the shape of the earth, the movement of the earth, the movement of the sun, the movement of the stars, etc.

Stop burying your head in the sand. Embrace reality. Your bronze-age religion makes no sense in today's world.

Evolution goes to church

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 02:39:04 GMT

David Onder wrote:
"The first is obviously false based on the number of scientists currently doing research from a Creationist viewpoint (See Institute for Creation Research, The Creation Research Society, and Answers in Genesis for current research being done by people with PhD's from traditional programs)."

False. They are not "doing research." Many of these "scientists" are not scientists at all. Many do not have PhDs. Some have PhDs, but from diploma mills. Some are not even practicing in the fields they studied. Very few do active research. There is a handful of real scientists who are creationists - a HANDFUL. Most of them are at a very few universities - Bob Jones and other Christian schools, for example.

Creationism and Evolution are not "equal." Creationism is utter garbage. How you feel about that fact doesn't make it less a fact.

Evolution goes to church

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 02:41:35 GMT

Mike in West Chester wrote: "Please check out http://www.answersingenesis.org/
There is plenty of VERY scientific evidence to support a young universe, with the God of the Bible as its creator."

Mike, AiG is pseudoscience. If you had anything more than a comic-book understanding of the subject you would realize this. The entire site is characterized by false "facts," poor reasoning, unsubstantiated claims, and general stupidity.

Evolution goes to church

Marnie, Cleveland, OH — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:06:40 GMT

Evolution is just a theory, like gravity is just a theory, like a heliocentric universe is just a theory.

For all the creationists who feel they are being oppressed by those of us that believe evolution, get up and face reality. You are the ones trying to push your religion onto others, you are the ones trying to push your religion into a science class in public schools.

I have been told to "repent" before I go to "hell" for not going to church and using my time instead to study the facts and evidence for science.

Evolution goes to church

GrandpaNate @ Rawlins, Wyoming. — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:09:23 GMT

Thomas Ashby of Calgary; You spent a whole 4 minutes on my site. You hardly had time to read anything more than the "Hughes Motto", so your opinion of my "Earth History Recap" just don't amount to whole lot. You are right about one thing. I did spend a lot of time on it. I have studied Earth History for over fifty years, and was over thirty years writing by book, "Grandpa Nate's Legacy". As far as being brainwashed, you couldn't be more pathetically wrong. The Earth History outlined on my blog is original, it has never been in print before. The Bible is partially right, and the scientists are correct about some of their claims, and I have no fear of giving credit where credit is due. But only my blog: HTTP://PlanetEarthRevisited.blogspot.com/ relates the true History of the Earth.

Evolution goes to church

John D, Cincinnati, OH — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:27:43 GMT

Going to Answersingenesis.com for scientific facts is like fishing in tree branches instead of the water.

I love how Ken Ham challenges people with, "how do you know the age of the earth? were you there?". My question to Ken is "was Moses there?"

Evolution goes to church

Jaycubed — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 23:55:01 GMT

We call ourselves Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

This is to be expected from a species better named Pan Masturbatus Arrogantus.

Wise WISE Man
or
Arrogant Masturbating Monkey

(Being well aware that Pan refers to some of our cousin apes; the word monkey is more alliterative and monkeys provide a good example of "Human" behavior due to their universal habit of flinging feces on others.)

We; as individuals, groups and a species; have an infinite talent for self-delusion.

We like to tell stories. It doesn't matter whether the stories are good or bad, true or false. All that matters to most is that the story appeals to us.

But, there is no causal relationship between an appealing story and a true story (ie. one that accurately describes reality.)

Some people test their stories against reality. If reality provides evidence that their story is not true, than there are two possible courses of action.

You can deny reality or you can accept that your story was not true.

The first action is called Faith. The second action is called science.

A preponderance of intertwined & mutually supporting evidence which Humans have been accumulating for thousands of years supports a single conclusion: we are evolving creatures on an evolving planet in an evolving solar system in an evolving galaxy in an evolving universe.

Without an evolving universe we could not exist because the materials that make up most of our bodies would not exist.

The tendency towards Faith is often presented as being humble. It is not! It is arrogance of the highest order to believe that you are the reason for the existence of the universe; that you are a copy of the alleged creator of existence; that you can understand existence by intentional & willful ignorance of the behavior of existence.

Faith provides Answers which have no basis in reality.

Science asks questions to which reality can provide answers, but the answers are tentative & subject to revision when a more precise question is asked.

So you do have a choice:

Faith, with its absolute Truth...which bears little or no relationship to reality.

or

Science, which provides tentative answers which become closer to reality through the process of looking, asking & testing reality.

ps. For those who do not accept that Faith requires the denial of reality may I suggest reading St. Augustine's "The City of God".

Evolution goes to church

Cindy Millines Florida — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 03:09:05 GMT

Thomas of Calgary:
I wonder why you did not back up your statements with facts. If you think that Nate Hughes' theory is so farfetched, why didn't you point out what was not correct about his theory? Anyone can decide not to believe him-but why not back up your statement of disbelief with logical facts? Anything less than that is merely your opinion! You are right about one thing-some people have alot of time on their hands! Alot of words and no substance!

Evolution goes to church

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 19:03:35 GMT

I spent a total of 30 seconds on Grandpas site. His first sentence really did it for me:

"The Earth's Geological History, presently taught in our schools and universities, is nothing more than a modern myth. It is just an elaborate story [conjured up and tweaked by innumerable contributors, over a dozen decades] to explain how the Earth arrived at this point in time"

I then scrolled down to the various other opening sentences and then left the room.

Non-sense written by a non-scientist who doesn't have a very good grasp of geology and earth processes at all...or if he ever did, he for some reason decided to do away with it all. The earth's age has been nailed down to 4.7 billion years old and correlated with radio-metric data from the moon and meteorites.

People like grandpa have this real problem with doubting science. And I'm not going to waste time on a geologic history of the earth but here is what the earliest multi-cellular organisms were. http://www.trilobites.info/triloclass.htm

Evolution goes to church

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 02:29:23 GMT

Thomas Ashby, reference GP Nate's site: I agree.
But people who are ignorant of science desperately need to believe that those who do know about science are really stupid - and that they, who have not studied science - are very brilliant after all.

Evolution goes to church

Cindy Millines — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 11:47:53 GMT

I would hope that this forum hasn't decided to just let Thomas of Calgary have the last word. He has disputed Mr. Hughes' theory and I would like to know on what authority? Is Thoman Ashby a scientist, he points out that Mr Hughes is not. My position remains the same-unless Mr Thomas Ashby can show specific fault in Mr Hughes's theory and do this from a position of authority on the subject-his postings are merely his unsubstantiated opinion.

Evolution goes to church

Gerald Lyannas, GA — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 19:14:32 GMT

Michael, Edmond wrote:
"The Bible is not science. It was wrong about the origin of species, the "Great Flood," the center of the universe, the shape of the earth, the movement of the earth, the movement of the sun, the movement of the stars, etc.

Stop burying your head in the sand. Embrace reality. Your bronze-age religion makes no sense in today's world."

My friend, you have much to learn. The Bible does not support a Geocentric solar system. It does state the Earth is a sphere, which is correct, and as for the flood...there is evidence of a global flood. For one, there are over 250 historical writings from all around the globe describing the event. Also, sea shells, bones, and fragments normally found on teh ocean floor have been found atop every majore mountain range. Furthermore, large creatures like whales have been found completely buried, even vertical, surrounded by diatomaceous earth, which collects at the ocean floor. I could go on, but there are many areas of science actually introduced in the Bible, long before man had a clue. Precipitation, Hydrology, Hygene, Meteorology, Astronomy, Physics, Oceanography, Astrophysics and Geophysics, Light, Dinosaurs...the list goes on. The Bible has always been way ahead of man's science. Science has been catching up with the Bible. While the Bible is not a science book, it is scientifically accurate. It's a fascinating study. You can just google it these days, but here's a decent link to start:

http://www.logosresourcepages.org/Believers/science.htm

Evolution goes to church

Gerald Lyannas, GA — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 19:20:56 GMT

What we're missing is that science, as with most knowledge, got it's start from the Bible. There is so much mind-blowing science in the Bible, you have to wonder where it came from. This, along with it's predictive prophecy, and life changing messages are some of the reasons millions have come to believe it be the Word of God. I for one, have come to find the same. But, as for this thread, science helps us understand the scientific part of the Bible. The Bible gives us plenty of clues. That's how the current CS/ID theories have started. They took the literal translations from Genesis suggesting a water based firmament surrounding the earth, and while we do not understand it all yet, it has given us insight as to how man could live 900 years, and snake venom would not be poisonous, and all kinds of stuff.

Evolution goes to church

GrandpaNate, Rawlins, Wyoming. — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 19:21:43 GMT

Thomas;
If you had read a bit farther, and you would have found I also wrote: Children raised as Christians rarely question the validity of their faith. And the children that have been taught Modern Geology, will never question the validity of the Theory of Continental Drift. And pitifully: KNOWLEDGE CEASES TO GROW IN MINDS WHICH HAVE ACCEPTED FALSE ANSWERS.
You, no one, can critique a story, which they have not read. And only someone that thinks they have the "World All Knowed Up" would try. The only way to remain ignorant, is to just read what reinforces your beliefs, your point of view. This debate has been carried on, much too far. Bye

Evolution goes to church

Gerald Lyannas, GA — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 19:35:27 GMT

Each generation of scientists think they've learned something only to be debunked by the next generation. I love science, don't get me wrong, but with science, we are continually learning. The Bible on the other hand, has stood the test of times, and is still 100% accurate in it's history, predictive prophecy, and yes...it's science. But, we need our continuing understanding of all areas of science to be able to understand more of the clues given to us in the Bible. There were times when many thought the literal interpretation of something in the Bible was absurd, only to discover later, it was accurate. This continues to happen. Why? Because my friends, it contains the Words of the Creator.

Evolution goes to church

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 21:58:43 GMT

GPa Nate's site itself contains a long stream of unsupported assertions. GPa Nate displays no perceptible understanding of science.

Every crank in existence thinks that everyone else should just stop what they're doing and pay attention to them. You have to waste hours and hours trying to show where they're wrong and they're just going to ignore you anyway.

1. GPN writes "The possibilities that could account for our Earth's mass are endless, but any discussion of them would be just idle speculation."
This is just silly. We make theories that generate testable hypotheses. WE DON'T HAVE TO SEE A THING TO HAVE HIGH CONFIDENCE IN ITS EXISTENCE. Nobody has ever seen an electron or gravitation, yet we're quite sure they exist. How? Through inference and consistency with the models (theories).

In fact, Nate doesn't even believe in this principle he asserts. Later on he writes of certain rocks, "Their condition does indicate that the Earth once had a much thinner, warmer, crust than it now has, and their residual magnetism does collectively point toward the past locations of the North Magnetic Pole."
So right there he's making an inference about something he never witnessed.

2. He also ignores this when he writes: "A sphere almost evenly covered ... Because the hypothesis is in accord with the biblical, "Genesis'," account of Creation.
He makes assertions he doesn't back up with any evidence and then makes an incorrect inference.

3. "The truth is, at that point in time, the crust of the Earth wasn't strong enough to support a continent." Yet another unsupported assertion.

4. "And almost magically, the chapters of early Earth History will begin to unfold."

I think this about summarizes GPA Nate's understanding of science. It's magic to him.

Evolution goes to church

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 00:31:44 GMT

Gerald,
No. There is no evidence of a world-wide flood. Yes. There are sea shells on mountain tops. We know why this is. If you had bothered to read a real geology text, you also would know why this is. The Earth is not a sphere. It's an oblate spheroid.

Muslims, Hindus, and even some Buddhists try to prove that their faith just MUST BE TRUE because their Holy book predicted things that we didn't know until modern times. They all have one thing in common: they interpret their books very freely when it and very strictly when it is not. There is not an iota of evidence of a single, worldwide flood. Nor is there an iota of evidence that snake venom has not always been poisonous. You're not going to learn about real science by listening to people like Hovind, Haggard, Ham, or GPa Nate.

Evolution goes to church

Gerald Lyannas, GA — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 04:30:26 GMT

TheFallibleFiend:

I suppose you would just choose to ignore the 250+ historical accounts from around the globe that testify to the flood then?

Evolution goes to church

Gerald Lyannas, GA — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 04:35:34 GMT

Here is a short list of evidence for the Biblical account of the flood:

http://www.lighthouseupc.org/flood.html

Evolution goes to church

TheFallibleFiend@hotmail.com, lorton, va — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 05:51:02 GMT

"I suppose you would just choose to ignore the 250+ historical accounts from around the globe that testify to the flood then?"
I would not ignore them. I think they're evidence that ancient people's sometimes exaggerated things.

From the site you mentioned:
"The oldest known living trees, Bristlecone Pines in California, are about 5000 years old. This would coincide with the recovery of the earth after the flood."
Tree ring data alone shows us the world is at least 13K old or thereabouts. While BPs are the oldest living trees, they are not the oldest living plants. The King's Holly is 43K years old.

"The Origin of Civilization appeared near the resting place of the Ark at about the same time that the flood occurred."

Mesopotamia is hundreds of miles from Ararat.

"There are many places on the earth where the order of these strata in reversed."
Yes. There are. And scientists know the explanation for this. It can happen in mountains areas (like the example given on the pseudoscience site, lighthouseupc.org), b/c as mountains form, parts of the earth can fold onto other parts.

"Sedimentary deposits cover large parts of the earth."
ah, but sedimentary deposits do not cover ALL of the earth. There is a very good geological reason for this!

"An analysis of 30,000 radiocarbon dating ..."
This is news to me; however, it's not surprising that people who outright reject radio-dating would accept the readings when they are in agreement with the bible.

"Fossils of once living organisms have been found in places not suitable for their habitat:"
There are MUCH more reasonable explanations for this!

Radiometric dating shows the world to be vastly older than the Biblical account. The ordering in the fossil record cannot possibly be explained by a great flood. Creationists have attempted to explain it, but their "explanation" is so stupid even children laugh at it.

Gerald, do some real homework on the subject. You don't have to depend on what the idiots at lighthouse say. This "evidence" isn't just wrong, it's dumb.

Evolution goes to church

Cindy Millines — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 13:22:40 GMT

The Fallible fiend would have us believe that "real" science is the status quo science and to never think beyond what is considered fact. History has shown time and time again, where what was considered "common knowledge" was later proven false. He isn't different than most the people posting on this site. As Mr. Hughes has suggested: "The only way to remain ignorant, is to just read what reinforces your beliefs, your point of view." I am not a scientist nor a God, so I do not know whether Mr.Hughes's accounting is correct -but what I do know is that "common knowledge" of a variety of subjects has changed over the course of history, because men like Mr. Hughes dared to THINK beyond what he was told was fact!

Evolution goes to church

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 17:46:28 GMT

Cindy wrote: "The Fallible fiend would have us believe that "real" science is the status quo science and to never think beyond what is considered fact."

TFF would have you believe nothing of the sort. TFF would have you do your homework.

"History has shown time and time again, where what was considered "common knowledge" was later proven false."
Not *ALWAYS* true. It happens often enough, but not always. AND ... even if modern science were proven wrong tomorrow, some of what purports to be scientific would still be wrong: GPa Nate's ramblings, for one example, and creationism for another. A catastrophic failure of all the world's science tomorrow would not turn drivel into genius.

I have never hinted that science was not up for criticism. Real science endures the harshest criticism every day - and guess what - the theories and laws and practices that scientists use today - THOSE are things that have survived extremely harsh criticism from people who actually knew what they were talking about and spent their entire lives trying to understand, in some cases, one tiny piece of The Puzzle.

I'm sure Grandpa Nate is a nice old man. I'm sure he's great fun to be around and I'm sure he knows a lot about many subjects. But geology is not among them.

Nate, "Mr Hughes", started his site talking about myths. Let me talk about one right now: It is a myth that people turn science upside down who don't know anything about it. No educated person of his day thought Galileo failed to understand Aristotelian mechanics or Ptolemaic astronomy. Nobody in the field thought Einstein failed to understand Newton.

Einstein, Galileo, Wegener, Darwin - all understood the theories they were supplanting, had spent lifetimes understanding them. Every crank thinks he's the modern version of one of these fellows. Every crank thinks everyone else is arrogant and closed-minded. Every crank thinks his wild musings developed in spare moments of armchair philosophy is vastly superior to the arrogant and ignorant labors of the lifetime of men who did their actual homework.

Just because I consider Mr Hughes a crank does not mean I think current science is invulnerable. Just because I think current science is vulnerable doesn't make any uninformed rant more plausible.

Evolution goes to church

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 19:09:22 GMT

From Geralds lighthouse site:

"An analysis of 30,000 radiocarbon dating results published in the "Radiocarbon" journal shows an unmistakable spike in the death of living things about 5,000 years ago."

-What living things and how many species? OH OH I forgot, you people don't believe in species (that's too much like Darwin)

"Examples of this are the Matterhorn and Mythen peaks in the Alps. The order of the strata has been completely reversed in respect to the earth around it. Though many explanations have been offered for this phenomenon, the catastrophic effects of a flood as described in the Bible is still the best explanation."

-Really? Ok then lets see the explanation! I live right next to the Canadian Rockies and it's routine to see overturned strata which is a result of the compression of mountain building and thrusting. In fact there is a nice display of devonian reef corals some 300 million years old 800 feet up above the highway in the Highwood Pass, Kananaskis.
(Plate tectonics and gradual collision over millions of years did this)

It's pathetic to see how the bible has negatively affected the minds of, incredibly, many. I actually grew up and became educated leaving behind sunday school and all those rediculous stories that adults had the gaul to force on young children. I am sooo glad we decided to never enroll our kids in church and let them grow and come to their own conclusions about life, the world and the universe.

Evolution goes to church

Gerald Lyannas, GA — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 02:34:22 GMT

TheFallibleFiend:

Carbon dating, and radiometric methods all are completely unreliable. I have a debate on dvd with a professor from stanford admitting these methods are used over and over until they eventually come up with a date that pleases them. When these methods are used on living animals, or volcanic rock, for example, the results are always millions of years, lol. If you put stock in these tests, I can't help you. The tree ring method also has been tested false on many occassion. There are different scenarios that can produce these rings. Science knows little about dating anything. Heck, if you go by what's believed about carbon dating, you could argue the earth has to be less than 30,000 years old because the carbon in the atmosphere has not yet reached saturation. The problem with the current dating methods is there are unknown variables, i.e., was the rate of decay always the same, how much carbon was there to begin with, etc. I suggest you do some research on the fallacy of the modern dating methods. I have seen numerous references involving tests of the dating methods, and they usually fall in the 98-99% error ratio. A blind man trying to play darts would be more accurate.

What say you about the data that suggests the speed of light has consistently been slower ever time it has been measured? This fact alone, if true, blows away the current theories of an old universe. Radiomet

Evolution goes to church

Gerald Lyannas, GA — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 02:36:25 GMT

Btw, the Bible does not say the Ark settled on Mt. Ararat, lol. That's Hollywood, lol. It says it settled in the Ararat Mountains, which is a range. - Just another of the many examples of Bible critics that have never checked their facts.

Evolution goes to church

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 06:26:36 GMT

Gerald,

There is no evidence at all that the speed of light (SOL) has ever been different than what it is today. The data used to derive that conclusion have been shown to be erroneous.

The very site you mention uses radiocarbon dating to support its own conclusions! And yet YOU say their completely unreliable. What you mean is that they're unreliable unless they agree with your mythology. Nearly everything you have said about radiometric dating is ridiculous. You watch a video produced by religious fanatics that purports to expose flawed science without checking any of the facts. Carbon in the atmosphere would not tell you how old the Earth is - if you knew anything about the subject, you would realize how ridiculous that is. Why? Because new 14C is constantly being created in the atmosphere! Have you checked with any actual scientific sources? There are some cases when the dates returned are false - we understand the conditions that can cause bad readings. It's actually related to the creation of new 14C - a condition we know about. Creationist logic on this is like saying, "Well, my electric watch ceased to function near this huge magnet and therefore we KNOW that no watch can EVER be trusted!" That's the exact logic used by creationists and it's utterly stupid.

14C is not used to date the Earth, btw. It's not used to date things much older than roughly 50K. There are other substances that produce secondary and tertiary sequences! If the initial amounts were off (which is what creationists loons maintain), then the entire sequence would be off - but it's not! The methods are self-checking, and they check out!

Same thing with tree ring data. It's reasonably accurate. Are there cases where a problem or two arises? Yes, a very few, but there are ways to get around this by analyzing multiple samples.

Also, as I said in a previous message, the oldest plant alive today is over 40K years old.
EITHER of these is vastly more accurate than the methods of dating that creationists have proposed - depth of dust on the moon (based on old, incorrect data and rate of sedimentation deposits which is highly unreliable). Here's where the crank factor comes in - creationists would have us believe that something that is accurate and mutually and extensively corroborated by evidence and several self-checking techniques is actually not very trustworthy, while something idiotic and based on flawed early estimates is actually quite accurate after all.

I will withdraw the Ararat argument. It's still ridiculous to say the rise of the first COMPLEX civilization in that region first is evidence of the biblical flood. There is evidence of early human habitation from much earlier than this. The oldest granary found is 7K BC in the indus valley.

Excellent explanation of tree ring dating?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=aLFKM886l4Q

Is radiometric dating reliable?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=l8Ii-dpRrXM

How wrong ARE creationists?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=amDERsZUVn0

Why do creationists so ridiculously exaggerate problems with radiometric dating? Because they are essentially religious apologists and the purpose of apologetics is not to discover the truth, but to defend the faith at all costs, including lying:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nrTC068aHFg

Evolution goes to church

Cindy Millines — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 19:02:56 GMT

I am enjoying these posters who write as though they are AUTHORITIES on EVERY subject, but offer no insight to why they are absolute authorities. No matter how many people you call ridiculous or dumb-doesn't make it so. I think that the Fallible one and Tom from Calgary are the same person. I have no proof-I just felt like saying it. I also think they are cranks and ridiculous. Doesn't matter how many times you post the same opinion-that's all it is. My humble opinion of course! cindy

Evolution goes to church

Cindy Millines — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:34:35 GMT

Let's just face it-this is ALL opinion! For every reference that is posted supporting each persons views-another reference that disputes that same view can be found. If the facts of the earth's formation were absolute-there would not be a debate going on here. So whether you assert yourself as "Knowing it all up", the fact remains-it's merely your opinion! Now, ya'all won't be seeing me around these parts any more, it's just getting too dang redundant. 'Sides, I know what I know-just like you! My ever humble opinion, cindy!

Evolution goes to church

Gerald Lyannas, GA — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 02:55:24 GMT

Of course carbon is constantly being created in the atmosphere, that's the basis for the saturation theory. It's like a barrel with a hole in it, and water is constantly poured in. The water level will reach a certain point, and level off, this is the saturation point.

I completely disagree with the modern dating methods, and many scientists feel the same way. Here's an example: You discover a candle stuck in the ground, standing upright, and burning. You are trying to figure out how long it has been burning. You determine rate of burn, but you are missing other important variables. How long was the candle to begin with, and was the rate of burn always the same? There are similar problems with dating methods. Carbon, for example, how much carbon was there to begin with, and was the rate of decay always the same? Similar problems arrive with the current dating methods.

What many of us want, is for all the data to be presented in schools, but, for some reason, perhaps fear, many are afraid of this. There is a lot of evidence that can be tested and viewed time and time again, that contradicts the 150 year old theory of evolution, and I beleive students everywhere should be allowed to vies the evidence, and make up their own minds.

Evolution goes to church

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 03:09:47 GMT

Few people if any have said they are authorities or even hinted at it. However, a number of us have read extensively on various subjects. We learned the math, we took the courses, we followed the logic, we did the homework.

There is a lot of opinion, sure. But some opinions are reasonably well-informed and others are not.

Evolution goes to church

Gerald Lyannas, GA — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 03:23:49 GMT

As for the Speed of Light, man, you really gotta study. There is evidence spanning about 300 years or so. The data is shocking to the scientific community. Astronomers have learned to accept we know very little, but evolutionists are much more rigid. I emplore you to study up on the speed of light. SOL measurements have been slower over time. Some thought it was the equipment, but some have tested this by duplicating the equipment as well, but still, the results show a continuous slowdown. It appears that light (C) is faster as you go back in time. We are at a point where the scientific community is absorbing this but doesn't know what to do with it at the moment. It's another example of data that is not being presented. I've read several quotes from scientists stating that if this data is correct, all bets are off on the age of the universe. It could even be as young as 10,000 years or less. I make no claim as to the age, but the data speaks for itself, and to how very little we know.

A few SOL References:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/08/07/australia.lightspeed/index.html

http://www.ldolphin.org/constc.shtml

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39733

Evolution goes to church

Gerald Lyannas, GA — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 03:29:59 GMT

Btw, using youtube as a reference is pretty lame, lol. Arguing is futile. I say, let all the facts be presented. There is little freedom in the US and abroud when it comes to science. Check out Ben Stein's Expelled when it is released this April. The movie will discuss this very subject. Learn about how scientist that discover theories contradicting evolution are blacklisted, and pressured to align with evolution, regardless of the science. This is why many have not seen all the data.

Evolution goes to church

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 04:08:29 GMT

Cindy: Read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins

Evolution goes to church

Gerald — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:38:32 GMT

Richard Dawkins is simple: He is a man that is so proud and vane that he cannot accept the concept of a God that is far greater than himself, so he chooses to believe He does not exist. As for believers, I view them as open minded and humble enough to accept the concept. When we think of ourselves as greater thatn God it can actually get in the way of us meeting Him.

Evolution goes to church

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:38:49 GMT

Gerald, will respond to your SOL comments later. However, the Youtube 'referencs' are 1. videos I have made and 2. videos made by people who actually know the science.

They're only 'lame' if the authors of the videos don't know what they're talking about.

Evolution goes to church

Gerald — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:41:27 GMT

I believe a more sophisticated read would be Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells. It's one of the most popular books discussing the fallacy of the evolutionists theory, how much of it is myth, and the agenda to push the theory on all of us, regardless of science.

Evolution goes to church

Gerald — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:47:03 GMT

More publications to shed light on the other side:

Icons of Evolution [Two Volumes]: An Encyclopedia of People, Evidence, and Controversies (Greenwood Icons) by Brian Regal

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design by Jonathan Wells

Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael J. Behe

Thousands not Billions: Challenging the Icon of Evolution, Questioning the Age of the Earth by Donald DeYoung

Evolution goes to church

Gerald — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:57:43 GMT

Actually, a more interesting read would be:

More Than A Carpenter by Josh McDowell

Josh is a man who once thought very much like Dawkins. In fact, he despised Christianity so much, he set out to destroy it. He researched history, archeology, etc, in an attempt to find fault with the Bible. After finding an overwhelming amount of evidence, he came to believe it actually is the complete, flawless, Word of God. Seriously, a great read. THe Case for Christ by Lee Strobel is pretty good, but I've only read the half the book so far. It's a bit more analytical, which may appeal to those like-minded.

Evolution goes to church

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 01:43:51 GMT

Regarding SOL,

You refer to an article on research by Paul Davies, but neglect to mention a few things.
1. He does not believe in a young earth.
2. He DOES believe in the big bang.
3. He does not believe that any kind of supernatural event is required to explain the big bang.

It's been 6 years since that report and I can't find any reference to where Davies' work has been replicated; however, it's very important to note that a slowing down SOL is a speculation to explain his anomalous result.

Barry Setterfield, whom you also refer to, *IS* a young earth creationist. His research is such an embarrassment to creationists that they rejected it themselves. Check out: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html
This page gives good detail on Setterfield's ineptitude with statistical analysis. Anyone with an elementary familiarity with actual mathematics cannot help but be embarrassed on his behalf.

Note that the amount of variation that Davies (et. al.) is talking about and the amount that Setterfield is talking about are many orders of magnitude different.

The available data we have says quite unambiguously that C is constant. There are a few anomalous effects and there might be some the cause of a variable C or it might be something else. We don't know. In any case, the variation we're talking about is only one order of magnitude. The analysis by Setterfield which is used to prop up YEC is not just flawed but embarrassing.

Evolution goes to church

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 01:58:43 GMT

"Icons of Evolution" by J. Wells is utterly incompetent as a work of science.

Read this article carefully:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html

Not only is the work utterly refuted, BUT his central arguments were refuted LONG, LONG before he even wrote the book. He plays at being an ID guy, but he's using the same long refuted arguments that creationists have been using for decades.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/03/jonathan-wells-1.html

"Wells selectively looks at inconsistencies, disagreements, or errors in the scientific data. He ignores the vast body of knowledge that supports the topic he is attacking and fails to acknowledge that the scientific community itself has addressed the problems Wells is describing."

That's right - the scientific community already addressed the points that Wells raised!

This site further documents the reason Wells HIMSELF says he got his PhDs - for the sole purpose that he could attack evolution. He is a moonie and he had a discussion with 'father' about the need to destroy evolution. That is, he didn't earn his PhD with an open mind. His sole purpose was to use his PhDs as credentials to attack evolution. He knows that most people are just going to look at his doctorates without asking what scientific research he has actually done and what contributions he has actually made to his field.

Evolution goes to church

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 02:37:33 GMT

Regarding Michael Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box":

Behe's idea of irreducible complexity is not just wrong, but stupid. The idea that just because we don't know the answer to something means that the best solution is magic is utterly insane.

In trial, Behe admitted he wasn't even familiar with the latest work done on the subject, but he rejected the research without even having read the articles!
Read his own testimony here:
http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day12PM.pdf

Ken Miller did a great job of utterly destroying Behe's arguments at Dover. READ THE TRANSCRIPTS, but here's a few videos made after the fact:

blood clotting:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4K_WrqNiQoU

bacterial flagellum:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RQQ7ubVIqo4

Evolution goes to church

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 04:36:50 GMT

Josh McDowell is not a scientist. If he was ever an atheist, it seems unlikely he was a very thoughtful one. Regardless, the subject of evolution doesn't have anything to do with Christianity. Evolution both explains and is supported by the VAST majority of available evidence.

Creationist claims are long-standing and vociferous, but soundly rejected by the vast majority of scientists.

Contrary to creationist and ID claims, the entire case for creationism is religious and not scientific. This is can be seen by the loyalty oath required by ICR members and by the writings of the founder of the modern ID movement (p. johnson). It can also be inferred from the fact that most of the 'scientists' who attack evolution have far more religious writings than they do scientific publications. (I use scientist in quotes, because creationists often use a pretty broad interpretation of what constitutes a scientist.)

All of the actual evidence points to a very, very ancient earth, and an even more ancient universe.

All evidence points to an origin of life on the planet vastly more than 10K years ago.

Genetic and fossil evidences point to a common ancestry for all known living things on Earth.

Contrary to creationist claims, the theory of evolution is even more firmly established now than it was even a few decades ago.

Creationists want to present non-science and falsified data to students and call it science - and then ask them to "decide for themselves" before they even understand what science is or how it works. In fact, they want to change the definition of science so that even things like astrology would qualify.

Kids barely have enough time to cover legitimate science.

OTOH, it might be worthwhile for kids in advanced science courses to do independent and detailed studies on exactly why creationism is intellectually bankrupt.

Evolution goes to church

Gerald — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:26:54 GMT

I only listed a few of the SOL references. Thare are many, many more, nd the data is quite consistent. I'm 40 years old. I've always loved Astronomy. I took Astronomy 101 at a local JC while I was in 8th grade. SOL was taught as a constant back then as it is today, yet, we believed a black hole was a star where gravity was so intense light could not escape. In that case SOL is zero. In the last 10 years, we have no learned SOL can be slowed, or even sped up. Obviously, SOL is not a constant. SOL is affected by gravity and temperature, and who knows what else we will find. Perhaps in 50 more years, we'll know more, or perhaps not.

Many creationists embrace young earth theories for a couple of reasons. Many of the scientific theories originated in Genesis. For example, the idea of the crystaline, water based firmament surrounding the earth, and it's implications. Scientists looked at this, and theorized, and many questions were answered. It's not fully understood, but insight as to how humans could live hundreds of years, and audible starlight, for example, now theoretically, are plausible . I mentioned non-venemous snake venom. This has been duplicated in a hyperbolic chamber. I'll look for the reference if you like.

Debate in the scientific community is fine, but censorship is not. If data is discovered, even if it completely contradicts a populare theory, so be it. When censorship is allowed, further discovery and knowledge is slowed or halted. Many of us believe that's how the pendulum has swung for a while. Especially in colleges and universities, I would like to see censorhsip eliminated, and complete scientific freedom. Over time we've seen many "so called" discoveries of fossils, for example, published and celebrated only to learn later they were misidentified or fabricated. Yet when discoveries are made contrary to a populare theory, the data is discarded.

True, Josh McDowell is not a scientist. He's a former athiest who shares what he learned from his own research. While Evolution doesn't necessarily pertain to life's origin. Many evolutionists say, "In the beginning was rock." Theists say, "In the beginning was God." Evolution really pertains to the billons of evolutionary changes over millions of years that was responsible for all life on Earth. The fossil record is the best hard evidence we have of life, and it reflects fully formed and functional life forms suddenly appearing, and life forms of today identical to life forms of 10,000 years ago. Perhaps the fossil record is actually correct. Again, arguments can go on forever, but the point is, let's let all the evidence be presented so it can speak for itself. And if evolution has real science supporting it, then why not let all the data be presented, tested, and subject to scrutiny? If one theory is more true over another, you would have to think the evidence would eventually line up.

Evolution goes to church

Gerald — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:29:57 GMT

Btw, in the U.S. alone, I believe there are over 1,000 scientists that have publicly stated they do not believe evolution is supported by science. There are probably more, but it doesn't bode well for your carreer, which is part of the problem.

Evolution goes to church

Gerald — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:34:11 GMT

The Fingerprint of God: Recent Scientific Discoveries Reveal the Unmistakable Identity of the Creator (New Edition) (Paperback)
by Hugh Ross

A list of scientists form all fields contributed to this book. I think this one is the 2nd edition.

Evolution goes to church

Gerald — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:32:01 GMT

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

Interesting stats about scientists who believe in creation, theistic evolution, and natural evolution. I wonder what the numbers would look like if we opened the classrooms to all the data.

Evolution goes to church

Gerald — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:36:23 GMT

Of course it wasn't that long ago that scientists thought there was no harm in pregnant women drinking alcholo. Go back a bit further, and they thought smoking was not unhealthy. Go back further, and lack of now common hygene practices costs millions of lives, even though the Bible warned us about it. Back further yet, and scientists thought the world was flat. What will know in another 50 years?

Evolution goes to church

Gerald — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:50:56 GMT

For every poll, there is a counter poll i suppose:

Majority Reject Evolution

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml

Evolution goes to church

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 03:31:29 GMT

" Over time we've seen many "so called" discoveries of fossils, for example, published and celebrated only to learn later they were misidentified or fabricated. "
Doubtful. There are a handful perhaps of examples like this. These few have been greatly exaggerated into "many examples" by creationists. Moreover, the fakes were uncovered by scientists (evolutionary scientists).

There isn't any serious debate about evolution in the scientific community. Should we allow 'theories' of racism, flat earth, geocentric cosmos, etc. to be taught in the classroom. Creationists don't want to debate the issues with people who understand the issues. They want to take it to the people who will just accept any crazy thing they say without asking reasonable questions - mostly because they don't even know what's a good question to ask.

(BTW, Hugh Ross is an "old earth" creationist and he thinks Noah's flood as not global. If I recall correctly, he also says that YEC is pseudoscience and ID should not be taught in the classroom.)
Many creationist books purport to be representing the opinions of lots of "scientists." I don't know about the scientists cited in Ross's books.

True, the majority of Americans probably do reject evolution. But not the majority of scientists. Most of that majority don't even understand what it is they are rejecting. I never made any claims about what most Americans believe. Evolution is supported by the VAST MAJORITY of available SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. Not make-believe evidence. Not speculation. Evidence. There is VERY LITTLE argument within the scientific community about whether evolution has and continues to occur.

I'm not sure what credence to give to a $cientology website. I don't know what qualifies as a 'scientist' in their survey. Generally creationists are extremely liberal when deciding this. But the trend is obvious even in that sample. The stats I'm familiar with say that scientists are much less likely than lay public to accept creation, and that among our greatest scientists (nobel laureates and national academies members) the percent who accept creation is much smaller even than that.

Yes. We did learn that the Earth wasn't the center of the Universe. It's very doubtful that we're going to find out next year that we were wrong and that after all it IS the center of the Universe. Science does progress. But inanity doesn't become brilliance.

Evolution goes to church

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 07:45:26 GMT

Gerald: read The God Delusion. All these arguments are covered in it.

Evolution goes to church

Gerald — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 23:35:58 GMT

"There isn't any serious debate about evolution in the scientific community." I'm not convinced this is true. There appears to be a secular agenda with scientists. I don't want ridiculous theories taught in schools, but I don't want science to be censored as it is now. There are numerous recent discoveries that pose serious challenges to evolution, and many like myself, want to give everyone the opportunity to see the data. I continue to hold that evolution is more of a religion than fact. Besides the fact that it doesn't explain the origin of the universe, the fact that there are billions of transitionary fossils missing is a big one with me. I mean, how can we have billions of fossils from many time periods but virtually zero transitionary fossils? Some will argue about 20 or 30, but that's virtually zero. Volcanic eruptions, floods, freezing, to name a few scenarios, have produced billions of fossils but still, the billions of transitionary fossils have never been found. Darwin said we’d eventually discover them, but it’s been over 150 years and nothing has changed. To believe they just vanished, or conveniently were never fossilized seems more like a religion (I don’t believe Christianity is a religion). You would have to believe that during every disaster or scenario that produced fossils, all of the transitionary fossils would have somehow managed to elude fossilization. Lol, pretty interesting if you think about it. Any Paleontologists will tell you macro evolution is just not supported by the data.

If the Bible is truth, then ultimately, real science will support it. I've mentioned the Bible was scientifically sound, and it is also historically accurate. Furthermore, no archeological discovery has ever contradicted the Bible (Gluck). I believe it will also be with science, inevitably, if real science is given a chance.

I'm someone who has experienced God firsthand, seen miracles, pray in tongues, and I've even faced a demon face to face. That is a great story. I was with a friend who WAS an unbeliever at the time, lol. Not anymore. So, I wouldn't be interested in reading the God Delusion, lol. I know about Mr. Richard Dawkins. Personally I feel sorry for him, but perhaps one day he'll find truth as well. It will be interesting to see how Ben Stein's Expelled is received when it opens in April.

Evolution goes to church

Cindy Millines — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 03:03:46 GMT

To repeat what others have said, requires education, to challenge it, requires brains. Mary Pettibone Poole

Evolution goes to church

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:28:36 GMT

"There are numerous recent discoveries that pose serious challenges to evolution"
This is the repeated claim of creationists and yet when this claims are scrutinized, we discover vapor.

"want to give everyone the opportunity to see the data."
Everyone has the opportunity to "see the data." But taking time in the classroom to misrepresent the evidence is a legitimate use of the very limited school time.

The Bible is utterly irrelevant to science. I don't care if it is supported or if it isn't. The great bulk of the criticism of evolution comes from religious types who object to it without actually looking at the evidence, but simply repeating unjustified criticisms that they spread in that community. Practicing scientists just roll their eyes.

The entire "controversy" is in the religious and political realm. Among scientists, evolution is as firmly established as gravitation or electrons.

Evolution goes to church

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:40:03 GMT

Anybody can criticize without thinking, just as easily as he can repeat what others have said. It's no accident that few creationists can offer a coherent and correct exposition of exactly what natural selection is; and so it's no accident that their criticisms are so empty.

I disagree that to repeat what others have said requires education. Lots of uneducated people repeat what others have said. I agree that to actually challenge a thing requires thinking. Actual education (as opposed to schooling) requires thinking.

The central problem with creationists (including ID creationists) is that the vast majority of them are arguing against a subject that they do not understand. In fact, the vast, VAST majority of them have not done the least remote thing that could be considered an honest day's homework on the subject. OTC, their 'homework' consists almost exclusively in repeating stuff they have memorized from the web - stuff that they haven't even tried to confirm.

Evolution goes to church

.GrandpaNate — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:09:58 GMT

If the God of Creation Created the life on this planet, He did it over time. The tracks of Evolution are too plentiful and too well documented to leave any doubt about the fact that life has undergone an incredible metamorphose since it first appeared in primeval strata.

But the Earth History now being taught in our school is absurd. And I can prove it to any OPEN MINDED PERSON. Check out: HTTP://PlanetEarthRevisited.blogspot.com/

Evolution goes to church

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:56:39 GMT

Mr. Hughes,

Like many people, you seem to judge open-mindedness by how well someone else's ideas accord with your own. But open-mindedness is a willingness to review evidence. And evidence is more than just claims. What you have told on your page is a story. The net is replete with stories.

Every crank on the net considers real scientists to be educated idiots. Every crank on the net compares current science to ancient mythologies and insists that he himself is like a modern Galileo, arguing against an entrenched and closed-minded bureaucracy.

What you need are references - current ones, if you can manage them. Simply referring to "the illustrious Harold Jeffries" doesn't mean that he's right or that the people who opposed him are idiots. In Jeffries' time, nobody had actually measured continental drift.

But we have now. See http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ssb/21och2.html
"We have been able to directly measure continental drift ..."
Here's one of the satellites they used:
http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10299318&wwwflag=2&imagepos=8

People didn't just abandon reason and accept Wegener's ideas. If you were aware of the history of the subject, you would know that the entire subject was very hotly contested and it wasn't until LONG after Wegener's death that the majority of geologists began to warm up to his ideas.

Consider "Continental Drift" an observed fact and "Plate Tectonics" as a theory to explain that fact. Like ALL theories, there are some open questions - some things they aren't entirely sure of. This is the same situation with every other theory.

Here's an explanation of Plate Tectonics:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/geology/tecmech.html

Here's some of the evidence:
http://kids.earth.nasa.gov/archive/pangaea/evidence.html

As per above, you can add to this list, "DIRECT MEASUREMENT."

Evolution goes to church

Gerald — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:23:56 GMT

Darwin was aware that fossil evidence was not in favor of evolution. Actually, fossil evidence is in favor of an instant creation. I say that because the fossil record reflects life forms suddenly appearing in the fossil record, fully formed and functional. Darwin's only conclusion was to reject the fossil record as historical. Of course today, we have billions of fossils we did not have in Darwin's day, but still, there is no support for his theory.

"But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record".
{Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, First Collier Books Edition, p. 308}.

""There are numerous recent discoveries that pose serious challenges to evolution"
This is the repeated claim of creationists and yet when this claims are scrutinized, we discover vapor."

Here are a few more of my favorite creation science links that offer more evidence against evolution. I've already offered data regarding the SOL, which is huge if true. If SOL was increasingly slower as you go back in time, it's lights out for evolution. I read an interesting thesis by a pre-graduate student concerening how the scientific community would deal with the SOL data, and how it can't be denied. I'll try to find it.

http://www.creationism.org/heinze/examined.htm
http://www.icr.org/rate/
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/

Evolution goes to church

Gerald — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:43:58 GMT

Here are some very good links on SOL including publicatoins by Physicists:

http://www.ldolphin.org/constc.shtml

http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/lawsofphysicschange82901.htm

Evolution goes to church

Gerald — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 21:38:33 GMT

FallibleFiend:

I'm curious what your answer is to the dilemma of missing fossil evidence?

Evolution goes to church

Gerald — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 21:51:42 GMT

Another question: If evolution was true, where have all the people gone?

World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 1089. 9 The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies.

Evolution goes to church

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 03:09:54 GMT

"Darwin was aware that fossil evidence was not in favor of evolution. "
Let me guess. You haven't actually *read* Darwin. Darwin's method to pose a problem and then deal with it. The only way to come to your conclusion is if you read him out of context. I'm guessing you've only read quotes that were give to you. The section you quote demonstrates my thought is correct. He posits a problem...and then you conveniently ignore the following passages that explain it. (Not because you're being devious, but because you haven't actually read the stuff you're quoting.)

"fully formed and functional. "
True, but irrelevant to evolution, if you actually understood it.

The other stuff, I'm not even going to get into, except to note that you're batting 0 for N so far. This can go on endlessly, "Okay, maybe that's messed up, but I have SO MANY MORE EVIDENCES." The work of the rate group is just wrong, but you don't care any more than you care that Barry Setterfield's SOL analysis is utterly incompetent. You're just going to keep pointing to more and more stuff that you haven't really researched. Apologetics is a fundamentally dishonest enterprise, because it's about trying to figure things out or learn things - it's about trying to defend the pre-decided TRUTH no matter how it's done. It's utterly irrelevant from the apologetics pov that every single argument that you've made so far amounts to zero. What's important is the appearance of a lot of evidence.

Do yourself at least one favor. I know how averse creationists to doing anything that remotely resembles actual research, but try sometime to actually read Darwin before you quote him. I know it won't help you on your quest to defend the faith. But I hold out the distant hope that you might be inspired to curiosity - if not enough to consult an actual science source instead of reciting long-discredited creationist urban legends, at least enough to want to think "I wonder."

Evolution goes to church

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 03:12:00 GMT

"I'm curious what your answer is to the dilemma of missing fossil evidence?"
The answer is in the passages surrounding the Darwin you quoted out of context. There is no 'dilemma' except in the minds of people who don't know what they're talking about, because they refuse to do any real homework.

Evolution goes to church

TheFallibleFiend, Lorton, VA — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 03:21:17 GMT

Regarding the spurious problem with population:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB620.html

Essentially, the model you quote (from Gish?) is just a bunch of numbers with no support, yielding a model that makes no sense. For example, there is no reason at all to think that population growth rates have been constant. That's not just a bad assumption, but an insane one.

What 10 times as insane is that you present this utter silliness in all seriousness as yielding data we should trust and yet you reject radiometric dating - based on silly reasons. It's as if someone said they consider hour-glasses to be much better chronometers than Seikos and then gives a bunch of silly reasons for saying it.

Evolution goes to church

Alan Boyle — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 03:36:20 GMT

Folks, this is getting to be more of a "on the one hand, on the other hand" conversation. I generally let these run out for quite a while, but I think I should attempt to bring a little closure. The idea of inconstant constants is one that has been percolating for years, but I haven't seen any significant updates for a while. Here's the last item I did on the subject:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12359455/#060420a

Of course, young-earth creationists will seize upon this little debate in the hopes that it will support the idea of a Bishop Ussher-style reading of the Bible ... which I have to say is out of the mainstream when it comes to biblical scholarship as well as the scientific evidence.

http://ifaq.wap.org/science/ussher.html

The bottom line is that some folks like to capitalize on the uncertainties that are inherent in the scientific endeavor to give themselves reassurances about their own beliefs.

Let's face it ... you're down to message No. 225 or so, and very few people are listening (except for me, clicking the check boxes on the message list). It's like there are just three people left in the lecture hall at this point. Maybe it's time to turn off the lights ... until next time.

Evolution goes to church

Gerald — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:53:16 GMT

Lol, it's been a long one.

I'll take your response to the missing fossils for what it is....no answer. I think you'll have to concede on that one, and that's a big one to many.

I put little faith in modern dating methods because they are flawed and fail time and time again. If you test a rock or fossil in ten labs, you get ten vastly different results. How can this be deemed reliable. The error rates are extrememly high, and worse as you apply them to older items. If I died, and my body was tested, variious labs will probably debate wether I was 1, 5, or 10 million years old, lol.

As for population, I think you can change the variables quite a bit, and still reach the same conclusion. You can cut population growth, and increase the mortality rate, but still, in the end, the numbers will show that man would have to have stopped reproducing for thousands of years for the evolutionists view to work, which is funny.

Don't get me wrong, I love science, especially astronomy, and we're getting there bit by bit.

It has been fun tho. Take care, and stay tuned....

Evolution goes to church

GrandpaNate — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:23:07 GMT

This augment would almost be comical, if it wasn't so serious.

As I said before; if the Christians want to believe the God of Creation Created the life on this Earth, then they are going to have to concede that he did it over time. The evidence of evolution can not rationally be denied.

But I have more respect for the Christians, than I do for the Driftists, for the cult that preaches Continental Drift.

The Christians unabashedly admit that they are worshiping a God. The Driftists have been worshiping an Omnipotent force, dwelling within the Earth, for over 50 years now, and as yet it hasn't dawned on them that they are worshiping a God, or Devil.

Any omnipotent force, which can only be perceived, detected, by verbal projection, is similar to nothing, but the Gods, both past and present.

I'm sure you have ALL heard the old adage: If it waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then you can safely assume, IT IS A DUCK. The force, which the Driftist's claim powers Continental Drift is nothing but a Devil, conjured up by modern man.

One of the Driftists said my story of the Earths trek through time was only a story. It is. My story @ HTTP://PlanetEarthRevisited.blogspot.com/ is the first, and only true story, of the Earth's trek through time, ever written.

Evolution goes to church

GrandpaNate — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:21:54 GMT

PS:
All this talk about proving the continents have moved is moot. The earth is heating up. Rocks swell, and shrink, reather dramaticlly with heat fluctuations. so the crest of the Earth is actually swelling. Detecting a slight movement means nothing. You prove the Continents that are driftiing apart, are drifting together on the other side of the World, and I will go back to the dawing board to answer that one.

Evolution goes to church

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:38:43 GMT

Gerald,
1. Darwin answered your question in the passages that you left out. NOBODY WHO UNDERSTANDS EVOLUTION EXPECTS THERE TO BE AN UNBROKEN CHAIN OF FOSSILS. Darwin himself didn't expect there to be more fossils.
In the sections you didn't quote, he explains WHY fossils are so rare. We don't have as many as we would like, but the story told by the ones we have is entirely sufficient. Your message demonstrates clearly you haven't actually read the passages around those you quoted from Darwin.

2. EVERY MEASUREMENT OF EVERYTHING IS FLAWED. From Radars to pressure sensors in cars, all measuring devices report spurious data on occasion. That doesn't mean that all readings of all measuring devices are useless. Your take on the situation is an exaggeration. The hypothetical test on your dead body demonstrates you don't understand the method.

3. The point about the population growth rates is not that the constant is wrong, but that ANY constant is wrong. There is no intellectual justification for assuming that the population growth rate has been constant. Epidemics, war, and dramatic environmental changes guarantee that it isn't.

The lights may be out and I may be mumbling into an empty auditorium, but you're still batting zero.

Evolution goes to church

S Davis — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 23:58:25 GMT

I believe that religion and science can co-exist, and one is not mutually exclusive from the other. One of the definitions of evolution (from the American Heritage Dictionary) n. A gradual process in which something changes esp. into a more complex form. I believe that God created the universe and all life forms. God's time-table is not ours, and I believe this is where part of the skepticism occurs.

Evolution goes to church

Michael Stuligross, Walton, NY — Thu, 22 May 2008 19:51:10 GMT

First let me say that science is wrong most of the time. It wasn't to long ago the ALL scientists believed, and proved, that the world was flat. Most of "Science" of 200 years ago has been proven wrong. As we discuss theories, and WORK to disprove those theories, knowledge increases.
Second, You can never PROVE creation, you must believe. You can never PROVE evolution, you must have faith. I actually believe it is a combination. God CREATED life, animals, plants, dogs, cats. In that creation, was all the genetic material to survive on earth. It allowed species to "evolve" and survive different places on earth. For example, the white rabbits that were born in the desert, were easly seen and killed and eaten. Conversely, the brown rabbits that were born in the artic, were easily seen, killed and eaten. The surving rabbits were the ones that could survive where they lived.
God is the master designer, he wants his creations to survive. He gives us a choice that affect US.

Evolution goes to church

Bill Harris palm harbor fl — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:40:25 GMT

Once artificial intelligence be reached ....it will be the end of arguments about religion vs evolution. It is hard to envision a cyborg in prayer...but there will be no humans to witness....gone with the manatees, the elephants and the whales....JUST THINK...WHILE YOU CAN!

Evolution goes to church

E Wilson, Leeds, UK — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 00:09:35 GMT

To understand the bible you must approach it from this point of view: 'Who wrote it', 'why was it written', 'what purpose did it serve', 'what paper, skin or tablet was it written on', and 'who was the author or author's. If you then examine the tales and fables and heroic deeds it speaks of you'll discover that these are common to all religions. If you then look outside the bible to see what was going on in the world when the so called Christian Churches and bible was becoming prominent, lets say you examine the time of 1250 - 1450 era, you will find the Catholic Church was getting heavily involved in the persecution of other faiths, and it's main aim was to be the number 1 faith in all leading european countries. To do this they created armies, killed thousands, spread racism, condemned people without trial, and had religious courts for sentencing non-believers to death.

The bible was specifically written to be used by clerics attached to the Catholic Church as an persuasion tool, to be sold as the word of God?, there was never a Jesus, so the so-called teachings of Jesus were a myth. This so called word-of-god bible was used to convert members of other faiths to join what was described by them as 'the one true faith'. And why did they want you to join up - well - it was to charge you a money fee, a tithe, or a land tax, all payable to the Church, meaning some Bishop or Cardinal. Religious deception was involved, so was relgious fraud, cunning and outright lies, and throughout this period these Church Bishops knew all along that there was 'No heaven','No Hell', No Jesus, No Moses, No Samson, No Mary, No Noah, and it was all an hoax, they knew that their religious stories were untrue - but being humbugs, thieves, robber barons, power seekers and murderers, and needing to earn a living they allowed it to continue. Even today they should all be arrested. So natural evolution wins and the bible loses because its based on deceit and falsehood.